Why the 'anti bling' bias guys

Gagaryn

RaymondLin said:

Gagaryn said:

Bling is even more wrong on acoustics - my mate has one of these, all kinds of wrong! 

That's nothing....the fretboard is bare for a start, there's no bling on the bridge, the bridge pins looks plain and the binding is just plastic.

No, the fretboard has fussy shiny markers, the headstock is a fussy mess, the binding is more shiny stuff, including the centre join on the back (abalone or fake abalone, not sure which), and the back is quilted! I hate quilted maple almost as much as I hate birds eye maple. I'll agree that the bridge and pins are okay though - as is the top and scratchplate, but they are hard to notice when you are being blinded by the sparkle. He's given the guitar to his daughter and even she is starting to think it's a bit over the top and she's 13!

RaymondLin

You should check out Taylor presentation series or PRS's Tree of Life. That's bling.

thomasross20

Personal preference. I think some bling guitars look amazing. 

I feel sick to the stomach at all those "normal, dull" guitars....

Fretwired

Rocker said:

And speaking of PRS, why are they referred to as dentists' guitars. 

Open Facebook (or join if you're not a member) browse PRS and join one of the US PRS groups. Sit back and enjoy the bling and the dentistry. I always assume that people were referring to the high end specials with the price tags to match .. case for the prosecution opens with:



I wouldn't call an off the peg  £2.5K PRS Custom blingy.

RaymondLin

Fretwired said:

Rocker said:

And speaking of PRS, why are they referred to as dentists' guitars. 

Open Facebook (or join if you're not a member) browse PRS and join one of the US PRS groups. Sit back and enjoy the bling and the dentistry. I always assume that people were referring to the high end specials with the price tags to match .. case for the prosecution opens with:



I wouldn't call an off the peg  £2.5K PRS Custom blingy.

This PRS was $30,000 I believe. £2.5k PRS with birds and flamed maple is subtle really...

Garthy

Someone was saying that you can't give away a PRS CC24 if it has a dent or no case candy, well I have a quilted maple hole in my collection so if anyone wants to offload one of these unsellable guitars for a small fee just PM me

That dragon thing above though is just gross.

Chalky

Surely that is one of those Chinese PRS knockoffs?

ICBM

Dave_Mc said:

How come you got two LOLs for repeating what I said on the first page, and I only got one?

Grrr. )

lol

Fixed that for you .

I should have quoted you, I was just backing you up .

FelineGuitars

Fretwired said:

I wouldn't call an off the peg  £2.5K PRS Custom blingy.

I think that is a lovely piece of artwork and inlay . I maybe wouldn't want it on a guitar but I admire the artistry.

Growing up in the 70s and 80s I always loved watching to see what guitars bands came on stage with.

Some bands you wanted them to use the old faithfuls ...like Brian May with his Red Special

I was a Kiss fan so Paul Stanley's smashed mirror fronted Iceman was a treat to see, even if it was just used for a couple of songs.

Other bands (especially into the 1980s ) you looked forward to seeing what fancy custom guitars they were going to come onstage with.
Some bands had new guitars (or at least paintjobs) every tour and it was fun to keep up with them.

It was all part of the live spectacle with the outfits and stage show.

There were some great guitars by Hamer, Kramer, Charvel Jackson, BC Rich, Spector as well as a myriad of other smaller builders 

I was actually disappointed when they transitioned into using beat up old strats and teles or Les Pauls

With my own stuff I like making both plain guitars and ones with pretty timbers along with the occaisional graphic finish

ICBM

I actually think those PRS Dragons are so extreme that they aren't actually 'blingy' as such - they go beyond that into artwork as FelineGuitars said. Also, apart from the dragon the rest of the guitar is not *that* flashy at all, in fact it's almost subtle.

When I played PRSs I always said that if I hit the big time I would have one and put real gigging wear on it… I think it would look great. The one in that pic is almost my perfect one - I like the non-traditional colour and the fine but not totally even flame, I've always much preferred those.

The sort I really dislike are quilt tops in 'caramel' type bursts with gold hardware and bird inlays - the definition of tasteless, to me.

Adam_MD

I always loved the dragons as a piece of art and for the sheer skill involved in making them.

Evilmags

Neil Young and Johnny Cash both used D45s, bling incarnate. Neither are uncool.

timmysoft

For me flame tops got ruined when companies like schecter, esp ltd and Fernandes started putting them on everything along with a few yards of tacky abalone. Now when I see a flame top, even if it's on a top end Prs or suhr, I just think it looks naff. They're the equivalent to a gaudy sports version of an Audi, with wide arches, huge rims and a disgusting interior. Audis are dogshit, so are flamey tops.

Dave_Mc

^ I know I said I liked maple tops etc., but I would tend to agree with that- not the Audis thing, I don't know anything about cars, I mean when they started putting the maple tops (often veneers) on Schecters and LTDs etc., and especially when they combined it with abalone binding all over the place. There's a fine line between nice and tasteless.

I really don't like abalone binding. )

ICBM said:

Dave_Mc said:

How come you got two LOLs for repeating what I said on the first page, and I only got one?

Grrr. )

lol

Fixed that for you .

I should have quoted you, I was just backing you up .

Thanks

But then I went and ruined it by LOLing your post )

impmann

Subtle bling looks classy.

Too much bling looks tasteless and silly.

english_bob

frankus said:

This. Bling on a guitar seems unnecessary because it's irrelevant to how it sounds, or how it feels to play. All it does is add to the cost of the guitar. If a guitar is just a tool you use to make something else, why does it need to be all shiny and shit? You ever meet a mechanic with pearl inlays on his spanners?

That said, is the look of a guitar really ever completely irrelevant? I'd argue that it's not- either you're in a band where a purple-burst abalone-encrusted tart's handbag of a guitar either enhances or diminishes the look you're trying to achieve, or you have your own personal taste that either extends to admiring flashy guitars or it doesn't. If I had a choice of two otherwise identically good sounding, well set up guitars, one in a finish I liked, the other in one I didn't, I think I know which I'd end up playing more.

I try not to piss in anyone's chips when the NGD threads roll around- why do you need my negative opinion on your new guitar?- but I don't see the point in a whole thread about why one group of people disagree with another group on something so trivial. It's hardly Israel-Palestine, is it?

ICBM

The look of a guitar is never irrelevant, to me. I'd probably still feel that way even if I never took it out in public.

Of course it also needs to play well, sound good and all the other stuff that "really" matters, but it has to look right (or at least not wrong) as well or I won't play it.

Shallow? Probably, but that's the way we are.

Sassafras

This is proper guitar bling.

Dave_Mc

english_bob said:

(a) This. Bling on a guitar seems unnecessary because it's irrelevant to how it sounds, or how it feels to play. All it does is add to the cost of the guitar. If a guitar is just a tool you use to make something else, why does it need to be all shiny and shit? You ever meet a mechanic with pearl inlays on his spanners?

(b) That said, is the look of a guitar really ever completely irrelevant? I'd argue that it's not- either you're in a band where a purple-burst abalone-encrusted tart's handbag of a guitar either enhances or diminishes the look you're trying to achieve, or you have your own personal taste that either extends to admiring flashy guitars or it doesn't. If I had a choice of two otherwise identically good sounding, well set up guitars, one in a finish I liked, the other in one I didn't, I think I know which I'd end up playing more.

(a) Maple tops can affect the tone a bit, and binding will affect how the thing feels to play (even inlays, arguably).

(b) Agreed. I wouldn't buy a terrible guitar which I thought looked awesome, but at the same time I'm going to buy the guitar I want in the colour I like best. And there have definitely been some instances where I've been like "Phew, it sounds good and plays well too!".

impmann said:

Subtle bling looks classy.

Too much bling looks tasteless and silly.

Yep pretty much bang-on.

Problem is we'll never all agree on exactly where the line is.

gordiji

english_bob said:

frankus said:

This. Bling on a guitar seems unnecessary because it's irrelevant to how it sounds, or how it feels to play. All it does is add to the cost of the guitar. If a guitar is just a tool you use to make something else, why does it need to be all shiny and shit? You ever meet a mechanic with pearl inlays on his spanners?

Good mechanics generally use 'snap-on tools' which are chrome/vanadium and therefore  shiny and tarnish resistant. (just like chrome/gold pick up covers !)