Why the 'anti bling' bias guys

Bucket

I like vintage bling, as in old Gretsches, Gibson LP Customs etc, but I can't stand stuff with ridiculous inlays and gaudy tops. I like PRSi aesthetically, provided they're a nice colour without any stupid shellfish abuse on them, but that's as far as I go. My blingiest guitar is my Tokai PRS-alike, which has a deep green quilted top and gold hardware, but I don't mind it.

It's a bit like how I think old 50s Cadillacs are gorgeous but rappers' pimped-out Hummers are grotesque.

Cabicular

Ahem

D30_3605-2 by Andy Watson, on Flickr

Cabicular

Even the logo on my falcons are bling

english_bob

Gretsch are about the only company that do bling right. Well tasty.

 

 

Dave_Mc said:

(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!".

I wouldn't call a maple top "bling", since maple can pretty much run the gamut from as plain to as flashy as you like. I'll concede on binding though.

gordiji said:

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

Again, I wouldn't say that the fact that a material chosen for its corrosion resistance happens to be shiny makes it "bling". You might as well argue that shiny frets are "bling".

ICBM

gordiji said:

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

Exactly NOT like gold pickup covers!

randomhandclaps

It's all personal taste I guess but I just find something simple like this far more eye catching -

http://www.guitarworld.com/files/imagecache/gw_imagegallery_slide/gallery/crystal-m13.jpg

bignorm

I've been using Prs since the 80's when they were rare and looked on with desire.
The thing is I've been fortunate to been able to afford the over the top customs as well as the plain janes.
Highly figured maple is basically rotten wood that's really light and is nowhere near as resonant as a plain piece of maple of the same size.
I've played two Les Paul's one with a lot of flame and a plain maple top. The plain top sounded better but unfortunately, giving gibsons lack of consistancy that's not really conclusive proof.
When it comes to Prs, they're consistent when it comes down to each guitar. Its often over looked, but Prs are players guitars you don't get duff ones.
The company have manufactured some fantastic non bling players guitars in the past, the CE series was superb.
The ill fated EG series deserved much higher sales than it actually generated but people just wanted those curly and stripey tops and it was scrapped.
I blame Paul reed smith for the raft of over the top flame tops you see on guitars these days as other manufacturers have got on the bling bandwagon, instead of making good tonal guitars.

ICBM

randomhandclaps said:

It's all personal taste I guess but I just find something simple like this far more eye catching -

I don't think that's a real one, the upper bouts are too big.

stickyfiddle

ICBM said:

randomhandclaps said:

It's all personal taste I guess but I just find something simple like this far more eye catching -

I don't think that's a real one, the upper bouts are too big.

guitarfishbay

stickyfiddle said:

And the starting price for a Private Stock is twice what an LP Standard retails at, what's your point?

FWIW a lot of it for me is chinese guitars covered in mother of pearl and fake flamey wood, plus the whole early 2000's Linkin Park/Staind/Creed/Nickelback/Limp Bizkit thing where every other bastard was playing stripey PRSi. 

I generally don't like blingy stuff but my #1 and #2 guitars are a flame-topped Gibson CS336 and a pink paisley telecaster so what do I know?

I think it is more the fault of Scheter and LTD (ESP) than PRS in that era, they were churning out guitars like this

Wes Borland played solid colour PRS guitars in Limp Bizkit.

The Staind Mike Mushok signature PRS was a silverburst

Mark Tremonti has played all sorts, from Gibsons to flame PRS to solid PRS to stuff with graphics all over it.  A range of bling from subtle to definitely bling.

Brad Delson definitely has some Blingy PRS's.

I'd argue Chad Kroeger's signature Gibson is as much bling as his PRS's were.

And I have no idea what is going on with this guitar.

Or in this photo

impmann

The Les Paul is probably trying to commit suicide as its realised its playing Nickleback music

Zodiac51

http://theswiftagency.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/red-tour-omaha-guitar.jpg

ICBM

http://cdn5.wn.com/ph/img/a0/24/ce65d5e0e9e24ff0f794595ff45d-large.jpg

ToneControl

It's just trendy to pretend to dislike pretty wood on PRS-type guitars. For some reason, pretty wood on Gibsons passes without comment

PRSs are still, of course better-built than Gibsons, but you need to consider if you are most driven by trendiness or quality

guitarfishbay

I still prefer a good colour more than anything else.

The colour on this is amazing.  I wouldn't pick the birds or the floyd myself.  But I'd definitely play a guitar that colour.

ICBM

ToneControl said:

It's just trendy to pretend to dislike pretty wood on PRS-type guitars. For some reason, pretty wood on Gibsons passes without comment

Not at all - I detest them both equally .

Actually, to be accurate I think PRSs generally suit slightly fancier wood than Gibsons - subtle flame with plenty of lengthwise grain looks better on a Gibson than a PRS, a strong flame looks better on a PRS than a Gibson, and quilt looks even worse on a Gibson than a PRS .

And none of them are as bad as any sort of figured wood looks on a Fender…

Dave_Mc

^ Yeah I'd also tend to agree with the Fender thing- I like figured wood on guitars that suit it, but it doesn't really suit a strat or a tele IMO. Granted, we could argue until the cows come home about whether that's objective taste, or just because we're used seeing Fenders without figured tops. I certainly like (non-Fender) Superstrats with figured tops, for example.

english_bob said:

I wouldn't call a maple top "bling", since maple can pretty much run the gamut from as plain to as flashy as you like. I'll concede on binding though.

I know some might say that figured maple might sound slightly different from plain, as it tends to be softer.

I have no idea if you could genuinely hear the difference, though.

guitarfishbay said:

I think it is more the fault of Scheter and LTD (ESP) than PRS in that era, they were churning out guitars like this

Yeah I'll happily concede that those are horrible. I like PRSes with flamed/quilted tops, but I hate those.

p90fool

ToneControl said:

It's just trendy to pretend to dislike pretty wood on PRS-type guitars. For some reason, pretty wood on Gibsons passes without comment.

We're not pretending, really, it's utterly vile. 

I don't like it on Les Pauls either. Gibson totally lost the plot in 1958, which is why they had to cease production by 1960. Dentists just didn't play guitars in those days.

impmann

+1

Best looking Les Pauls are gold tops, in my eyes.

But any other guitar trying to copy that look always gets it wrong.

Solid colour PRS guitars look ace, IMHO. And for the record I really want to try out at Mira (especially one of the rare Obeche bodied ones). So it's nothing to do with the brand.

I prefer grain to flame. Translucent satin to shiny sunburst. Nickle to gold.

We're all different and whatever floats your boat is cool.

ThePrettyDamned

Best looking les paul = black lpc or a white les paul studio with no binding and nickel hardware.

Seriously, those white studios look bang tidy. The white lpj's are nice too.

What surprises me is the sheer cost of flamed or quilted maple where there are other extremely beautiful looking woods out there. Some of them are crazy flamed - some of the sycamore tops on @gspbasses has used are gorgeous, yet people want maple on production guitars,even as a veneer.

I suspect it's a bit show off - my les paul has a 5A top, which makes it better than a 4A. But I much prefer the looks of other woods. There are even some as wild as zebra wood, and flamed walnut is a sight to behold!

The quilt or flame of maple has nothing to do with the quality of the guitar - hence why I tend not to listen to such things as "good wood years" and such.

My old esp was vile though - full abalone binding, flamed veneer, disgusting matching headstock.

Brilliant guitar though, which is why I bought it. These days I'm just too damn shallow to have something like that.