Thread: Symmetry and the acoustic guitar

Originally Posted by kiwigeo

The Dreadnaught was named after the design of warship of the same name.

Sounds like my mother in law.

Ross

Originally Posted by Different

Sounds like my mother in law.

Ross

You got of lightly...my Mother in Law was a battleship.

Originally Posted by kiwigeo

You got of lightly...my Mother in Law was a battleship.

Mine looks like a Dreadnought but sounds like a bagpipe!!!



Ross

One thing I don't think anyone has mentioned yet in regard to unconventional guitar shapes is beauty. Regardless of any difference to the sound of an instrument I would still want it to look ( and feel ) beautiful. Don't we all strive to use the finest timbers and the most perfect finishes? An ugly instrument will not get played.

Originally Posted by pugwash

An ugly instrument will not get played.

Ahhh thats my problem! thx

Originally Posted by kiwigeo

You got of lightly...my Mother in Law was a battleship.

HMS Dreadnought was in fact a Battleship so you're covered.

Peter

Originally Posted by pugwash

One thing I don't think anyone has mentioned yet in regard to unconventional guitar shapes is beauty. Regardless of any difference to the sound of an instrument I would still want it to look ( and feel ) beautiful. Don't we all strive to use the finest timbers and the most perfect finishes? An ugly instrument will not get played.

Quiet so but why is it assumed that that the current shape is as good looking as it gets? I actually think the Dread shape is rather ponderous and awkward looking where Wildwoods guitar shown in the left of his pic on page 1 of this thread is a more appealing shape as a starting point aesthetically.
An "ugly" if that is the right word guitar will get played if the owner loves it for reasons of his own will get played. Why the assumption that a guitar that is not conventional in shape will look less beautiful than one that is?

Ross

Kasha made huge efforts to change the design of the acoustic guitar with way out there bracing, impedance matched bridges etc etc BUT he didnt deviate away from the classic conventional shape of the guitar body. Must be a reason.....

As mentioned before, guitar buyers are a conservative lot. Even when the guitar appeals, many will hesitate for fear of others laughing at the choice. This extends to materials as well as shape, where there is a great deal of emphasis placed by many buyers on tranditional tone woods, even where their use has little to no effect on the resulting voice of the guitar. Tasmanian Blackwood is a close relative of Hawaiian Koa and generally looks just as good, but commands a much lower premium. The market place is a cruel dictator allowing few exceptions or deviations.

Originally Posted by microsuffer

As mentioned before, guitar buyers are a conservative lot. Even when the guitar appeals, many will hesitate for fear of others laughing at the choice. This extends to materials as well as shape, where there is a great deal of emphasis placed by many buyers on tranditional tone woods, even where their use has little to no effect on the resulting voice of the guitar. Tasmanian Blackwood is a close relative of Hawaiian Koa and generally looks just as good, but commands a much lower premium. The market place is a cruel dictator allowing few exceptions or deviations.

I'm pretty stuck on convention, I like the look of a standard shape guitar and think a cut away is radical, I have a Martin D28 in its 31st year which I love, I also have a deep bowl Ovation Balladeer of similar vintage both are very different guitars and I love the difference for different reasons/music and when played together they really compliment each other.

But for those of us who have the time and enthusiasm to build something different and push the boundaries I say well have a go and enjoy what your doing.

I've got mates who heap crap on the Ovation because it's not traditional material used on the body, they can't appreciate why it has a position in my line up, I like it's "Brighter" sound that is suited to some of the music I like and play...horses for courses, Viva la Difference and all that jazz.

Originally Posted by Different

Quiet so but why is it assumed that that the current shape is as good looking as it gets? I actually think the Dread shape is rather ponderous and awkward looking where Wildwoods guitar shown in the left of his pic on page 1 of this thread is a more appealing shape as a starting point aesthetically.
An "ugly" if that is the right word guitar will get played if the owner loves it for reasons of his own will get played. Why the assumption that a guitar that is not conventional in shape will look less beautiful than one that is?

Ross

Ross, I'm not saying that unconventional guitar shapes are not beautiful, and I assume nothing of the kind. I have seen a few that are stunning. I am saying that beauty should be a consideration.
As they say it's "in the eye of the beholder". I think that Wildwood's kidney shaped guitar is horrible whereas some of his others are much prettier. (sorry wildwood)

Originally Posted by pugwash

Ross, I'm not saying that unconventional guitar shapes are not beautiful, and I assume nothing of the kind. I have seen a few that are stunning. I am saying that beauty should be a consideration.
As they say it's "in the eye of the beholder". I think that Wildwood's kidney shaped guitar is horrible whereas some of his others are much prettier. (sorry wildwood)

I appreciate your honesty but I rather like the kidney shape but might do it a little different if I was to do one myself.
I guess I am just a sucker for something different and for people who dare to be so!

Ross

One thing that always impresses me is when someone can keep the essence of the traditional look but push the boundaries..
I think Michihiro Matsuda is one that comes to mind that can keep the elegance of the tradition and then create something different all-together.
amazing works of art..
check out his galleries.
http://www.matsudaguitars.com/index.htm

Originally Posted by gratay

One thing that always impresses me is when someone can keep the essence of the traditional look but push the boundaries..
I think Michihiro Matsuda is one that comes to mind that can keep the elegance of the tradition and then create something different all-together.
amazing works of art..
check out his galleries.
http://www.matsudaguitars.com/index.htm

WOW Amazing stuff


Ross