onewilyfool Posted March 10, 2011 Posted March 10, 2011 I received some feedback that calling these guitars "ugly" may be too judgemental and negative, SOOOOO......I've now changed the listing to "unique" guitars and let the beauty be in the eye of the beholder. There are two schools in design, "Form follows Function" and "Function follows Form" In the prior case the designer lets the design come out of the functional needs of the project. In the latter, the designer CHOOSES a form, and then makes the function fit into the design. Both schools are valid, and I think this guitar represents the latter school. The Luthier chose a form, and then made the function of a guitar fit into the design. In my opinion, regardless of how it sounds, this ranks as one of the MOST "unique" guitars of the series.....lol...Again, color, shape, headstock, NOTHING works for me.....but for you it may be different. This guitar is just very "unique"......
stein Posted March 10, 2011 Posted March 10, 2011 I don't have any objections to "unique" guitars, but "unique" and "UGLY" are not the same. When someone says "ugly", we know we are in for a good laugh. The fun is finding something so darned ugly that one has no choice but to go, "ok..thats just ugly". But, we are allowed to disagree. We all have different taste, and that's all good. If someone disagrees that something is ugly, that's fine. Some of the guitars you and other have shown, there is a point to where someone should NOT be offended when someone calls them ugly, even if they disagree. I think that guitar is more of a "unique" guitar. I think it is ugly, but i can see where someone would disagree easily. We can call it weird. But hey man, ugly is ugly. And I dig your post of these things. I just wanted to exercise my rights as an American and voice my objection to not being able to use the word ugly.
ksdaddy Posted March 10, 2011 Posted March 10, 2011 WHO LEFT MY GREEN APPLAUSE IN THE HOT CAR?????????
57classic Posted March 10, 2011 Posted March 10, 2011 Not only am I fine with you exercising your judgement and right to use the term ugly, I urge you to continue as you deem it appropriate. For the record, I have agreed with you every time. In fact, this most recent example is, IMHO, ugly also.
mooseguy Posted March 10, 2011 Posted March 10, 2011 I received some feedback that calling these guitars "ugly" may be too judgemental and negative, SOOOOO......I've now changed the listing to "unique" guitars and let the beauty be in the eye of the beholder. There are two schools in design, "Form follows Function" and "Function follows Form" In the prior case the designer lets the design come out of the functional needs of the project. In the latter, the designer CHOOSES a form, and then makes the function fit into the design. Both schools are valid, and I think this guitar represents the latter school. The Luthier chose a form, and then made the function of a guitar fit into the design. In my opinion, regardless of how it sounds, this ranks as one of the MOST "unique" guitars of the series.....lol...Again, color, shape, headstock, NOTHING works for me.....but for you it may be different. This guitar is just very "unique"...... Wiley One: SINCE when are you becoming politically correct? UGLY IS UGLY AND DON'T BACK DOWN - CALL IT AS IT IS-THIS IS YOUR GIG AND NO ONE ELSE'S -THE HELL WITH WHAT THE NIT PICKERS MAY THINK! [/u] REGARDS, MOOSE
retrorod Posted March 11, 2011 Posted March 11, 2011 Unique.....HELL! That is plain BUTT-UGLY :blink:
onewilyfool Posted March 11, 2011 Author Posted March 11, 2011 You know...I have to agree with you...lol
6stringTom Posted March 13, 2011 Posted March 13, 2011 No problem with "ugly" here. We all know what it means, even if we don't always agree. It's all in good fun. As for this ugly/unique/weird guitar, I wonder if it actually plays--in tune, that is. It's hard to imagine that it intonates accurately with that bridge angle. If it does, I have to give the designer credit for--well, for something, but I don't know what.
Acousticologist Posted March 14, 2011 Posted March 14, 2011 Screw politically correct... We're all friends here.. TELL IT LIKE IT IS
TommyK Posted March 14, 2011 Posted March 14, 2011 Screw politically correct... We're all friends here.. TELL IT LIKE IT IS Tread lightly here. PC seems to be de rigueur of late. Not my view of what is PC, but someone's is de rigueuer none-the-less.
TommyK Posted March 14, 2011 Posted March 14, 2011 ... ...It's hard to imagine that it intonates accurately with that bridge angle. If it does, I have to give the designer credit for--well, for something, but I don't know what. Actually, she probably intonates quite well. Note the lack of parallelism of the frets, exspecially up the neck. I've seen more radically angled frets on a custom guitar made for playing. But, it had both the saddle and nut rotated out of perpendicular to the neck. Some contend, owing to the lack of symmetry of human phalanges, all guitars should be fretted in this ergonomic manner. It also appears to me that those six spots of white on the bridge are individual saddles.
dhanners623 Posted March 14, 2011 Posted March 14, 2011 Don't confuse "politically correct" -- basically, the whine conservatives squeal when they are called out for being racist, sexist, etc. -- for what's going on here. He's expressing an opinion on the relative beauty (or lack thereof) of a guitar. I think we all know he's expressing an opinion. There are plenty of folks out there who think J-45s are ugly. Chances are, most of us here don't share that view, and if someone expresses their opinion of a guitar's looks, that's fine with me. People are free to disagree. But don't equate that with the term "politically correct," which is essentially a complaint against having to live in a civilized society. And yeah, it's an ugly guitar.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.