c340
New Member
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2023
- Messages
- 32
First and foremost: I'm not here to throw shade on anything or anyone, or anyones preferences. Clearly lots of people like the 594 styling. And all that matters is that YOU like YOUR guitar.
Having said that, this is an online forum designed for discussion, and what is more fun than stirring the pot with a strong personal opinion of aesthetics? And I invite yours! There is no right or wrong opinion here. Here is mine:
I can't stand the 594 style. It works fine on a Gibson Les Paul, but PRS had it right on their guitars with the wraparound/one-piece bridges and the non-594 electronic control configurations.
A pickup selector switch on the carved upper horn of a double cut guitar...I can't think of a more incongruous design decision on a guitar. It is an assault on the aesthetic of an otherwise beautifully crafted and designed body. I remember seeing this kind of design on the EBMM Petrucci models (though I believe that switch is a piezo selector) and thought to myself..."what are they thinking? That looks horrible." But at least theirs was on a very modern guitar, with other modern control configuration elements. The 594 McCarty though...that is a different story. The switch on the horn is hideous, and its way overboard in their attempt to turn a double cut into a Les Paul. It is entirely out of place, like thats the best you can do? A straight 1:1 transplant of controls from an entirely different body style, and it just doesn't fit AT ALL. The other two elements of the 594 that I will discuss next could be excusable, but the switch on the horn is not. I will never own one of these 594-styled guitars primarily for this reason.
The 2-knob layout of the non-594 McCarty or the 4-knob layout of the non-594 Singlecut seems to fill the space so evenly. But the 594 4-knob layout has them placed slightly towards the horns, bunched up, leaving an awkward area towards the bottom of the guitar that doesn't seem to use the space effectively. It looks...off, unsettled. They appear to want to spread out and fill in the space more evenly, but they can't. The Les Paul suffers from this slightly, but to a MUCH lesser extent. Particularly when a pickguard is installed, the knobs appear to fit the space well. But on the 594? No way.
Finally, the 2-piece bridge - the least offensive of the 3 elements - looks so clunky, especially compared to the one-piece bridges PRS offers. It just looks like an ugly, blocky, unfinished version of the Tune-O-Matic bridge.
Does anyone else share my opinion? I want to note I am not doubting the functionality of the 594 configuration (which is obviously more important). There is a reason the Les Paul control configuration has never changed and is copied everywhere. My strong opinion here on the 594 is strictly over aesthetics.
Having said that, this is an online forum designed for discussion, and what is more fun than stirring the pot with a strong personal opinion of aesthetics? And I invite yours! There is no right or wrong opinion here. Here is mine:
I can't stand the 594 style. It works fine on a Gibson Les Paul, but PRS had it right on their guitars with the wraparound/one-piece bridges and the non-594 electronic control configurations.
A pickup selector switch on the carved upper horn of a double cut guitar...I can't think of a more incongruous design decision on a guitar. It is an assault on the aesthetic of an otherwise beautifully crafted and designed body. I remember seeing this kind of design on the EBMM Petrucci models (though I believe that switch is a piezo selector) and thought to myself..."what are they thinking? That looks horrible." But at least theirs was on a very modern guitar, with other modern control configuration elements. The 594 McCarty though...that is a different story. The switch on the horn is hideous, and its way overboard in their attempt to turn a double cut into a Les Paul. It is entirely out of place, like thats the best you can do? A straight 1:1 transplant of controls from an entirely different body style, and it just doesn't fit AT ALL. The other two elements of the 594 that I will discuss next could be excusable, but the switch on the horn is not. I will never own one of these 594-styled guitars primarily for this reason.
The 2-knob layout of the non-594 McCarty or the 4-knob layout of the non-594 Singlecut seems to fill the space so evenly. But the 594 4-knob layout has them placed slightly towards the horns, bunched up, leaving an awkward area towards the bottom of the guitar that doesn't seem to use the space effectively. It looks...off, unsettled. They appear to want to spread out and fill in the space more evenly, but they can't. The Les Paul suffers from this slightly, but to a MUCH lesser extent. Particularly when a pickguard is installed, the knobs appear to fit the space well. But on the 594? No way.
Finally, the 2-piece bridge - the least offensive of the 3 elements - looks so clunky, especially compared to the one-piece bridges PRS offers. It just looks like an ugly, blocky, unfinished version of the Tune-O-Matic bridge.
Does anyone else share my opinion? I want to note I am not doubting the functionality of the 594 configuration (which is obviously more important). There is a reason the Les Paul control configuration has never changed and is copied everywhere. My strong opinion here on the 594 is strictly over aesthetics.