Looks, sound or playability.....

[Gtrbldr]

Well, I started out writing a reply and halfway had to reconsider. Because there is no absolute and given in my case it usually involves a PRS of some sort, looks are aways at least OK. I do not buy guitars I do not like visually. Looks are not a qualifier, but a disqualifier. If it is ugly or I do not find it visually attractive, I will not buy it. PRS DC shape looks pleasing to me, so that helps.

So it is a toss up between sound and playability for the number one position and here's the fun: I had great looking guitars, that were fun to play, but I did not jive with the sound, so they did not get air time.

That brings me to the same list Les has: tone over playability and looks, where looks and playability are disqualifiers, tone is the qualifier.

 

[Victor Vector]

It's none of those for me, first is responsiveness, then sound/playability.

Responsiveness to me is an instrument that gives something back when you're playing it, like there's a give and take. It's a sort of sensuality I guess, that has to do with the tactile feel and sound, but also how the instrument reacts to the input from my hands. It's a hard thing to define, but I've had some super nice guitars that were sort of 'dead' in terms of responsiveness. Not 'dead' like dead-sounding or lacking sustain, but they didn't really care what I did, they just did what they were supposed to, but with nothing 'extra'...

I wish I could articulate this better.

How it responds/feels/reacts in your hands is basically the definition of playability is it not?

 

[Victor Vector]

Of course this whole conversation is somewhat moot as we play PRS , and at least all of mine have all 3 bases covered so incredibly well , I continue to collect them and let all the artists I know have the opportunity to try

I dont think its moot at all, this isnt about PRS exclusively....many here just dont own/play PRS', including myself. And although they are great guitars they arent the end all do all I can throw all my other axes out now holy grail IMO. Just like any guitar that is made of organic materials they all differ. Add in the human construction aspect and you can play 5 of the exact model by the exact company finished on the same day and none will feel/play/be exactly the same. YMMV

So yeah, this isnt just about PRS, its about guitars and what is the most important aspect, as a guitarist, for you. There is no right or wrong.

 

[László]

Responsiveness to me is an instrument that gives something back when you're playing it,

You know what? You're right, and I hadn't considered that aspect of it until you mentioned it, though thinking it through it might be kind of a combination of tone and playability.

But it's definitely a thing.

 

[Bogner]

Looks is what makes me want to play the guitar.

Playability is what makes me want to plug it in.

The sound is what makes me either buy it or put it back on the rack, unless the first two are perfect. Then I may consider it knowing that I am probably going to have to change the pickups, or fix with a setup.

Well Said!

 

[Bogner]

Being a spoiled brat, I will only buy if I can get all three.

Likewise!

 

[Tedder]

If I were to sum up all that has been said so far, it would be this:

There is no right or wrong answer to the OP's question. Just different strokes for different folks, and a lot of that depending on the use case for the instrument to begin with.

Very educational to think about the answer from others point of view, whether looks are the most important for the show or inspiration to pick up the guitar, or maybe sound is always king no matter what, or is it mostly about playability and the response of the guitar to the player? These are all valid reasons to pick and hang onto a guitar.


I had to go back and pick up my guitars and play 'em with all of this in mind and I am looking at the few guitars I have with a new perspective.

 

[Alnus Rubra]

Only a fool would choose a horse by its colour.

 

[Bogner]

Only a fool would choose a horse by its colour.

 

[Rhythmisking]

How it responds/feels/reacts in your hands is basically the definition of playability is it not?

Yes and no. I think of playability more as 'ease of play'; the physical mechanics of the strings and the neck: The action height, intonation, comfort of the neck profile, and the feel of all of that in your hands.

I think of responsiveness as the instrument producing changes in tone and timbre in response different inputs from your hands.

Violin is often regarded as the most expressive instrument because all of the parameters of how the string is vibrating are constantly under the player's direct control (for better or worse), which makes it difficult to master, but also capable of incredible subtlety and nuance. Piano is at the other end of the spectrum where the player is physically removed from contacting the string and has no direct control at all over the string's vibration except how hard the keys are hit, and whether they are damped or allowed to ring.

I have had guitars with excellent playability, but whose tonality didn't change much in response to nuances in what I did with my hands when playing them. Some people might like this; a very consistent sound and tone regardless of the input from your hands, but I don't.

 

[tdroid]

My first two guitars were sound and playability. I had specific types of pickups and scale lengths in mind, and waited for a suitable guitar to go on sale, color be damned.

However, when I bought my SE, the looks were a huge element that pushed me to purchase. The flame maple top, color, abalone bird inlays, and curly maple binding sold me, along with the inclusion of piezo pickups.

I also bought my MIM Fender because the Lake Placid Blue was love at first sight. Also, got it for a good price.

Nowadays, with 6 budget guitars, any addition will have to have all three, looks, good pickups, and playability. If it doesn't have all three, I'm not spending money on it.