It's the shape, and the headstock. I wish Jazz (or precision) Bass didn't sound so good... because it seriously annoys me that I like the sound of that particular instrument(s), but it looks like crap...

Yeah, I know, I'm shallow.

posted July 13, 2007 by straechav

It's a bit oxymoronic, don't you think?

posted July 13, 2007 by jdfan

I mean, it could be worse, they could use an anthem of your youth for a car commercial or something.

But I am just curious, who buys a guitar like this. I am not knowledgable enough about the guitar industry to guess... but if I had to, I would say 40 something collectors, who don't actually intend to use it to play? How close am I?

posted July 13, 2007 by RexRhino

Now that they are raping the image of Kurt Cobain for lunch pails and dolls, I can't wait until they issue that designer "Corporate magazines still suck" t-shirt, lovingly scrawled in marker by a 7-year-old Malay orphan.

posted July 13, 2007 by shamann

"but I think all their guitars, and basses look like shit"

Hoo boy, talk about a pure matter of taste. I loves my Jazz and my Strat with the big 70's headstock. (Custom Warmoth neck, it's not a CBS strat... which also means that I picked it out specifically cause I liked how it looked.)

"It's the shape, and the headstock. I wish Jazz (or precision) Bass didn't sound so good... because it seriously annoys me that I like the sound of that particular instrument(s), but it looks like crap..."

If it sounds that good, maybe you'll come to love the look. Form follows function... :)

What do you want out of a guitar or bass as far as looks go? Straight lines, Steinberger-esque, or something even "uglier" like a Rickenbacker? Different proportions? Blobby organic bodies? Is an upright bass ugly to you? How about those basses where the bass side of the body extends another six-eight inches up the neck past the treble side? I'm truly interested... I think that Fender's guitars (and basses) are really great looking instruments, the curves give a nod back to the acoustic instruments they sprang from, and I can play them for hours without fatigue. They look just like what they are, functional instruments with a lot of adjustment options. The body styles have stayed basically the same for all this time because they work.

Much as I love Fender, and I do, when I saw the Strummer guitar (and the Beck tele, and Gibson's aged guitars), just like CR I threw up a little in my mouth. Who can feel good playing a guitar with all that wear... when they didn't put it on themselves? If you really want that look, buy an actual old guitar, or take your own belt sander to your own guitar... or, you know, play that NEW guitar on hundreds of stages for years and years, and treat it realllll bad.

-Aahzekiel

posted July 13, 2007 by Aahzekiel

I suppose you could apply it to analogue synths. Would you consider purchasing a recreation of a vintage Moog or something played by some famous so-and-so? Or pay more for just a straight vintage recreation?

I'm a computer guy, so I can't really say. I personally wouldn't pay a premium for a recreation of an Apple II used by anyone.

Music has always been driven by technology to some extent. But there will always be those who try to capture the best sound of the past.

posted July 13, 2007 by Bounte

--They're doing it WRONG!

posted July 13, 2007 by neB