Is a bass more aesthetically pleasing than a guitar?

[algmusic]

[quote name='OutToPlayJazz' post='886739' date='Jul 5 2010, 10:13 PM']Drummers can [i][b]read?![/b][/i] And [i][b]type?![/b][/i] [/quote]


ohhh . I play both.. there are enough drummer jokes and bassist jokes ;-)

[algmusic]

just being objective.. you can't ask a bunch of bassist what looks better.. that's like asking a BMW dealer they are better than Mercs..

ask people have no clue this question, like singers

[ThomBassmonkey]

It depends on the bass and guitar in question. Les Paul basses are ugly as sin IMO, but the guitars look great.

In general I prefer basses, I think that on guitar there's only a few designs that work, Les Paul, Tele, PRS, Jazz hollow, RG (there's a few others, but they're the main ones), on bass there's so much variation that all look great. Apart from the classics, there's the BTBs, SGs, Warwick styles etc etc etc. Single cuts can look a bit weird, but I think that's because they're so sparse looking, as has been said, guitars can look cluttered, so a bit of wood with no detail looks ok, on bass it's a bit block of wood that doesn't need to be there to balance the clutter. That being said though, I think they can look nice if they're tastefully done. Even the Thumb SC (which looks a bit like a bottlenosed dolphin) is growing on me.

[ahpook]

[quote name='Clarky' post='886691' date='Jul 5 2010, 09:27 PM']Depends, don;t think you can generalise. An archtop Jazz guitar can be a thing of stunning beauty while a Ritter bass can look like a pile of spaghetti on a plate.[/quote]



plus the one

[Mog]

If you approach it from a non standard body shape point of view then basses are usually better looking. Most of the basses from Chris Larkin and the like are works of art IMO. Its rare to find a guitar body shape that is unusual and pleasing at the same time.
Strats v P's etc is just a matter of scale.

[daz]

I must also add, by 'Bass' i mean a [i]four stringed instrument[/i], not a six or even a five(barely passable) . Less is more, and more is four. Any more just looks wrong, sort of, you know, guitarish .

[thodrik]

I'm a bassist, so yes! I can't get past vintage Fender P basses and Jazz basses. Then there are modern Sadowsky, Nordstrand, Aleva Coppolo and so many others. Going away from Fender shapes I love the Wal basses, Vigier and Fodera stuff. Special mention to the Warwick Jack Bruce model which I love.

I do love the look of a classic style Fender Strat or Gibson Les Paul, but will take a bass over both.

Normally I would say 'its subjective think of the bass x compared to guitar Y', but I play bass, so its bass for me.

[Stu-khag]

[quote name='Tait' post='886728' date='Jul 5 2010, 10:02 PM']There's not a stringed instrument on the planet more aesthetically pleasing than this-

[/quote]


It's all about the offset shape I think. My jazz bass is often in the living room and it looks great. I've got a jazzmaster also but its not on show in the living room as its got a nitro finish and I'm afraid if anyone even as much as looks at it, it'll get damaged!

I can't stand seeing my acoustic 6 stringer in the living room but my double bass on the other hand makes the room look brilliant! Can't play the bugger very well though

[dan670844]

[quote name='Marvin' post='886662' date='Jul 5 2010, 08:55 PM']I've just placed my bass in the living room, resting against the sofa. Proportionally and generally aesthetically I find it very pleasing to my eye. And in general I think I find bass guitars more pleasing to the eye than guitars. Basses seem more balanced, more elegant. I find guitars stubby and sometimes maybe cluttered (not quite the word I was looking for but close as I could get).

This isn't an anti-guitar thread more a question of design.


EDIT: I do apologise for the poor English [b]'Proportionally and generally aesthetically'[/b] that's not very good is it now [/quote]


I vote yes but there maybe more than a little natural bias on this site!

[deathpanda]

some guitars look really nice, that's a given, but basses like status, sei, shuker and other custom basses are just stunning. I mean, I remember seeing a custom 6 string headless sei bass in the for sale thread, and I could have drooled over the pictures for hours. can't really get that from a guitar. if a guitar uses exotic woods, or radical finishes and fret inlays, they just look like they're trying too hard IMO.

that being said, p-basses make me throw up a little.

[Marvin]

[quote name='dan670844' post='889048' date='Jul 7 2010, 10:29 PM']I vote yes but there maybe more than a little natural [b]bias on this site![/b][/quote]

I can't imagine what you're talking about

[dangerboy]

I think that guitars often look silly in 2010. We have to remember that things like Telecasters were designed in the 1950s when on average people were a lot smaller than they are now. Anyone over 6 foot tall looks ridiculous playing one, and much more sensible holding a bass. Guitars just aren't in proportion any more.

[ThomBassmonkey]

[quote name='dangerboy' post='889093' date='Jul 7 2010, 11:02 PM']I think that guitars often look silly in 2010. We have to remember that things like Telecasters were designed in the 1950s when on average people were a lot smaller than they are now. Anyone over 6 foot tall looks ridiculous playing one, and much more sensible holding a bass. Guitars just aren't in proportion any more.[/quote]

I'm over 6'1 and a "big" guy, I spent years playing a 6 string bass. Apparently after people are used to that, I look hilarious playing my Les Paul (which I rarely play outside my house).

[BigRedX]

Depends on the guitar and it depends on the bass. There are aesthetically pleasing and fugly examples in both.

I was going to say that in the Telecaster guitars definitely had the worst looking instrument, but then I remembered that G&L had made a bass in a similar shape (Asshat?) which wins by being not only ugly but badly proportioned and impractical too!

Actually one of the things that puts me off a lot of basses is the over-large Fender style head. It's like they took the basic Strat design and scaled it up to fit those horrible chunky bass machine heads without really thinking about how it looked - yuck! Most modern designs have managed this much more elegantly.

Edited July 8, 2010 by BigRedX

[Golchen]

I'm more of a guitarist than a bassist, I gave it some serious though and ultimately thought yes, Basses for the win - FOR ONE PARTICULAR REASON. I see a lot of top end basses made from beautiful pieces of wood, and they look like a total work of art, like a piece of sculpture. I don't ever seem to get that vibe from any guitars.

[Deep Thought]

[quote name='BigRedX' post='889255' date='Jul 8 2010, 09:01 AM']Depends on the guitar and it depends on the bass. There are aesthetically pleasing and fugly examples in both.

I was going to say that in the Telecaster guitars definitely had the worst looking instrument, but then I remembered that G&L had made a bass in a similar shape (Asshat?) which wins by being not only ugly but badly proportioned and impractical too!

Actually one of the things that puts me off a lot of basses is the over-large Fender style head. It's like they took the basic Strat design and scaled it up to fit those horrible chunky bass machine heads without really thinking about how it looked - yuck! Most modern designs have managed this much more elegantly.[/quote]

See, there you go, beauty is certainly in the eye of the beholder. My favourite bit of the Fender bass design is the big headstock, and to me anything that doesn't have it looks unbalanced-one of the reasons I will never own a headless bass. The Telecaster also happens to be my favourite of guitar designs, although I do love the big semi-acoustic styles like the Gretschs. To me the Fender Precision has never been bettered in terms of design (aesthetically at least), and there are very few modern basses that I would give house room.

[Rich]

[quote name='daz' post='888851' date='Jul 7 2010, 07:43 PM']I must also add, by 'Bass' i mean a [i]four stringed instrument[/i], not a six or even a five(barely passable) . Less is more, and more is four. Any more just looks wrong, sort of, you know, guitarish .[/quote]

[Annoying Twit]

Visually I like instruments with through necks and finishes that show off natural wood grains. And this is far more common in basses than guitars. Except unfortunately for financial reasons I don't own any yet.

[Bankai]

I'd say it's because it's bigger.

It's also why I play with the strap at it's longest..

[thunderbass1]

Isn't this like comparing ladies shoes to mens shoes??

...I'll get my coat

[charic]

Generally basses but this is lovely:
[url="http://www.soundslive.co.uk/product~name~BC-Rich-Exotic-Classic-Mockingbird---Spalt-Maple~ID~9227.asp"]http://www.soundslive.co.uk/product~name~B...ple~ID~9227.asp[/url]

[ACE-TONE]

[quote name='Stu-khag' timestamp='1278537859' post='889042']
It's all about the offset shape I think. My jazz bass is often in the living room and it looks great. I've got a jazzmaster also but its not on show in the living room as its got a nitro finish and I'm afraid if anyone even as much as looks at it, it'll get damaged!

I can't stand seeing my acoustic 6 stringer in the living room but my double bass on the other hand makes the room look brilliant! Can't play the bugger very well though
[/quote]How 'bout one of these!
[attachment=102870:CIMG0036.JPG]

[Gust0o]

There are many aesthetically pleasing guitars; however I would prefer to play the bass.

That said, given the choice, I'd prefer to play with The Saturdays, who are also more aesthetically pleasing than the bass.

[ACE-TONE]

[quote name='Tait' timestamp='1278363721' post='886728']
There's not a stringed instrument on the planet more aesthetically pleasing than this-


[/quote]Jazzmaster bass, yeah!
[attachment=102874:CIMG0045.JPG]

[gub]

I always think alot of guitars look a bit like toys unless it's a large body , type with maybe cutaways and hollow body , but in general think basses look the biz , the neck just looks so long an slender like you could run your fingers up and down all night !