Can a Tele be "too pretty?" - Page 2

Croox · February 12th, 2008, 07:10 PM

I think its all relative to your personal preference. I feel people choose their instruments based off who they are and the type of music they play.some people love all the extra doodads and bells and whistles. some people don't. I need the stuff on my Bass because thats my main focus, my telecaster is simple because its just something I like to mess around on and write stuff with every once and a while.

Colt W. Knight · February 12th, 2008, 07:24 PM

The prettiest tele I ever saw was a double bound Am. Deluxe in Candy Tangerine with a pearloid pickguard.

frogger · February 12th, 2008, 09:06 PM

I like my Tele with it's see thru natural ash finish and black guard. On the other hand my PRS's are divas and are pimped out to the max with a very ornate trussrod covers, brazilion rosewood pup rings, brazilion rosewood inlayed control knobs, and Inlayed control plates. I think it depends on the guitar. Tele's make a strong statement on it's simplicity..understated elegance..just the way I like them.

buddywayne · February 12th, 2008, 09:16 PM

I love plain jane teles. I love flamed teles. I like worn teles. I like new teles.
I like all teles!!!

Flat357 · February 12th, 2008, 09:42 PM

When I was young ( sorry , I keep saying that ) I used to have eyes for the Merle Haggard tele .

For some reason , I became very simplistic in recent years , and no longer feel the urge .
I like my teles to be butter scotch and black guard these days , or a nice natural coloured wood such as my piner .

With the old saying about children being seen and not heard , I like my guitars to be heard and not seen , as much that I always felt a fancy looking guitar needs a fancy player behind it , but a guitar that doesn't particularly attract attention allows you to give them a nice surprise

beep.click · February 12th, 2008, 09:45 PM

My tastes have changed a lot over the years. I used to like birdseye and quilting, back it the 70s, because it was HIGHLY uncommon (at least in my circle). In recent years, it's become almost the standard, for everything.

Over the years, I've come to prefer the understated. I think all of my Teles are pretty, but not flashy.

Then again, I bought that sparkly purple J. Mascis Jazzmaster, and I like it a lot. Partly because it is much more subdued in real life, and partly because it strikes me as silly. So I've also become open to silliness, in my middle age...

thekillingjoke · February 12th, 2008, 09:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Durtdog

That's the internet party line wisdom these days, lightweight ash and big fat neck.

You forgot to say it also has to be nitro finished, 13-72 strings, just guitar, cord and amp.

Lightweight ash? Bah, that's for pansies. I want my body to weigh in at a hefty 7 lbs. More, if possible.

Ed P · February 12th, 2008, 10:44 PM

It's all personal, but my main squeeze for over the last ten years is a 52RI tele that has been modified to my liking and played mercilessly. If I had to worry about putting a ding in it I wouldn't enjoy myself. In fact I've even slid it across stages and banged the body onstage during my more enthusiastic performances. And there was never any damage whatsoever to it other than some dings and scratches. And I can tell you where every ding on that guitar came from - they're all Kodak moments that have memories associated with them.

Nick JD · February 12th, 2008, 10:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thekillingjoke

Lightweight ash? Bah, that's for pansies. I want my body to weigh in at a hefty 7 lbs. More, if possible.

Why?

PJ · February 12th, 2008, 10:58 PM

XKnight...sure looks nice to me!

XKnight · February 12th, 2008, 11:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PJ

XKnight...sure looks nice to me!

Thanks! It even plays better than it looks. Best overall Tele that I currently own. Has that certain Mojo that some of us often seek, but rarely find. All subjective of course.

ripsix · February 13th, 2008, 02:44 AM

My thought (currently) is that every guitar has a unique voice and should be played and appreciated.... and it doesn't matter if it's "pretty" or ugly so long as it sings. Once you start groovin' and close your eyes does it matter what it looks like if it feels good? :-)

Pickalittle · February 13th, 2008, 11:44 AM

ripsix:
Well worded and I think you nailed it. I never knew my post would evoke so much passion and emotion. It was a just a question. Yet it is clear that some feel very strongly about their position.

I guess it would be a pretty boring forum if we all shook our heads in unison and agreed on everything!

luteslinger · February 13th, 2008, 12:07 PM

Firstly, let's eliminate the women euphemisms. Secondly and primarily, a ~pretty~ tele is just plain ugly.

lennyb · February 13th, 2008, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thekillingjoke

Lightweight ash? Bah, that's for pansies. I want my body to weigh in at a hefty 7 lbs. More, if possible.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nick JD

Why?

Well for me i dont care for the feel of a really light guitar ..i like around 7 lbs as well it seems to hang better,i think there is a big myth about heavier means more tone lighter means less tone...but for mei like to FEEL the guitars weight sorta pulling down .i just play better ,just play what feels right and what makes you play better...dont buy into the weight buisness

BellyBoy · February 13th, 2008, 09:07 PM

I have had many many ugly/plain guitars, some were great players some not so much, but the best playing and sounding guitar I have ever owned also happens to be the "prettiest". Does the woods beauty make it play better? No, but the wood used sure makes it sound better... the fact that it is absolutely gorgeous to my eyes is just frosting on the cake... and I play the devil out of it. Would I play a pretty guitar if it didn't sound good... nope. Would I play an absolutely butt ugly guitar if it sounded great? Yep... It is the sound, tone and playabilty that make a guitar a great player... the looks of it are secondary.
My main guitar is one of those flame maple "pretty" guitars and it sounds sweeter than any guitar I have ever owned. It sings and screams and looks dang good doin it... and I ain't affraid to play it. If the way a guitar looks keeps you from playing it all out, you got some work to do. I don't care which guitar I am using, ugly or pretty, I am going to play it with everything I have.

thekillingjoke · February 14th, 2008, 12:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nick JD

Why?

For a number of reasons.

1. I can tolerate a light Strat, Blizzy's pretty light, but a light Telecaster doesn't feel right to me. Mit's around 8 lbs or so, and she feels right. There might be something about it lending to a brighter tone, I don't know. But it feels right, and that's what matters.

2. Heavier ash makes for a more potent weapon. Bigger necks make better handles.

3. It makes me feel quite manly handling a heavy guitar.

ripsix · February 14th, 2008, 01:19 AM

For me weight's secondary to resonance and for me a guitar doesn't have to be light to "vibrate" the way I like. When I look to purchase a "quality" guitar I pick them up and see how well they "resonate" in my hands. It took me over four months to find my '52 Reissue as I went to every music store in the D.C. area every couple weeks and tried out tele's until the right one found me.

ramblinmike · February 14th, 2008, 02:04 AM

Hah I won't lie, I was really surprised to see the alder comment! No alder?? How can you get simpler than alder? Ash is far more showy I think. Plus everybody knows that to do it RIGHT you have to have a solid color finished PINE telecaster. And a one piece maple neck without a trussrod. Having a walnut skunk stripe on your guitar is only for strumpets!

I think any basic wood looks pretty when it's a telecaster. And alder is a pretty basic wood. Sounds good too!

thekillingjoke · February 14th, 2008, 06:12 AM

Hard ash increases twang. Alder's too warm, better served for Strats. Simple as that.

Durtdog · February 14th, 2008, 06:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thekillingjoke

Hard ash increases twang. Alder's too warm, better served for Strats. Simple as that.

I haven't found that to be the case at all. Currently, my twangiest Tele is an MIM vintage white. It greatly out-twangs my 2-pc. ash even swapping pickups.

Two guitars don't prove anything, but I've found this to be the case in many others, too. Can't tell how a guitar will twang or sound at all just by the wood type, weight, neck material, color, or really anything else.

In my experience, I cannot make a general statement about twangy wood, each guitar is an individual, and it's mostly a crap shoot. Good sounding guitars are largely a random happy accident.

Rich Rice · February 14th, 2008, 06:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Durtdog

Good sounding guitars are largely a random happy accident.

Or the result of obsessive workmanship, and persistence.

Durtdog · February 14th, 2008, 06:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich Rice

Or the result of obsessive workmanship, and persistence.

Ah, right! Didn't intend to slight craftsmanship. Just talking about materials in general.

Indiana · February 14th, 2008, 08:07 AM

I'm a superficial jerk. I want pretty dang it!

February 12th, 2008, 07:10 PM	#41 (permalink)
Croox NEW MEMBER! Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Chicago Burbs Age: 25 Posts: 7	I think its all relative to your personal preference. I feel people choose their instruments based off who they are and the type of music they play.some people love all the extra doodads and bells and whistles. some people don't. I need the stuff on my Bass because thats my main focus, my telecaster is simple because its just something I like to mess around on and write stuff with every once and a while. __________________ --Chris "I'm just a Bass player trying to play guitar."

February 12th, 2008, 09:16 PM	#44 (permalink)
buddywayne Tele-Holic Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: missouri Age: 62 Posts: 529 6 Photos	I love plain jane teles. I love flamed teles. I like worn teles. I like new teles. I like all teles!!! __________________ 51 luv!!

February 12th, 2008, 09:45 PM	#46 (permalink)
beep.click Tele-Afflicted Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: California Age: 49 Posts: 1,432	My tastes have changed a lot over the years. I used to like birdseye and quilting, back it the 70s, because it was HIGHLY uncommon (at least in my circle). In recent years, it's become almost the standard, for everything. Over the years, I've come to prefer the understated. I think all of my Teles are pretty, but not flashy. Then again, I bought that sparkly purple J. Mascis Jazzmaster, and I like it a lot. Partly because it is much more subdued in real life, and partly because it strikes me as silly. So I've also become open to silliness, in my middle age... __________________ "It looked like a giant green gum drop to me."

February 12th, 2008, 10:44 PM	#48 (permalink)
Ed P Tele-Holic Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Southern California Age: 50 Posts: 720 6 Photos	It's all personal, but my main squeeze for over the last ten years is a 52RI tele that has been modified to my liking and played mercilessly. If I had to worry about putting a ding in it I wouldn't enjoy myself. In fact I've even slid it across stages and banged the body onstage during my more enthusiastic performances. And there was never any damage whatsoever to it other than some dings and scratches. And I can tell you where every ding on that guitar came from - they're all Kodak moments that have memories associated with them. __________________ Ed

February 12th, 2008, 10:58 PM	#50 (permalink)
PJ Tele-Afflicted Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Philadelphia, PA Posts: 1,745 4 Photos	XKnight...sure looks nice to me! __________________ PJ "I don't know if it's art, but I like it."

February 12th, 2008, 07:24 PM	#42 (permalink)
Colt W. Knight Tele-Afflicted Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Wyoming Age: 24 Posts: 1,417	The prettiest tele I ever saw was a double bound Am. Deluxe in Candy Tangerine with a pearloid pickguard.

February 12th, 2008, 09:06 PM	#43 (permalink)
frogger Tele-Meister Join Date: May 2003 Location: Lincoln Nebraska Posts: 416	I like my Tele with it's see thru natural ash finish and black guard. On the other hand my PRS's are divas and are pimped out to the max with a very ornate trussrod covers, brazilion rosewood pup rings, brazilion rosewood inlayed control knobs, and Inlayed control plates. I think it depends on the guitar. Tele's make a strong statement on it's simplicity..understated elegance..just the way I like them.

February 12th, 2008, 09:42 PM	#45 (permalink)
Flat357 Friend of Leo's Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Cheshire Age: 40 Posts: 2,454	When I was young ( sorry , I keep saying that ) I used to have eyes for the Merle Haggard tele . For some reason , I became very simplistic in recent years , and no longer feel the urge . I like my teles to be butter scotch and black guard these days , or a nice natural coloured wood such as my piner . With the old saying about children being seen and not heard , I like my guitars to be heard and not seen , as much that I always felt a fancy looking guitar needs a fancy player behind it , but a guitar that doesn't particularly attract attention allows you to give them a nice surprise

February 13th, 2008, 02:44 AM	#52 (permalink)
ripsix NEW MEMBER! Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Jefferson, Colorado Age: 48 Posts: 9	My thought (currently) is that every guitar has a unique voice and should be played and appreciated.... and it doesn't matter if it's "pretty" or ugly so long as it sings. Once you start groovin' and close your eyes does it matter what it looks like if it feels good? :-)

February 13th, 2008, 11:44 AM	#53 (permalink)
Pickalittle Tele-Meister Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: USA Age: 56 Posts: 188	ripsix: Well worded and I think you nailed it. I never knew my post would evoke so much passion and emotion. It was a just a question. Yet it is clear that some feel very strongly about their position. I guess it would be a pretty boring forum if we all shook our heads in unison and agreed on everything! __________________ Don't die with the music still in you! Psalm 150

February 13th, 2008, 12:07 PM	#54 (permalink)
luteslinger TDPRI Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Austin Posts: 21	Firstly, let's eliminate the women euphemisms. Secondly and primarily, a ~pretty~ tele is just plain ugly.

February 13th, 2008, 09:07 PM	#56 (permalink)
BellyBoy Tele-Meister Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Chula Vista, Ca Age: 48 Posts: 475	I have had many many ugly/plain guitars, some were great players some not so much, but the best playing and sounding guitar I have ever owned also happens to be the "prettiest". Does the woods beauty make it play better? No, but the wood used sure makes it sound better... the fact that it is absolutely gorgeous to my eyes is just frosting on the cake... and I play the devil out of it. Would I play a pretty guitar if it didn't sound good... nope. Would I play an absolutely butt ugly guitar if it sounded great? Yep... It is the sound, tone and playabilty that make a guitar a great player... the looks of it are secondary. My main guitar is one of those flame maple "pretty" guitars and it sounds sweeter than any guitar I have ever owned. It sings and screams and looks dang good doin it... and I ain't affraid to play it. If the way a guitar looks keeps you from playing it all out, you got some work to do. I don't care which guitar I am using, ugly or pretty, I am going to play it with everything I have. __________________ http://www.johnnymannion.com http://www.myspace.com/johnnymannionband

February 14th, 2008, 01:19 AM	#58 (permalink)
ripsix NEW MEMBER! Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Jefferson, Colorado Age: 48 Posts: 9	For me weight's secondary to resonance and for me a guitar doesn't have to be light to "vibrate" the way I like. When I look to purchase a "quality" guitar I pick them up and see how well they "resonate" in my hands. It took me over four months to find my '52 Reissue as I went to every music store in the D.C. area every couple weeks and tried out tele's until the right one found me.

February 14th, 2008, 02:04 AM	#59 (permalink)
ramblinmike Tele-Holic Join Date: May 2003 Location: Long Island NY Age: 22 Posts: 894	Hah I won't lie, I was really surprised to see the alder comment! No alder?? How can you get simpler than alder? Ash is far more showy I think. Plus everybody knows that to do it RIGHT you have to have a solid color finished PINE telecaster. And a one piece maple neck without a trussrod. Having a walnut skunk stripe on your guitar is only for strumpets! I think any basic wood looks pretty when it's a telecaster. And alder is a pretty basic wood. Sounds good too!

February 14th, 2008, 06:12 AM	#60 (permalink)
thekillingjoke Tele-Meister Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Plymouth Age: 21 Posts: 338 4 Photos	Hard ash increases twang. Alder's too warm, better served for Strats. Simple as that. __________________ This is Mit. She is my first love.

February 14th, 2008, 08:07 AM	#64 (permalink)
Indiana Tele-Meister Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: San Antonio, Texas Posts: 172	I'm a superficial jerk. I want pretty dang it! __________________ I shot a man in Reno / Just to watch him die....

February 14th, 2008, 12:11 PM	#65 (permalink)
thekillingjoke Tele-Meister