Are cosmetics that important in a bass??

[holllowbody]

Reading around here it appears that how a bass looks is a big deal to most people if not all.

Why is that? Why do looks matter at all?

I thought is was all about playability, tone and build quality etc.

[96tbird]

Fail thread.

[Kwesi]

If a bass looks like trash, it is trash.

No, I'm not kidding. Of course, everyone's definition of "trash" is definition.

[Green1]

I think looks come second to build quality and playability. Personally, if a bass doesnt play well and have the sound I want, what it looks like is irrelevant.....just my opinion

[georgestrings]

Originally Posted by 96tbird

Fail thread.

+1...


- georgestrings

[xaxxat]

Hearing is about 90% visual...

[holllowbody]

Originally Posted by Kwesi

If a bass looks like trash, it is trash.

No, I'm not kidding. Of course, everyone's definition of "trash" is definition.

Lets say it looks like "trash" but it plays well, sounds good and is very well built.

Is it still "trash" even though it plays and sound like a dream?

Are you also suggesting that if it plays like crap and sound like crap but looks good then the bass is ideal for use?

[DeliriumTremens]

If I have a bass I find visually appealing I am more inclined to pick it up over an uglier instrument. Of course, if it doesn't tick the sound/playbility boxes then it goes down again but I think for most people the look is the first thing they notice.

[holllowbody]

Originally Posted by xaxxat

Hearing is about 90% visual...

Do explain....

[holllowbody]

Originally Posted by 96tbird

Fail thread.

What do you mean?

[AdamJames306]

People have five senses for a reason. If you go to a restaurant and ordered a dish, and it comes to your table looking like a plate of rancid yak feces, you wouldn't wanna try it no matter how good it smelled. In the restaurant industry, this is called "Presentation."

Oddly enough, it's also called "Presentation" in the entertainment industry. By your logic, all basses could look like the Mothman bass and as long as it sounds good, it shouldn't be an issue. But we all know that's not the case. Do I REALLY need to explain to you why most of us wouldn't be caught dead playing that thing live?

[Jared Lash]

My bass refuses to leave the house without foundation, mascara and lip gloss. It routinely takes forever to get ready and makes me late to gigs while nagging me about my driving the whole way there. Very frustrating. So I suppose I'm anti-bass cosmetics.

In this day and age, when there are countless builders available to choose from at pretty much every price point why wouldn't you get a bass that sounds and plays exactly like you want while holding great visual appeal to you as well?

If I don't like the looks of a bass, Even if it "plays and sound like a dream", I won't buy it. Why would I, when I could find another bass that plays and sounds just as good while holding greater aesthetic appeal to me.

[The BurgerMeister]

i like a bass that looks well used, but plays beautifully and sounds awesome. i like the pretty, mint condition ones too... but not nearly as much, and in a different way.

[MrGotBass]

Originally Posted by holllowbody

Reading around here it appears that how a bass looks is a big deal to most people if not all.

Why is that? Why do looks matter at all?

I thought is was all about playability, tone and build quality etc.

Would you buy a bass that you hate to look at? I know I wouldn't. Some people just want a car that can go from point A to point B, and they don't care what it looks like, but for others being visually appealing matters too. Same goes for basses.

[Munjibunga]

Originally Posted by Kwesi

If a bass looks like trash, it is trash.

No, I'm not kidding. Of course, everyone's definition of "trash" is definition.

No, you were right the first time. Looks, playability, sound, in that order. Of course, the better a bass looks, the better it sounds. These all sound pretty danged good.

[DeliriumTremens]

Originally Posted by Munjibunga

No, you were right the first time. Looks, playability, sound, in that order. Of course, the better a bass looks, the better it sounds. These all sound pretty danged good.

I don't like any of those sans the pink Lakland and even then the pearloid is ugly. See how tastes differ?

[Munjibunga]

Originally Posted by DeliriumTremens

I don't like any of those sans the pink Lakland and even then the pearloid is ugly. See how tastes differ?

You're just not into furniture.

[Wesley R]

I had a beautiful JSBII, and some friend of one of my kids gouged the body over 11". It started as a finish scratch and at the end was a deep wood gouge. I couldn't play that bass ever again, the pain was killer.

Looks count on some level. I gigged that bass for 20 years.

[holllowbody]

Originally Posted by AdamJames306

People have five senses for a reason. If you go to a restaurant and ordered a dish, and it comes to your table looking like a plate of rancid yak feces, you wouldn't wanna try it no matter how good it smelled. In the restaurant industry, this is called "Presentation."

Oddly enough, it's also called "Presentation" in the entertainment industry. By your logic, all basses could look like the Mothman bass and as long as it sounds good, it shouldn't be an issue. But we all know that's not the case. Do I REALLY need to explain to you why most of us wouldn't be caught dead playing that thing live?

If a bass looks like a work of art and I wanted to keep it that way looking really nice and all, I would be too afraid to do anything with it other than look at it.

I prefer a bass that does not call attention to itself via it's looks, good attention or bad attention.

[96tbird]

Originally Posted by holllowbody

What do you mean?

The topic will yield no useful information. For example, to some a rat rod looks shite, to some they look cool, either way they're still hot rods.