Body shapes

Wizard

Previous threads have spoken about what body shapes are "appealing" or not.
And yes, a lot of people aren't interested in new shapes.
The existing iconic shapes are just fine.

I continue to be fascinated by why my Cort M200 seems to have just the "perfect" looking shape to it.

I then chanced upon this series of links which spoke about mathematical constructions used for body shapes.
Based on simple construction techniques & arithmetic ratio's; with the odd Fibonnacci thrown in for good measure.

Applied to violin family instruments here; but enough guitar body shapes have borrowed from this shape class for this to be interesting here.

An animation of the construction:
http://kigiri.free.fr/tdl/eng/page3/files/page3_5.swf

A video of making the (BIG) shapes in sand.
You can jump to 3:43 to see the end result if you wish.

singemonkey

Very nice.

An intuitive way that I look at it is by starting with the Torres classical. Take that shape and then modify harmoniously. The Les Paul, for example, is almost exactly the same shape (to my eyes at least). And then its single cutaway reflects the whole. That's how I think about it anyway, and why I think many Les Paul types with different cutaway shapes often break that harmony. The M200, on the other hand, I think does a fantastic job starting from the same point, but making a more modern, ergonomic body. Most alternative designs of the Les Paul violate some of the harmony. But not that one.

It seems a pity to me that most new guitar designs are designed by luthiers, not player-designers. The result is so often discord, to my eye.

Bob-Dubery

I think that one problem is that some makers don't want to be seen as copying a strat or les paul or whatever and so feel constrained to develop their own shape.

Another problem is that some makers have copied the strat and the LP and been taken to court for it by companies who regard the shape as their IP. I ultimately support copyright, but arguing that a shape is a trademark is maybe going a bit far. Interestingly we don't see this really in the acoustic world. Martin basically wrote the book on steel string flat top design and construction, and there are lots of guitars around that are broadly similar to Martin designs - and not just cheap copies either (I own one such). You don't see Martin threatening to sue anybody who makes a dreadnought or OM shaped guitar or uses those model designations.

Malkav

Ergonomics always win over aesthetics and ratios to me ? That's why I love them .Strandberg*, Rick Toone and Klein guitars ?

Keira-WitherKay

In this day and age very little in guitar shape is truly original just variations on the same theme

personally i love archtops and telecasters .... Wish they made a slab tele body but just bigger but in same proportions ... So a blend of my 2 loves

DaFiz

Personally I prefer the "hourglass" body shape, but if the bottom half is a bit bolder than the top half that's alright too... ?

Oh... hang on... we're talking about guitars here right? ???

Chocklit_Thunda

I still rate the strat is the most comfortable shape... It's just perfect...
As for acoustics it's a cutaway dreadnaught and a cutaway OM ?

But I guess it changes from person to person hey....

Wizard

Keira WitherKay wrote: personally i love archtops and telecasters .... Wish they made a slab tele body but just bigger but in same proportions ... So a blend of my 2 loves

There are enough people here who could arrange that for you Keira!
?

singemonkey

But the third way, Bob, is to either take a basic classical or parlour guitar as a starting point, or actually have some training in aesthetics. The Gibson Firebird was a unique and successful guitar that way. It was handed over to an auto-designer to come up with something new.

There must be a great many industrial designers who play guitar nowdays. The problem I'm referring to is when a luthier is good with his or her hands but not with the designing. So random ugly designs come out to avoid copying. It doesn't have to be that way. And there are exceptions. Rich Lazner designed the Pacifica and the new Vox guitars. That Cort M200, as discussed, is quite lovely (ideally in black with P90s) and there have been a number of other great ones.

Chad, respect for that, but you're definitely in a minority.

Keira, there are a lot of great ideas, but they tend to get lost in a sea of strat-alikes or design disasters.

guidothepimmp

Aesthetically i find the mocking bird shape very appealing (no.. not the that bird, the bc rich one)

Never played one though, i do find the strat and soopa strat shape comfy though..

slyd

DaFiz wrote: Personally I prefer the "hourglass" body shape, but if the bottom half is a bit bolder than the top half that's alright too... ?

Oh... hang on... we're talking about guitars here right? ???

LOL ?

But talking of bigger, rounder, lines, . . . my Peavey T60 has real curves, almost like a strat, . . . only rounder, with a bigger bottom . . :?

DaFiz

slyd wrote:
DaFiz wrote: Personally I prefer the "hourglass" body shape, but if the bottom half is a bit bolder than the top half that's alright too... ?

Oh... hang on... we're talking about guitars here right? ???
LOL ?

But talking of bigger, rounder, lines, . . . my Peavey T60 has real curves, almost like a strat, . . . only rounder, with a bigger bottom . . :?

I once owned a Peavey T60 and truly loved that guitar. Not only did it look gorgeous, it rocked.
With the help of the Fender Bassman, Celestion 15"... not the usual combination but it worked exceptionally well. 8)

Wizard

In case you ever wondered where the guitar got its shape:
http://pinterest.com/pin/109704940895697536/