Interesting design, what your thoughts

hollywoodrox

It sucks    Unless you don’t class it as a guitar then it’s an interesting piece of design , looks vaguely Danish 

Kittyfrisk

I quite like it, it's funky, although access to the pickup switch at the back is poor.
I reckon Devo would have rocked them   

ICBM

Sassafras said:

Not crazy about the phallic headstock.

Philly_Q said:

In terms of functionality, I couldn't help noticing those string angles behind the nut.

Yes. I'd go as far as saying it's a poor design, because the machineheads are parallel to the neck and so the lower strings have severe sideways break angles.

I do like it a lot as a concept, but I agree with most of the concerns about its practicality.

I also do think that the designer has the same sort of preconceptions about other guitarists as he thinks other guitarists do about guitars... although it has to be said that I've often used the 'wrong' guitars for the type of music I play, so perhaps I am not who he's referring to.

Philly_Q

Wasn't there a publisher(?) or something whose logo was a drawing of a guitar shaped like a letter B?  I can see it in my head but I can't think who it was.  Maybe I've imagined it.

personalnadir

Looking at his Instagram it seems he is still tweaking the design (makes sense when you consider all the various versions of your classic guitar models)

https://www.instagram.com/p/CVd_D6psDFW/

does make me want to hold off for a bit and let it mature for a few years 

AK99

hollywoodrox said:

It sucks    Unless you don’t class it as a guitar then it’s an interesting piece of design , looks vaguely Danish 

Yes. That pickup wooden do much for me either

meltedbuzzbox

Would definitely have a go if it happened to be in the same room as me.
I'm not sure I would travel to try one.

Let's be fair, most guitarists are very conservative and they like the classic shapes.
Ken Parker made the Parker fly which for me was a real revolutionary approach to guitar building, it was light, made to last forever, used carbon fibre new build processes etc, sustained like nothing else, slightly wider board etc etc

It was all undone by a funny headstock and an "unconventional" top horn.

LastMantra

I don't really understand the need to redesign something that already works fine. It's like making a square wheel. 

Philly_Q

meltedbuzzbox said:

Ken Parker made the Parker fly which for me was a real revolutionary approach to guitar building, it was light, made to last forever, used carbon fibre new build processes etc, sustained like nothing else, slightly wider board etc etc

It was all undone by a funny headstock and an "unconventional" top horn.

I'm surprised Parker never went down the route - like Steinberger did - of incorporating most of their design concepts into some models with more conventional looks.  Perhaps they did, to some extent, but I forget.

I never tried playing a Parker but I picked one up once and nearly fell over because I hadn't anticipated how light it would be!

ICBM

meltedbuzzbox said:

Ken Parker made the Parker fly which for me was a real revolutionary approach to guitar building, it was light, made to last forever, used carbon fibre new build processes etc, sustained like nothing else, slightly wider board etc etc

It was all undone by a funny headstock and an "unconventional" top horn.

This. A decent concept ruined by unnecessary bad design - even ignoring that they were ugly to a lot of people, the body horn was uncomfortable and the headstock meant you couldn’t put it on a hanger.

They later fixed both problems with the Dragonfly, but it was too late by then. I’ve never even seen one... but I’m probably not missing much - I didn’t like the sounds of the originals either, even though I wanted to.

guitars4you

I heard a phrase a number of years ago - 'To be different you have to be better and to be better you have to be different' - I think that is just trying to be different for different sake - I'm sure there is some form of a working concept in there but it doesn't look like it has come from the thoughts of a player 

Tend to agree with above comments about Parker - But if you'd have put all such thoughts/ideas on to say a conventional Strat style guitar then would there be any differential, at a quick glance as to say 'who you are' - But then you create a unique design and instantly turn off most of your potential buyers - Not an easy situation to solve 

tanihhiavlt

Many years ago I watched a play from the balcony of Hammersmith Theatre, the play took place in the surrounding buildings, lights came on in offices - so it was like Rear Window - it was really ground-breaking, the play was basic.

What I formulated as a theory that night was prototypes and first attempts often lack the smarts of the later tweaks and additions. I believe ground-breaking needs only to plant a seed in another inventor's mind. Because a thing is so new it won't understand the space it is in, it's real customers will need to find it. 

When you remove pedals and amps from the equation, guitarists are by-and-large late adopters of new tech, that means our descriptions of what we want are "not wants" rather than "wants" which can be used effectively shape a product.. "not wants" tend to lead to many more "don't want that either", which means we don't get invited to focus groups.

I like the idea of moveable pickups, replaceable pickups  - I'd like to adjust the pickups though and I'd be okay in a gig situation as I'm not that active. 

Kittyfrisk

Dan Armstrong & even Gibson tried moveable pickups back in the 1970's.
 Doug Wilkes did ‘The Answer‘ for Dave Gilmour in the 80's.
http://wilkesguitars.co.uk/instruments/the-answer/

A more recent effort was the Pole Position guitar  https://www.trendhunter.com/trends/pickup-system




Despite being interesting & flexible, they never seem to catch on more widely.

axisus

The Ikea of guitar design.

I hate it. Having said that, I'm happy for anyone to churn out weird guitars if they want. Nothing wrong with weird and someone will love it. 

Offset

Not for me.  I need to get past something's looks before getting on to sounds.  I'd look a twat playing one of these (well, more of a twat than I do playing any guitar).

WezV

I really like them. It's a clever way to build a guitar and its nice to see something  different that uses less wood (reminds me of Simon Lee Cyclotron in that regard).   I love the idea with the pickups

The only bit I don't like is the headstock string paths.  

WezV

one of my favorite builders in this kind of style is Nicolai Schorr

His Owl model has sliding pickups on a solid body.  


Then we get more hollow versions with side ports


more recently you have "The Future", which is a very interesting body design, but loses  the moveable pickups








 

Offset

Leo would be spinning in his grave.

Philly_Q

WezV said:

one of my favorite builders in this kind of style is Nicolai Schorr

His Owl model has sliding pickups on a solid body.  


Then we get more hollow versions with side ports

 

I like the name, anyway.  And it does sort of look like an owl.

tanihhiavlt

Offset said:

Leo would be spinning in his grave.

why do you think he'd be spinning in his grave?