body design

[urbansmurf]

hey all

with my explorer mostly out of the way, im gonna start working on my other project now. i was wondering if anyone had a design for a body that would go well with this headstock:

i dont want it to be a copy of any guitar, i want this guitar to be all original. any ideas would be great, thanks

[MzI]

get out a pad of paper and start sketchin, see what happens

MzI

[bob7]

wouldnt it be a copy of someone else's design if you dont draw it

[urbansmurf]

i meant i didnt want to be a manufactured look, like something gibson makes

i did a photoshop drawing, what do you think:

[GregP]

<shrug>

It looks fine. It looks like a superstrat. Can't go wrong with that.

[urbansmurf]

gah! why'd you have to go and compare it to a fender? now i have to re-draw it

[westhemann]

a superstrat is not a fender...esp m,ibanez rg,bc rich assasin,they are all superstrats.....

[urbansmurf]

ah, ok, so what exactly makes those guitars superstrats?

just the design?

[GuitarMaestro]

To be honest the only thing I don't like is the headstock shape....

[spirit]

Superstrats are made more for fast playing a la Satriani, Vai and Petrucci. They are usually a bit pointier, have faster necks, and usually hum-sing-sing or hum-sing-hum pickup configuration.

[truerussian558]

and are backrouted with no pickguard

[urbansmurf]

ah ok

thanks

[BLS]

a superstrat is not a fender...esp m,ibanez rg,bc rich assasin,they are all superstrats.....

You forgot the Jackson Soloist and Dinky

It dosent look to origanal to me, i swear ive even seen a headstock very similar to that one.

[Jivin]

i meant i didnt want to be a manufactured look, like something gibson makes

i did a photoshop drawing, what do you think:

Looks a little like something ibanez makes?

My suggestion would be either start with a basic drawing (even the one you have there will do), and start making changes to it. Look at as many guitars as you can on the net and make note of the things you like, from the body design elements right down to the layout of the controls. Then sit down and work those changes into a totally new body design, or alternatively, just work the changes into an existing body design, like the generic superstrat shape you have there.

Good luck

- Dan

[urbansmurf]

ok, thanks

ive already made the neck (thats a photo, not a drawing) but am still working on the body

thanks all, ill keep you posted

[urbansmurf]

here we go, i messed with it like you recomended and this is what i came out with:

[mynamesucks]

The new shape goes with it pretty well, with alittle little bit more alteration the shpe will be there

[Guest AlexVDL]

How about this shape?

I altered it using the push option in paint shop pro, so it became blurry

Anyways I think a model like this would look much faster because of the thin waist and sharper horns, but that's my opinion

[Drak]

I like Alex's shape the best so far, but to be honest, that body, in any of the variations shown above, looks like any generic, ho-hum cookie cutter guitar out there, I see little originality in that design.

If you're happy with that, hey by all means it's cool, but you said you were trying to design something original.

Coming up with something original takes time, effort, and work, stress the word effort. Playing around with photoshop will rarely yield anything original because the computer is doing most of the work for you.

Original and innovative designs come from pencil, paper, and -your brain- being completely 'there' and focused.

And a lot of worn out erasers.

One thing I've noticed, I've to date never seen a guitar completely built and finished that someone designed on one of those computer programs. I'm sure there's gotta be some out there somewhere, but none that I've noticed, and none that I personally thought was overly-creative.

I've designed 4 original bodies (more really, but 4 I really liked) that got taken all the way thru to a completed and playing guitar (and I use that term loosely, since there's really nothing new under the sun, I stole my basic starter ideas from somewhere else too ) so I know how much time and effort went into each one, how many re-drawn lines it takes to 'get it right', and I think those computer programs sort of 'rob' your brain of some much-needed interaction with a pencil and paper to really come up with something innovative and original.

My advice would be to go buy some pencils, erasers, poster paper, and arm yourself with some basic concepts and curves, and take it from there, and leave the computer programs on the computer if you want something really original.

Yeah, I know, who let the geezer out of his cage again, hehehe...

But you see, I look at it like this:

Someone who will accept a design that took him 1/2 hours' worth of effort on a computer program to come up with (which is pretty minimal effort as far as effort goes), well, that same person is probably likely to not spend the amount of time on the details of actually building the guitar itself either, so the time you are willing to spend in the designing of the instrument is sort of like a precurser of how much effort you will put into the actual building. It is sort of like a roadsign to your personality.

Which is why I think I seldom see any of the computer designs tossed out on these forums ever wind up as actual guitars, it's more like a 'let's build a guitar' game, it's not very serious, doesn't ask you to make any kind of committment.

You spend 3 weeks and a few dozen corrections on paper later, now -that's- a committment, that much energy spent on just the design shows that you're gonna build that guitar one day, and you're not going (or willing) to take any shortcuts.

Don't let a computer shortcut your own brains' creative powers, it's a -very- cheap tradeoff.

[GregP]

On the other hand, they might be using the computer program because it's easier to output a .jpg for members to see, instead of drawing, then scanning, then compressing, then posting.

The computer's just a tool, and in my opinion a more cumbersome rather than 'easier' one. To me, a better way of going about it would be to draw on paper with a pencil, as Drak suggested, then scan it in and 'trace' around the outside of it using a vector-drawing program such as CorelDraw or Adobe Illustrator. Then you'll have clean lines AND an original design.

However, it takes more work than either computer OR paper alone. As Drak mentioned, the more effort you're willing to put into it, the better your design could turn out.

I agree that all of the above designs so far (with Alex's being the best so far) are still just variations on a superstrat theme. Frankly, I find 'original' designs aren't something I'm overly concerned with, though-- there are plenty of designs out there that I'd like to copy... Les Paul, Steinberger 'broom' (L-series? I dunno!), tele, strat, Axis. That's just me, though, and I understand why people would like to have a purely original design.

Greg

[Drak]

I completely agree with you there, Greg, about the computer being an 'aid' to help move things along, I'm all for that, that part is fantastique.

But at some point, the line can be crossed where the computer stops being an aid and actually starts 'being' the creative force, where the operator's brain is allowed to relax (i.e. become lazy) and will 'settle' for the best the computer can do, that's the line where I think pure creativity is diminished and the computer becomes an actual hinderance in the process of pure creative thought.

By allowing the computer program to take over the captain's chair, even tho you may still be navigating, you are relegating your own brain to a back-seat view of the process. Your own brain should be in the captain's chair, with the computer simply aiding your brain. It can be a fine line to walk unless you're aware of what's going on.

I'm not trying to make a mountain out of a molehill, but I think the point of keeping yourself at a creative 'edge' and forcing yourself to be as creative as you can be is an important point, and 'sometimes' these programs can actually hold you back, not help you.

[GuitarMaestro]

@smurf: Ignore them....your original shape looked the best to me....

[spirit]

One thing I've noticed, I've to date never seen a guitar completely built and finished that someone designed on one of those computer programs. I'm sure there's gotta be some out there somewhere, but none that I've noticed, and none that I personally thought was overly-creative.

I assume you haven't seen the winner of the June Pro Division GOTM? Or at any rate, you haven't seen the design methods. Take a look at his site.

[Drak]

Hey, if thats what floats your boat, have at it then.

And I never said it didn't work, I said it can be a drawback to certain individuals.

To luthiers who have plenty of creative juices of their own and who are guiding their own ship, it's a great aid.

Kinda like giving a horse a shot of adrenaline then jumping on it.

If your an experienced and seasoned jockey, you can completely use that to your advantage and make it work for you in a big way.

For a weekend rider to do something like that, the results could be more than an enjoyable ride in the park on a Sunday afternoon, hehehe.

And you're right, I haven't seen the winner of the June GOTM.

Gotta check that out, but it won't change my mind any.

[spirit]

Oh, it's rather creative. That's the main reason it won, as I recall. Nice analogy (sp?) by the way. And, I have no doubt it won't change your opinion, but you will have seen a guitar designed using a computer!