Sorry, but, could this guitar be any uglier?

eric coleridge · Post by **eric coleridge** » Thu Jul 31, 2008 1:38 pm

It sounds like, from all the praise, that this is the best guitar ever made. It could be one of the most expensive--although, I'm sure that Moog has every intention on making an affordable 'stage' version.

But... who designed the look of this thing? I'm sorry but, it's repulsive, frankly.

Moog has such a cool, well known, simple and functional aesthetic--why did they decide to veer from that, and make a guitar that looks like an 80s Ibenez or Carvell?

In my imagination, a Moog guitar would look something more like a 'natural' 70s SG, no? Or maybe a 'natural' tele custom, with black faceplate, and Moog knobs and switches. This is obvious, c'on, get it together here.

Alien8 · Post by **Alien8** » Thu Jul 31, 2008 2:27 pm

I thought it might be along the lines of a Gibson RD...

SG would be sweet though...

batdown · Post by **batdown** » Fri Aug 01, 2008 4:00 pm

there is no way I would ever buy one

unless moog made a guitar with a stainless steel neck and body.

ColorForm2113 · Post by **ColorForm2113** » Fri Aug 01, 2008 9:18 pm

i like the way it looks, sans the gold hardware. but yeah i agree not what i expected a moog guitar to look like. i can understand them not wanting to be obvious and cliche though. i have always wanted a guitar that kinda looked like a minimoog. big bright rocker switches for each pick up (3 pickups obviously) dark natural stain, moog knobs and big black pickgaurd...basically the brian may guitar if you changed out the switches and knobs

eric coleridge · Post by **eric coleridge** » Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:05 am

yeah, again, honestly, I'm sorry-- I really think that this company has tried very hard to be true to their legacy, in the past anyway, and also to be responsive to the wishes of their customers--which is why I check into the website once and a while to see what's new. I believe they're trying to make innovative and useful products for musicians, and I think they're doing very well. But this guitar thing is a little ridiculous.
It seems like a product that's been brewing for the past 30 years or more. I've read about the gizmo and other electro-mag guitar devices that were tried in past. It looks like they've perfected this technology now--but as a guitar player-- I think they should have spent a little more time investigating what sort of aesthetic designs might be desirable to players today. This design is so off the mark. It seems like, to me anyway, most players are into vintage guitars, not vintage 80s or early 90s, but vintage from the eras that defined the electric guitar--50s, 60s, and 70s designs. Because this vintage look just happens to fit in with the aesthetic choices Moog typically makes--with their synths and effects--and possible contributes to their ongoing success-- I would have assumed they'd carry this over to any new designs they come up with.
So, I just thought it was a little weird that they decided to make a guitar for Steve Vai now, and follow a kind of glam-metal marketing vision from 25 years ago--rather than follow in the singular design direction they've managed to maintain up until now.

Everyone knows what Moogs look like, they're walnut trimmed with flat black panels and aluminum inset knobs.

narrowcaster · Post by **narrowcaster** » Mon Aug 04, 2008 8:22 am

But on the other hand, guitarists who are married to the vintage look tend to be very conservative regarding new sounds and technologies. There are exceptions, but as a rule vintage looks go with a commitment to vintage sounds, so is that the best image to use for promoting a (relatively) new kind of instrument? You still can't even get most of these players to consider active electronics! (Maybe I'm exaggerating a little, but not by much).

Also, lots of people think Zion designs are beautiful. And lots of people like 80s-style designs (hence the high-end Jackson reissues, etc., which are being bought by someone). It isn't the case that Moog decided to go with a design that's objectively ugly (there isn't such a thing anyway). They decided to align with one taste rather than another. And whichever way they went on that, they would have had to pick one. In the long run it will be nice if there are different guitar styles to choose from, but that's a later stage.

Bottom line, there is no one group who represent "players today," and there is no one "mark" to hit. Any choice they made would have pleased some people and displeased others.

eric coleridge · Post by **eric coleridge** » Mon Aug 04, 2008 12:01 pm

yeah, it's true. There are guitars and guitarists to suit every style and taste, and I'm probably being overly critical of something I would never even be able to own. So, it's pretty irrelevant what I think. But, as someone who owns and uses a lot of older and new Moog instruments-- this guitar design seems like a very bizarre direction.

Moog has a solid reputation among all kinds of musicians, it's a well known and respected brand, beyond keyboard players. I'm obviously not a marketing expert, but I would imagine that anyone who is going to shell out $7,000 for yet another guitar for their collection, is going to do so based on the idea that they're buying a special "Moog" guitar .

No one agrees with me? I guess it could be apples and oranges, but check it out: imagine if this was the new look for Moog, and they started making synths and effects in garrish neon dyes, with jagged 80s metal edges and polished brass knobs? It wouldn't seem right, or even respectful--in a way--to the company that bears Robert Moog's name, and has had a consistent--and well known-- design aesthetic for the past 40 years. No?

eric coleridge · Post by **eric coleridge** » Mon Aug 04, 2008 1:46 pm

Here, for the sake argument, is the tasteful Gibson RD with 'active Moog electronics':

Voyager:

and here, a tele custom in walnut:

MiniMoog:

and then, the zion moog:

Not trying to be a total jerk, but this is what this guitar looks like me, and I don't get it.

Ghost · Post by **Ghost** » Thu Aug 07, 2008 3:17 pm

I agree about the styling, but it's all down to personal preference i guess.

I think a Rickenbacker 650D with the Moog electronics would be great:

eric coleridge · Post by **eric coleridge** » Fri Aug 08, 2008 12:56 pm

exactly. but it's not like this guitar is just mediocre, it's horrid. Who the #### is going to play one of those green/brass knobbed $6000 guitars?

You'd have to be a complete a##hole to go anywhere near a stage with that guitar. Lou Reed notwithstanding.

It's a shame too, because I always thought that if Moog made a guitar for their Moogers, it would be the guitar I'd want to play.

hieronymous · Post by **hieronymous** » Fri Aug 08, 2008 5:57 pm

The headstock makes me think of the Parker Fly guitar more than anything else.

It would be cool if Moog and Alembic would hook up - they've both been at the forefront of music technology - but then you'd have a really expensive guitar!

Voltor07 · Post by **Voltor07** » Sat Aug 09, 2008 3:46 am

[quote="eric coleridge"]exactly. but it's not like this guitar is just mediocre, it's horrid. Who the #### is going to play one of those green/brass knobbed $6000 guitars?

You'd have to be a complete a##hole to go anywhere near a stage with that guitar. Lou Reed notwithstanding.

Actually, I kinda like the green...although the body style absolutely is horrid. That and the fact I can barely play guitar are the reasons I refuse to buy one. The knobs, BTW, are gold-plated...not brass.

God I love mrgreen!

mayidunk · Post by **mayidunk** » Wed Oct 29, 2008 3:43 pm

My humble opinion...

There are 10 finishes to choose from, so you can get more than just green. The craftsmanship looks pretty good, though that opinion comes from just looking at the pictures on the website. It's a "signature model," which may partly explain the high price (There are lots of people with more money than... well, you fill in that blank, who need to have a "collector's item" like this, especially if it's the first of its kind. I think Moog may be counting on these types of sales to give the line a leg up, as it were.)

Let Moog make their money on this. If the line remains successful, you can bet that there'll be other less expensive models coming down the pike, ones whose esthetics are a bit more mainstream. It's probably better to have original designs at this price anyway.

My $0.02,
Bob

DeFrag · Post by **DeFrag** » Wed Oct 29, 2008 4:19 pm

I like the style too.

Theremint · Post by **Theremint** » Thu Nov 06, 2008 3:51 pm

I think it looks great! The only thing I might change is a different look on the headstock and maybe give a choice on knob colors (gold, chrome, black, white?). If you want to see ugly, just type the words "ugly guitar" on google and choose images. Now there's where you can see some really scuzzy looking guitars.