I sold all my gear that I didn’t like aesthetically. I even sold the virus b model, because I couldn’t enjoy looking at it on my table. To me this is one of the most important aspects when purchasing any type of electronics or music gear. But, that’s just me. I have always been against utility first outlook.
It still didn’t stop me from owning some gear that just sounded good. But couldn’t keep it in the end.
It’s a complex relationship and a personal one, but I also care a lot about the aesthetics of gear, it’s a big part of the experience - ultimately you’re engaging an instrument with multiple senses - sound may be the predominant one but it’s never the only one. Even in a live performance someone might choose a particular guitar due to the way it handles or looks on stage regardless of how it sounds.
I think it becomes difficult when it’s framed as one over the other when in most cases the person making the item has probably balanced the two as best as they can or to the level they see fit. Nobody intentionally releases something that looks good but that works poorly, it would have probably worked just as poorly if they made it look bad. The two things can be mutually exclusive.
But thinking of instruments as purely functional devices seems very utilitarian to me, especially for something that often demands an emotional connection (not that utilitarian approaches themselves can’t be aesthetically pleasing, but that’s us back round in the circle).
There are also interesting biases like the Aesthetic Usability effect which can make more nicely designed products feel more usable, even if they aren’t.
Very nice write up!
For me it has to be the whole package. And this does not mean that it has to be perfect in every regard. At the very least, It needs to jointly:
I am a hobbyist. I enjoy music machines and enjoy making sounds for the sake of making them. So all of the above enhances my free time beautifly.
When I need utility, then I will just use a DAW and plugins, but even there I tend to go with things that please me visually and in their workflow (like Reason for creation and fabfilter plugins for mixing).
For the sake of it, I will list some products that I SUBJECTIVELY don’t use because of their aesthetics and/or workflow, even though I realize that objectively they are great:
This Synth is beautiful. Roland should make a re-issue just like Korg did for the miniKORG 700.
I couldn’t agree more. You connect with your instruments at multiple levels and senses, it’s not just your ears that interact with it. I sometimes look at my Syntakt and smile because of how it feels in my hands. And I sometimes just turn it on to see all the lights from the buttons one last time before going to bed. I realize I must sound like a lunatic. But that’s what a beautifully designed instrument does to me.
The JP4 is much maligned for its appearance but once you’ve owned one you can forgive its looks and dodge switch positioning. It’s a bit like the Jaguar XJS…panned at launch it’s grown into its body and and now has a dedicated following.
Ps, the cat is missing from that pic
I agree, it is the sound that makes it beautiful, and it because of its tones that I look at it fondly. Same thing with the Korg 700 mentioned above. A dated synth design that remains attractive not for its looks but for its musical potential and playability. Some instrument designs are not necessarily desirable (especially not from a let’s have one in the living room-perspective) but nevertheless mesmerizing.
I had the JP4 in the living room for a while as a focal point. Amongst many other synths at different times.