The Under-stated Part - a long standing understatement is the importance of apperance. There once was this crazy belief that the more "flashy" or "cool" a guitar looks, the less "good" it will SOUND. The sound is the most important part. This was primarily aimed at fancy looking gear with a lot of controls - ie. sixties guitars trying to copy or compete with the Fender Jaguar and Jazzmaster, or the Jaguar and Jazzmaster themselves. Guitarists were not always largely "technicians" - this is a fairly RECENT invention, mostly to bolster commercialization and consumerism within the guitar community. Did anybody else see Fender or Gibson ads on the TV or YouTube before 2010? Yeah, I didn't think so. Back then, you played the guitar, and the "technician" was that friendly face at the local music store who worked on your equipment for you. About all you did was change the strings and plug it into an amplifier, and that was it.

The Over-Stated Part - However, there's an overstated part of it too, the importance of looking the part. Prior to about 1965, guitars didn't have to look a certain way to be considered a "part" of something bigger than even at times, the music itself. Les Paul? Great. Stratocaster? Yeah, I guess that's fine, looks like a spaceship! About the only restriction was most bands didn't want the guitarist stealing the show with something "funny" or "weird" like a Explorer or flying V. Then the Surf Guitarists came along, and it seems nobody knew too much what axes those were, they just knew they were shaped like gumby and had a lot of controls - so the Japanese copies, mostly from Teisco it seems, became popular because a Fender Jaguar was like...$325 in 1962 dollars (about $3000 in today's economy). Then the British Invasion happened, and all the kids wanted Rickenbackers - further bolstered by the Folkies like the Byrds who were using 12-string Ricks. Then Rickenbacker gave way to Gibson Les Pauls and Stratocasters toward the end of the 70's as the "Marshall Stack" started to gain foothold. And those guys would laugh you out of the room showing up with a Ric or a Jaguar. Then the early 70's came, things fanned out more. GIBSON was the word of the day - Humbuckers! SGs, Les Pauls, with the help of metal Flying V's and Explorers....

The best mention of it I could say is referencing various Eddie Van-Halen interviews. He played a strat, it sounded too thin, the band wanted him to get a Gibson. So he shows up with an ES-335, now the band doesn't like that he LOOKS like Roy Orbison. He plays an Ibanez Destroyer for awhile (Gibson Explorer Copy), then tosses a PAF from the ES-335 into..well..basically a Stratocaster - and boom, we get the look of the 80's. Strats with humbuckers, tremolos, and freaked out paintjobs. Then it continues into the vintage craze of the 1990's with the Blues/Surf revials, and Grunge rock using once-cheap "offets" (Jaguars, Jazzmasters, Mustangs...etc.), Gretsches, weird old Supros and cheap guitars, as well as the traditional axes which were ushered in by the late 80's rock acts "going back to their roots" with old Strats and Les Pauls - think Slash or some of these late 80's blues rock guys boomers loved. After the 90's was the Nu-Metal invasion of black, pointy, angry, shred machines, which then evolved into more refined, technology boosted variations, side by side with another run of Offsets due to "hipsters", only to split into the man-bun & Parlour acoustic thing by the 2010s with things like imagine Dragons and/or Mumford and Sons - which now has given way to a fragmented populace....which brings me to...

Nobody gives a crap. And if they do, their personal bias is showing. The biggest problem in this industry, especially in rock circles, is the idea that you need to look like someone else whose famous to "make it" - truth is, all those guys who made it: Slash, Edward Van-Halen, Jimi Hendrix, Nokie Edwards....they got famous for DOING SOMETHING DIFFERENT! And they were in another time when corporatocracy hasn't ruined everything, including music.