Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Why does Fender's headstock look "right"?
- Thread starter JoshuaTSP
- Start date
good question.. most companies either have
1. a really ugly headstock
2. one that we dont notice, but its usually very close to a fender-ish thing
its probably that its a distinct shape, thats very, very common- and on top of that its been around for longer than most companies, i guess were just accustomed to seeing it, so other shapes look "off" unless its done really well.
1. a really ugly headstock
2. one that we dont notice, but its usually very close to a fender-ish thing
its probably that its a distinct shape, thats very, very common- and on top of that its been around for longer than most companies, i guess were just accustomed to seeing it, so other shapes look "off" unless its done really well.
+1
In addition, Mr. Fender built a very functional product. Not flashy, but functional. The headstock works! I like that......
When form follows function, you usually have good results.
I was always shunned away by those massive head stocks. I prefer abnormal, subtler ones like Warwick.
However, the Squier Vintage Modified Jazz Bass is just gorgeous.
However, the Squier Vintage Modified Jazz Bass is just gorgeous.
I assume you're referencing the later P/J-bass headstock. The "because it was first" isn't entirely true, as the headstock on the original P-bass isn't that much of an icon.
I think the reason is that nearly every rock/soul/country band of any import from the late 50's to the late 80's had a bass player that used a Fender bass. That pretty much makes the Fender headstock an icon.
I think the reason is that nearly every rock/soul/country band of any import from the late 50's to the late 80's had a bass player that used a Fender bass. That pretty much makes the Fender headstock an icon.
While Leo was a visionary, he did his share of 'borrowing.'
Just throwing it out there.......
It's simple, it's functional, it's elegant. Add cloverleaf tuners and you've got perfection.
It is THE quintessential four-in-line headstock.
As far as their five-in-line headstock... looks wrong to me. But the 4+1 is smooth.
It is THE quintessential four-in-line headstock.
As far as their five-in-line headstock... looks wrong to me. But the 4+1 is smooth.
Don't forget it looks pretty sweet with 6-in-line guitar tuners on a Strat, too, which pre-dates its use on the Precision.
Early in the market, used consistently since the '50's, great iconic marketing, cross-over with the Strat, and it is functional in that the shape dampens resonances that cause dead spots. Add in the track record of the guitars and basses using that headstock, and what's not to love? If I were to get one tattoo, it would probably be that silhouette.
The Fender headstock incorporates the divine proportion (golden mean - golden ratio). This is why it looks "right". It's a smart and attractive design, whereas, the Bigsby headstock mentioned earlier is a hideous, overdone mess.
Wikipedia - Golden Ratio
Wikipedia - Golden Ratio
- Jul 30, 2006
- 2,315
- 453
- Disclosures
- Endorsing artist:Regenerate Guitar Works Carvin, Micheal Kelly Guitars
It kinda looks like a treble clef Squashed. I guess it looks right because we've been looking at it so long.
i always figured it mimics the side profile of a double bass.
at first i didn't like them because they were so huge but i don't have a problem with them now.
at first i didn't like them because they were so huge but i don't have a problem with them now.
We have no one even slightly familiar with industrial design--or design in general? Nothing "just looks right".
I've got a bit of a design background. Now that you mention the golden ratio bit, I recognize it.
Part of me wishes I decided to go to school for industrial design, but I'm digging the work I'm doing these days.
I've actually never thought that the Fender headstock looked "right". I also started on Ibanez basses and with virtually no other bassists in my social sphere. "Right" rarely means much more than "common" unless there's some sort of adaptive importance/significance behind it. In this case, unless there were headstocks millennia ago in our adaptive environments, it's just the one most commonly thought of.
If it's true, it's interesting that it somehow involves the golden ratio in its design.
If it's true, it's interesting that it somehow involves the golden ratio in its design.
