A Question of Aesthetics

[retslock]

I suppose I could have the meaning of "aesthetic" wrong but I feel pretty confident that it does indeed mean "the way the thing looks"

You're definitely not alone… I'd like to think that anybody who actually plays their bass feels similarly. But the point here is only what things look like - not how they play or feel

Agreed. I like them to look good but I do own a couple that are less pleasing to the eye because they play and sound good.
Just a note of clarification.
Aesthetic meaning: concerning beauty and the appreciation of beauty. That means beauty in all its manifestations, not just looks. Musical appreciation is an aesthetic sensibility too.

 

[buldog5151bass]

When I first got my Lull P4, my first thought was how ugly I thought the headstock was. Then I realized how stupid I was acting. Twenty years later, I'm still playing it. It's a tool, not an accessory.

 

[GretschWretch]

Are you the candy of my eye? Or a red and swollen sty?
I cannot seem to tell, perhaps it's just as well,
For I love weird and ugly basses, and those with pretty faces, just as well.

<takes a clumsy embarrassed bow> hehe

You ought to put this on t-shirts and sell them.

 

[bholder]

To mangle something Elvis Costello once said - "talking about visual aesthetics is like dancing about architecture".

Heavy

Oh and how could I forget my Wallybird 5!!

 

[GretschWretch]

Or, in other words, these basses all live together in my bedroom:

View attachment 4644312 View attachment 4644313 View attachment 4644314 View attachment 4644315View attachment 4644316

Which are weird, which are beautiful? I dare ya! hehe

If all these are in your bedroom, then I guess there is no space for a Cougar under your bed.

 

[Snert]

I guess there is no space for a Cougar under your bed.

When I was younger, she wasn't under the bed...

Back then I'd never hear the term cougar, she was just Mrs Robinson.

 

[GretschWretch]

For four-in-lines I prefer clovers; for most 2+2 headstocks I prefer made-for-bass banjo tuners.

 

[GretschWretch]

When I was younger, she wasn't under the bed...

Back then I'd never hear the term cougar, she was just Mrs Robinson.

But I'll be your bedroom isn't/wasn't packed full of basses.

 

[Smallmouth_Bass]

I am the opposite; I find most Fender style headstocks with small tuners to look weird. I saw one on here the other day - I think it was a Tokai - and it just looked wrong to me. But overall, I think it just depends on the instrument.

The only deal breaker aesthetics for me that I can think of off of the top of my head is hockey stick headstocks. I am really not a fan of that look. I don't like how the strings are all angled at the nut either. It seems that it would put undue pressure on it.

I couldn't see myself buying a BC Rich Warlock or axe body shape (a la Gene Simmons) either.

 

[bolophonic]

Are you the candy of my eye? Or a red and swollen sty?
I cannot seem to tell, perhaps it's just as well,
For I love weird and ugly basses, and those with pretty faces, just as well.

<takes a clumsy embarrassed bow> hehe

A+

 

[dabbler]

A 2+2 headstock does not have to have the strings angle from the nut to the tuners a la a Gibson guitar.

Exactly!

 

[ardgedee]

Get a headless bass and stop worrying about it...

 

[rantbot]

I always assumed that Fender started the design with the clover tuners, then worked down, making all the other parts harmonize with those.

 

[superheavyfunk]

Racing stripes is another aesthetic I can't get behind. I liked them a lot when I was younger though.

 

[Isaac_James]

For me, I vastly prefer clover tuners over any others. Lollipop and Y shape ones just rub me the wrong way.

I also have a thing for small or invisible pole pieces. Big ones, such as the type you find on MM humbuckers, stand out too much. I also find the massive size of the MM humbucker a little off-putting. Give me soapbars or single coils, please. With black covers. Cream is hideous.

Finally... I have to admit that I don't like the Ernie Ball logo, which is maybe the only reason I've never even considered using their strings or any accessories. Completely silly, I know, but as long as we're discussing aesthetics alone...

 

[inchoate]

To mangle something Elvis Costello once said - "talking about visual aesthetics is like dancing about architecture".

Heavy

Oh and how could I forget my Wallybird 5!!

not to be that guy but...

it was Laurie Anderson who said "talking about music is like dancing about architecture."

 

[ardgedee]

not to be that guy but...

it was Laurie Anderson who said "talking about music is like dancing about architecture."

Not to be that guy, but...

She might also have said it but it was first attributed to Martin Mull, though the premise of the quote goes back to 2018: "writing about music is as illogical as singing about economics".

 

[Williethump]

In this thread, I hope to discuss things on a strictly visual level. It's not about what feels good to play or what things sound like. Strictly eye candy, dig?

The thing that made me start thinking about this is the giant tuners on my new bass. They're full size fender-style clovers, and I think they look ridiculous... Like clown shoes on tiny feet.

I went looking for fender-style headstocks with mini clovers and couldn't find any, which got me wondering about how it would look and why we don't see this often. On square(ish) headstocks, like the Gibson LP Jr for example, they're readily found but not so much on other shapes. What's up with that?

The next item on my list is chrome knurled knobs. Honestly, I think they're terribly ugly and they stick out in a weird way. Black ones are much nicer on my eyes and usually match the pickups and pickguard (if there is one) much better.

Finally, a white nut on an otherwise all black bass as well as its opposite. Both just bug me. It breaks the flow of the colour scheme. I suppose some ppl want it for that very reason but it's not for me.

So. Thoughts? Opinions? What are your aesthetic bugaboos, and why?

Standard Fender headstocks and tuners look comically oversize, I've got one and love it, MIJ and monster tone and pretty otherwise. But I laugh at it too. Sounds and looks too good to ever sell.
Those chrome knobs are heavy too, along with the giant machine heads and headstock.
Black controls just are cooler looking I agree. And no glare from all the bright gels.
White nut... nah, not much of a problem for me. It's made of bone or something isn't it?
Headstocks painted to match are a nice bonus I think. Custom look.
I like maple boards since they look cool and my bad ears can't hear any difference.
For bodies I like the polished nude ash look, but those seafoam green and light blue axes are pretty creamy looking too.
Standard sunburst finish never did much for me, the conservativism of musicians I always chalk it up to. But I can see how popular it always is.
I would and have played ugly basses, but I prefer pretty ones.

 

[inchoate]

Not to be that guy, but...

She might also have said it but it was first attributed to Martin Mull, though the premise of the quote goes back to 2018: "writing about music is as illogical as singing about economics".

As usual I stand corrected.

good sentiment though

 

[Williethump]

The big clover tuner paddles go with the fact that the headstock on a Fender is insanely large to begin with - it's a visual balance thing. But the headstock on a Fender bass is too big for the body - all of which maybe starts with the gig clunky steel tuners - the amount of real estate they take up on the back side of the headstock is silly - once you see Hipshot Ultralites, and how a very good tuner can be made in far less space, the old style Fender tuners are just an oddly designed product of a bygone era.

If you down sized EVERYTHING above the nut a bit, the whole thing would look better. The small Strat headstock works better than any of Fender's bass headstocks visually - it fits the instrument better; the body on a Precision isn't that different size wise than a Strat.

Amen brother.