Does Headstock Appearance Matter To You?

[NaiRIaN]

Nope.

 

[ToneMonkey]

James Tyler's headstocks are so fugly, they musta been designed by Ray Charles.

 

[Gearhead17]

I am utterly amazed at how many people truly care about what the headstock looks like. I have never ONCE considered the headstock shape in ANY of my bass purchases. Headstocks to me are for adjustments of the strings, as long as I can do that, who cares? Who is looking at their headstock while playing?

 

[mrjim123]

Leo's the man! Fender, Music Man (except the Bongo), G&L - they're all good, a lot more sightly than, say, a Gibson 2+2 headstock. What really turns me off are headless basses - they look so aesthetically unbalanced.

Even the headstock on this tone monster is growing on me, although I would have preferred a Tele shape.

 

[osv]

Nope.
View attachment 3644936

That's beautiful!

What is it?

 

[JC2238]

If you’re referring to brand, not really as sound and playability are paramount, but if you’re buying used, the condition of the headstock is totally indicative of how the previous owner(s) took care of it. Even though it doesn’t, or shouldn’t affect the sound, if it’s beat to hell, chances are the rest was not well cared for.

 

[G On Bass]

I play only 5 strings. While I prefer a 3+2 tilt-back headstock with no string tree and straight string-pull (no angles off the nut), most of mine are 4+1, with one having a tree. I try to avoid 5 in-line ones. As far as aesthetics, I prefer rounded lines, not pointy/sharp-cornered ones. I'd love to have a cheap headless boxy-style 5 string for practicing or noodling but other than than I'm not into basses without headstock at all. To each his own and I begrudge no one their preference. But to me, it's the neck that is more important than the design of where the tuners are. A great neck with a stupid looking headstock is gonna get played before a classic headstock with an uncomfortable neck.

 

[brocket]

No. For me it’s a part of the overall aesthetics. A headstock by itself can’t improve an already bad looking bass, but it can add to an already good looking bass. I wouldn’t judge a bass by headstock alone.

 

[basslayer]

I like a lot of headstock shakes, but some put me off. I'm not a fan of G&L and Marcus Miller's jazz bass headstock shape. I like the Ibanez sounds gear and btb shapes. It's partially about the tuning machines and headstock; I prefer the Godin A4 with clovers over the smaller, more modern looking ones.

 

[ElectricBass72]

I'm not overly particular, but I like the more modern shapes that are on Ibanez, Carvin, Spector, ESP, etc. I'm not crazy about pointy "metallic" headstocks or traditional P and Jazz headstocks.... but I'll play them if they sound good.

 

[InnerBass]

As long as it doesn’t look like the tip of a spear, I’m usually good

 

[Afc70]

Headstock appearance- yes, to a degree.. for me tho, I’d say the overall aesthetics matter more- body shape, pickup configuration, wood types, bolt on neck, etc...
I’ve owned a few headless Status basses that I loved. Headstock appearance is part of the overall look of the bass, & it is a factor tho, but usually not a dealbreaker for me if I dig the bass.

 

[woodyng2]

for some reason this does t wanna make me puke

Thanks for sharing.

 

[PDGood]

I can tolerate most, just don't like the pointy ones that look like they could be used to slice open a watermelon.

 

[Bryan R. Tyler]

Absolutely. I’ve seen lots of lovely basses become a disappointment because of a lackluster headstock design.

 

[LUCE]

The ones I've had the toughest time accepting are the post lawsuit G&Ls. But the darn things are so good in every other aspect (sound, feel, build quality, options), I am willing to overlook it now. I think I have even come to admire it - now I look at the "eye gouger" as Leo's middle finger.

 

[Mike Whitfield]

Dualistic reasoning. It doesn't have to be one or the other.

You left out: sometimes and or sorta.

This, exactly. I think Peavey has the most beautiful headstock, followed by PRS & MusicMan and Aria Pro, then the very old 4-in-line & 6-in-line Univoxes, the small Fender 6-in-line, and the Martin/Gibson 2+2/3+3 in no particular order. But I also have some old 60s & 70s Japanese instruments which have hideously huge headstocks and some modern Epiphones which aren't much better. It just needs to somehow appeal to me. And I can overlook any ugly headstock if it's designed to have straight string pulls without needing string trees. So kinda sorta sometimes says it best.

 

[Mike Whitfield]

View attachment 3644298 I’m glad you created this thread, because the look of the headstock is probably my important aesthetic element. I love the general shape of the Stingrays and Sadowskys.

When I saw the shape of the Yamaha BBNE2 headstock, it was among the most important aesthetic factors in my decision to buy it. It reminds me of the Stingray type shape, but somehow tweaked to look even nicer.

I forgot that Yamaha headstock; it is indeed quite beautiful, such graceful curves.

 

[Yellow Bang66]

Just curious where people stand on this one, and feel free to post pics of your favorite common or not so common headstock.

There are many, likely amazing instruments I have passed up because of aesthetic personal preference, even my Custom Roscoe LG3005 headstock looks a little funky to me, but have kept it because there is nothing that sounds or plays better (IMHO).

I tend to like controlled rounded lines, like my current instruments minus the Roscoe, which include a Stingray 5 and Fender Jazz Deluxe 5 (pictured).

What you got?

Nah. IMHO, the headstock just has to compliment the body shape & styling. But it's not a very big deciding factor.
I used to hate the telecaster HS, they looked weird/Funky to me, (like a deformed foot.) It just looked wrong. It wasn't until much later when I was rebuilding an ebay find & decided I needed to replace the neck with custom 1 from warmoth. So I had a wide choice to choose from I was leaning away from the traditional/stock fender style HS.
anyway, while I was trying to decide what I wanted to do I stumbled across a ZZ top zideo! with dusty Hill playing a telebass with a reverse tele head stock! I thought it looked so much cooler that way! IDK maybe it was just a different POV, but I was in love! I immediately ordered 1. & i love it & every who sees it loves it!! So it just goes to show nothing is written in stone! Keep your mind open, that aesthetic is not as important as we like to think. Headstock shapes are a pretty obscure detail to get caught up with (the form usually follows function), but I understand. GL

 

[konfyouzd]

An ugly headstock will really bother me as much as I wish it didn't.

I have been looking for a headless bass that I like and it seems harder than I imagined. I never thought it would be hard to find a passive VVT headless with a JJ setup. I've found a few places that will make one but they're overseas and I tiny bit pricey.

Maybe I won't care so much about the price in 2020... *shrug*