Does Headstock Appearance Matter To You?

[Beej]

Matters a little to me, but I like pretty much anything that complements the instrument.

Oval String Retainer

• Beej
• Sep 25, 2019
• aluminum oval string retainer

aluminum

Entry Photos

• Beej
• Mar 20, 2019
• winter build off 2019

Entry Photos

Edit: my wife hates both of these...

 

[Mannyinnewyork]

Not so much the headstock, but the overall cosmetic package. I have a mustang bass with the classic fender headstock look, but it seems disproportionately big compared to the rest of the bass and that puts me off. So, yes the esthetics are important to me.

 

[Herrick]

Yup, headstocks matter to me. With all the good basses out there, there's no reason for me to compromise on looks and sound.

On the other hand, headstocks don't matter to me because I only play my Kiesel VB5 these days.

 

[rufus.K]

Overall aesthetics of the bass dont matter... paint can be shiney and new or beat. Stickers dont matter, same with a dirty fretboard.
The headstock shape... cant say why, but some are so hideous that i am repulsed.

 

[mongo2]

While my favorite headstock shape is the original '51 P style, I never let a headstock shape stop me from buying a good instrument. I find the "dolphin" nose headstock shape of my Silvertone Model 1444 to be considerably less than attractive but I use the bass all the time.

 

[Chrisk-K]

Aesthetics absolutely matter to me when it comes to any musical instruments, cars or women.

 

[Holdsg]

I love this headstock, because it's signed by one of my bass luthier heroes.

 

[gotly]

Looks matter. I love how Ibanez plays/feels/sounds but I can’t get over the looks. Fender headstocks look great and squareish 2x2s like Wal.

 

[buldog5151bass]

When I first looked at my Lull about 14 years ago, it struck me as being ugly (after two decades playing and a lifetime looking at Fenders.

After that first look, and daily playing since then, it has never entered my mind. If the shape of a headstock is a determining factor on whether you get an instrument, perhaps you should re-consider priorities...

 

[commonplayer]

The only reason I’ve never tried a G&L is because the headstocks look terrible imo

 

[Bahjark]

I play a Steinberger and Peavey Foundations. I must not care. I think the Peaveys have a dorky headstock, and the steiney looks ugly

 

[Eddie LeBlanc]

A what was the question.....

 

[CatchaCuda]

I definitely prefer a 4+1 or 3+2/2+3 over inline 5.

I feel the same way.

 

[monsterthompson]

Absolutely.
My basses are each in the premium price zone. They each sound fantastic, but for my playing needs I could survive with owning just one. The look was part of my purchase for my “additional/surplus” basses and if I didn’t like the looks, I could’ve easily passed and been fine. I’m in a fairly fortunate position here.

That said, if I could only own one bass, the looks would still matter to me. The market is full of variety these days, so if I couldn’t find a bass in my price range that looked and sounded acceptable, I’d seriously need to reconsider buying a bass at all.

 

[nnnnnn]

Yes it matters, but I don't often see headstock shapes that I dislike enough that I wouldn't buy the instrument so in practice it's not really a factor.

 

[Watchootognbout]

An ugly headstock is usually attached to an ugly bass.
And I do not suffer either lightly.

 

[2tonic]

Yes, it's very important to me, as an integral component of the overall aesthetic of the instrument.
Usual quick peek at a bass goes something like:
1. Body shape/PU configuration.....
2. Neck construction/Truss rod access...
3. Headstock shape/function/color
Some are a perfect compliment to the overall design.
Some are quirky but work.
Some I can't abide. Like G&L.
Sorry, but just can't stand it.
I know they're quality basses, much loved by many here, but it could sound and play like an Alembic and I'd still pass on it.
That headstock shape reminds me of all the horrible basses imported from Italy, Japan, Korea, and, Lord knows, where else during the 60's and early 70's.
The Tiesco's, Kay's, Silvertone's, and myriad others.
I can appreciate the fine fit and finish of a G&L, run my hand down that smooth and slender neck, understand the tonal flexibility of it's electronics, but then my eyeballs hit that headstock and it's a hard pass.

Always felt that St. Leo was forced into it because it couldn't look like classic Fender or Music Man.
However, IMHO, he should have continued to explore his options.

 

[Dincrest]

Like others, I'm more about how the shape of the headstock complements the rest of the bass. For example, a vintage looking headstock would not look right to me on a sleek modern bass and vice versa.

That said, my favorite "unconventional" headstock is easily Skjold. Home

 

[logdrum]

I do worry sometimes about Carvins with pointy headstocks that can possibly crack the skin on you head or hurt you body and bony facia more easily than a rounded or blunt headstock. I like Carvins though and will probably round off a headstock that is pointy. JB5 is rounded thank god/goddess* ( *used as a figure of speech not religiously)

 

[DavidEdenAria]

The neck is the important thing on any guitar....i agree some headstocks look better than others but recently i painted the front of the headstock black on a Bronco to match the body but left the outline of the maple on the edges...the Squier logo looks awful imo and with a maple board that is too light in color, i had to paint the headstock black!