Does Headstock Appearance Matter To You?

[JimmyM]

Someone here is upset about his beloved PJ config, oh my... lol

Only one of us is upset with my PJ 5-string, and it ain't me. But hey, good projection.

 

[GIBrat51]

I have never, ever, been influenced one way or the other by a bass' headstock - or even the lack of one... Like the instrument itself; it is what it is - no more, no less. I will be the first to agree that, for a lot of basses, the headstock is part of that instrument's iconic look, but I have the basses I have for what they are, and how they sound - not what the headstock looks like. I would have a Rick, or a T-Bird - or my Alembic - regardless...

 

[Bass V]

who wants a sexy car with ugly bumpers? basses are meant to have complimentary headstocks

 

[La Faro]

Besides the BIG truss rod cover, this is one fine design of a headstock... I noticed the aluminum ( or stainless, who knows... ) nut. Also the design looks like very close to Washburn, i guess.

View attachment 3644775

Nice balance of form and function. It really shouldn't be that difficult. What's an efficient layout for the tuners that line up with the string spacing of the nut, make a little space to the name/logo, and embellish the shape a little.

 

[Smallmouth_Bass]

Yes, it matters to me. But I also like many different designs and variations. In most instances, it wouldn't be a deal breaker for me.

That being said, I probably couldn't do the hockey stick headstocks (80's Charvel, Carvin, Jackson, Kramer, etc...). I am not particularly fond of the G&L hook, although some seem more pronounced than others. I am also not a fan of 5 in-line headstock 5-strings.

 

[Tom Bomb]

Hate to say it but I'm afraid so. Fickle I know. It's just the visuals though. If it sounds good and plays well it could look like a burnt sausage and it wouldn't worry me. Given the choice, I invariably go with plain Jane headstocks. No. Not true. There was this one time

Some differ only marginally — these are the ones that always grate the most, initially. But I've come to love them too. Silly really but it's just aesthetics. No need to over-analyze.

 

[SteveHeissner]

I like the Mike Lull head stock. It looks sleek and aerodynamic. It's ideal for bassists who run fast while playing music.

 

[Baa]

I voted for option three, but this is by far my favourite headstock design

 

[DWBass]

Aesthetics absolutely matter to me.

This!

 

[Gunga Din]

When it comes to Fender-style basses, it sort of bothers me. I disliked the post-'lawsuit' Levinson Blade shape though they seem to be less severe nowadays.

 

[Dragan]

I find these results amazing. As I write this, nearly 2 out of 3 bass players consider the appearance of their headstock important. I challenge you two-thirds (you know who you are) to put your bass away at the end of a gig and then ask anyone who heard you to describe your headstock, or even name its color. I guarantee you that even the bassists in your audience won't be able to tell you.

Thread is about Does headstock appearance matters to YOU, not audience.

 

[Nashrakh]

I like the poll results. Most people would apparently forego playability and sound to avoid a compromise in cosmetics. Sounds about right, just like choosing your S.O. lol.

 

[Frank77]

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?

Yes, it matters to me. Of course, this is completely subjective...

• I'm a G&L fan and actually like the good ol' "eye gouger", others can't stand it.
• I don't really like Kiesel / Carvin, D. Lakin and Lull's headstock on their P / J type basses, others like it.
• Pointy stuff? Just say no.

Lately though, my favorite headstock style has been no headstock at all...

 

[Scootbass1]

Headstock shape does not matter to me at all, neither does body shape. First for me is tone, then Ergonomics. If it sounds good and is comfortable on a strap then next is can it be setup to my preference. One thing that does bother me sometimes is having the truss rod adjuster at the heel of the neck and having to remove the neck to adjust the thing. So most of my basses have the adjustment at the headstock, or no truss rod at all with the Steinberger basses I own. I have 4 and 5 inline, 2X2, 3X1, 3X2, 4X4 and 6X6 headstocks as well as headless basses. It all boils down to tone, ergonomics, and setup for me. Appearance is a criteria way down the line for me. If the bass makes me happy then I do not care what it looks like. Just my personal take on the question at hand.

 

[zubrycky]

I don't care about headstocks. That said, I prefer the wackier ones. Fender bores me to death.

 

[Lowbrow]

I am a 40-year G&L owner but regardless of my fandom I am really put off by the ‘hook’ headstock.

 

[Corevalay]

I didn't think it mattered to me until I recently started looking into G&L. I REALLY don't like the headstock and it's probably the reason I won't own one of those basses.

 

[Bassdirty]

It doesn't, until it does. I wouldn't buy a bass because of a headstock, but I might not buy a bass because of a headstock.

Exactly this. ^^^
and, no offense to anyone that like these, but, IMO, these Deans are a bit much. And I loved the BC richs in the 80s, but the headstock cant be huge and "gaudy"(the body can though) .

T$

 

[CoffeeLove]

Those are some wild headstocks gentlemen, glad we can all find something we like.

 

[rtslinger]

No never is my vote. not important to me