Here is my '89 Fury very similar in appearance to the 'new" Ursa Head-stock:
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
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.
Hate the new SX headstock?
- Thread starter mmbongo
- Start date
Nice Fury! While the HS is very similar, yours has classy black pinstriping around the edge, a blacked-out trussrod cover and small, classy lettering. It looks 100x better than the new SX HS. AFAIK, SX currently only makes one new HS bass that has a matching, painted HS. That would be the LPB one. That doesn't look half bad at all. If they offered more matching painted HS's I think people would like the new HS a lot more.
I like the older Peaveys for the price and most of em are still in excellent to gr8 shape. The price is gr8 too ranging from $100 to $300 for Furys anyway ( like my 2 Furys '89 - '91). Some go for even cheaper than that. That is not to say I wouldn't buy an SX esp if the offered painted HS. I do like the older HS better but it would not prevent a purchase on my part.
A little late to get back to this, sorry. I didn't use Photoshop for the rounded pic, I used some freeware called IrfanView. Not bad for some things, but kinda tedious.
I also thought of doing a tele-bass shape on the headstock, and tried to edit my original photo to show that, but the results were pretty rough. What it did show though, was that there's not much headstock left with the new Ursa headstock if one was to do the Tele-thing to it.
Anyways, since I posted the first pic, I've stripped the vintage finish off the neck, cut, rounded, and sanded the headstock to pretty much what the edited picture shows.
Haven't had a chance to take any pics yet, but I will soon.....
You'll need glasses for my SX:
http://www.talkbass.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=157206&d=1266486180
Okay, I wasn't happy with the one I did before, but now I have Photoshop so my rough attempt isn't nearly as rough. Still didn't spend too much time on it but this one is definitely easier to imagine than my previous "attempt".
Personally I do find them ugly. Then again, I find Fenders ugly too. And I find Soundgears ugly, and Warwicks...the list could go on and on. There are very few basses I actually think are "pretty".
BUT... frankly? The thing could look like the Mothman and if it sounded and felt good? I'd still play it and be glad the thing sounded and felt good. Looks are the absolute bottom rung of things that are "essential" for me in a bass. I'm not sure why so many people are hung up on the headstock anyway. It doesn't affect the bass in any way shape or form. And it's not all that different than some "botique" headstocks I've seen people rave about, quite frankly.
/shrug
BUT... frankly? The thing could look like the Mothman and if it sounded and felt good? I'd still play it and be glad the thing sounded and felt good. Looks are the absolute bottom rung of things that are "essential" for me in a bass. I'm not sure why so many people are hung up on the headstock anyway. It doesn't affect the bass in any way shape or form. And it's not all that different than some "botique" headstocks I've seen people rave about, quite frankly.
/shrug
Good points.
First, let me say, that the new design isn't killing me. There are much worse.
But....heres the thing, I could be wrong, but IMHO, the old SX headstock kinda 'fit in' with some classic, popular and desired headstock designs, like Fender, Lakland, and Music Man. And some of the european SX releases were a dead ringer for the Fender 'stock. Accepted mainstream looks, at a glance. Which also leads to the 'flow' of the instrument; as in the headstock fits the body design.
It did.
Now, it's alot more distinctive, and tends to stand away from the models it emulates. A nice, curvy familiar body, topped off with a somewhat pointy headstock. It worked in the '80's, but this is now. Those Peaveys do look nice, but.....
The 'flow' for these SX's seems to be gone, for some people.
I can understand that.
Yeah, I agree in principle that even if it 'looked like the Mothman and if it sounded and felt good', that we should be glad it did. But with all the options out there that we have available today, we can usually find something else that plays as well. For me personally, those Warlock, Dean Dimebag, and 'Spider' basses; I wouldn't be caught dead playing one, no matter how great they played. Even as a lefty these days, there are other options.
I'm not terribly hung up on the new SX headstock myself; in my original post, I stated that I could live with it easily.
Yet, I went ahead and hacked it up, and rounded the headstock off.
Go figure.
SX's have been called a 'platform for modification', so, that's what I did.
Maybe I just wanted to see if I could get the 'flow' back.
Don't know if I did, but it's done.
^ this. :scowl:
I'm glad I'm a man. I don't worry about such things. My haircut is purely functional, and I don't care what it looks like. My clothes are purely functional, and I don't care what they look like. My bass is purely functional, and I don't care what it looks like. If I felt inclined to do so, I'd go get one of those metallic pink Daisy Rock basses and rock the crap out of it. I'll wager it would cost more and not play as well as the SX.
Besides, I don't hear music with my eyes.
I can listen to a recording and tell you that the bass used was a Jazz, but I sure as hell can't tell you what shape the headstock was.BTW, bass # 3 ordered from Rondo tonight - URSA 5-string fretless jazz in tobacco sunburst.
I wish I had never gotten rid of that Brice 6-string fretless I had, but it was to fund another bass purchase. I wish these had no fretlines, but I'm not buying it for looks. I wish they had ash body, because it's all about the tone. Still, looking forward to the arrival of my new bass!
Wow SX really nerfed their headstock . . .
Looks like old and busted FTW over the new hotness.
I like the old "Fendery" one than the new pointed 80's glam rock guitar one.
in the vast selection of price ranges and options for good playing AND good looking basses, SX will lose a few customers.
Sam Butcher's idea really works though. Take it in to wood shop . . .
Looks like old and busted FTW over the new hotness.
I like the old "Fendery" one than the new pointed 80's glam rock guitar one.
in the vast selection of price ranges and options for good playing AND good looking basses, SX will lose a few customers.
Sam Butcher's idea really works though. Take it in to wood shop . . .
For me, the first taste of an instrument is with the eyes. It might sound and feel great, but you're not even going to pick it up to find out how good it feels or sounds if it doesn't look good.
I liked the old SX's, the new ones just look cheap in a nasty 80's throwback way. We all know they're decent basses at a good price, hence they shouldn't look like cheapo crap. And the new headstock is most certainly a dealbreaker for me. I was actually looking to buy three SX's (a P, and two 5-string Js, fretted and fretless), but I'll be taking my money elsewhere now.
Didn't Kurt from Rondo used to post here regularly? Doesn't he know that the new headstock design is rather unpopular?
Just as a caveat, on the other end of the scale, I think the Alleva-Coppolo headstock is blobby and ugly too.
I liked the old SX's, the new ones just look cheap in a nasty 80's throwback way. We all know they're decent basses at a good price, hence they shouldn't look like cheapo crap. And the new headstock is most certainly a dealbreaker for me. I was actually looking to buy three SX's (a P, and two 5-string Js, fretted and fretless), but I'll be taking my money elsewhere now.
Didn't Kurt from Rondo used to post here regularly? Doesn't he know that the new headstock design is rather unpopular?
Just as a caveat, on the other end of the scale, I think the Alleva-Coppolo headstock is blobby and ugly too.
The new headstock is hideous. I see something like this and I think it's damn cool...til I get to the headstock, and it's like, "Okay, no!" Link Removed
I am joining this thread WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY late so this point might have been made but...
This headstock resembles the old "cake-cutter" headstock found on Guild Pilot basses. It worked on the old Guilds but it is attrociously hideous on the SX.
I suspect Kurt had no control over the change in design and that it was just something his supplier opted to do so he got stuck with it.
A shame...
This headstock resembles the old "cake-cutter" headstock found on Guild Pilot basses. It worked on the old Guilds but it is attrociously hideous on the SX.
I suspect Kurt had no control over the change in design and that it was just something his supplier opted to do so he got stuck with it.
A shame...
yes the old vintage look was better but how many old headstocks and basses are here and people love them? why all the drama for the new headstocks? dont like them do the same that Fenders haters have to do, just dont buy them you have like 200,s other brands to choose, just my 2, cents, bye have a good nite LOL
The Fender Precision is the best headstock of all times. The new SX looks cheap. For the guys who don't care what a headstock looks like, do you care what your car looks like... or your clothing?
