Headstock Bias

[Hop Jam]

I have a completely baseless, nonsensical, and unfair bias against the G&L headstock shape. Several other non-Fender or non-2+2 headstock shapes suffer from a similarly superficial encumbrance to a full embrace in my admittedly flawed estimation. I once felt the same way about the Ernie Ball Music Man 3+1 thing but that has slowly evolved through the acceptable and into the desired category because my bias does not seem to hold up to multiple encounters with fine instruments.

Is this a common neurosis? Yes, yes, I know - we should all be focused only on such pure musical elements as tone and feel, but I find myself after all a bit priggish about these matters.

 

[bholder]

Hard to say whether the G&L "hook" or the Sire "topknot" are the more neurosis-triggering headstock shapes, both get a lot of (imho, silly) hate. Though there are headstock shapes out there too extreme for me, neither of those is.

 

[Solarmist]

I voted yes, but it won't be a deal breaker. I like both 4 inline, and 2x2, but preferably small ones.

 

[bigdaddybass12]

I am partial to fender or musicman style headstocks.

 

[buldog5151bass]

The first time I saw my Lull headstock I hated it, but after playing for 2 minutes I realized how stupid that was.

 

[M.R. Ogle]

After tuning up, I don't even think about it. At all.

 

[Watchootognbout]

I don't buy a bass that doesn't have a 3+3 headstock.

 

[Bassclef46]

The G&L headstock is strategically designed as a middle finger to fender.

 

[beaglesandbass]

I have a completely baseless, nonsensical, and unfair bias against the G&L headstock shape. Several other non-Fender or non-2+2 headstock shapes suffer from a similarly superficial encumbrance to a full embrace in my admittedly flawed estimation. I once felt the same way about the Ernie Ball Music Man 3+1 thing but that has slowly evolved through the acceptable and into the desired category because my bias does not seem to hold up to multiple encounters with fine instruments.

Is this a common neurosis? Yes, yes, I know - we should all be focused only on such pure musical elements as tone and feel, but I find myself after all a bit priggish about these matters.

There's nothing wrong with having preferences in aesthetics, whether it be headstock shape or finish color. If I am going to buy an instrument, I want to like looking at it.

 

[Picton]

I can see where the OP is coming from. I want a little flair on a headstock. I'm a Fender guy most of the time, and I feel the original narrow Stratocaster headstock is probably one of the top examples of industrial design ever.

So, naturally, I own not a single Strat.

I do have a bias for on-a-side headstocks. I love FMIC, Reverend, G&L, and Peavey. For 2x2, I like Rickenbacker's 4001 wave design. For the rest? Gibson, Epi, and Martin guitar headstocks do nothing for me: too boring. Alembic and the Gibson Grabber bass headstocks are puke-inducing to me.

I guess I prefer an asymmetric headstock, in general.

 

[Diminishedfilth]

Between 2 brands, with all things being equal, I admit it would matter to me. Like others have said, it's not a deal breaker.
In the past, though, I thought the Fender 4+1 headstock was hideous. Years later, my AM Jazz 5 is now my main bass.
As far as my favorites... among inline headstocks, it would Sadowski. 2+2/3 headstocks would be Spector and Warwick's Gumby design... most of the others remind me of a graveyard fence post.

 

[bolophonic]

Some headstocks look good, some do not. I would never buy a bass with a headstock I didn't like.

 

[mikewalker]

I Like attractive headstocks, and dislike ugly ones. (Granted - that is subjective)
I also go for extremes - either huge and perhaps garish/outlandish headstocks - or headless basses.

 

[aus_bass]

Not fussed so much about the shape. It's the sideways break angle on the strings, I can't handle. For me, it's got to be a straight line from the saddle to the tuning post.

 

[Pings Bass]

I voted no. Form follows function. Fender style is cheaper to manufacture, but functionally provides a suboptimal string break angle at the nut.

But I could have voted yes, because I'm conditioned to see the 4 inline fender headstock as the "correct" look for a bass guitar, in spite of its functionally inferior design.

I'm a man of contradictions. That's where the truth and beauty lie.

 

[Koshchei]

How could it not? This design is a thing of beauty.

 

[Deleted member 165050]

2+2 or 3+2 for me. Never really liked inline although I do own a couple.

 

[Herrick]

Does headstock shape matter to Herrick? Yes.

 

[dalkowski]

I also don't care for the G&L bottle opener, but I'll get over it when I unbelt for a Fallout Tribute.

 

[StatesideRambler]

Headstock shape is pretty low on the scale of shudder-inducing designs. If everything else about the bass works I'm quite forgiving of unappealing headstock shapes. Given two or more closely comparable basses the one(s) with the ugly headstock(s) will give way to the others but one would have to be pretty nasty to eliminate a good bass from consideration.