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.
What's your Preference on Headstocks?
- Thread starter AmazingGracePlayer
- Start date
I'm not picky when it comes to headstock design, although I must admit that I always liked the 4+1 (and 3+1) configurations for 5- and 4-stringers. The headstock is not an issue when buying a bass, though. If the bass feels good and delivers what I want, then the headstock is fine with me. 
... Hmmm I prefer that they HAVE a headstock.
... My moto is "No air up there" ...
I dislike overly bulky headstocks. I think you need just enough mass out there for good tone and stability, but too much can make a bass needlessly neck-heavy and ungainly looking.
To my eye, Fender-style in-line headstocks look like giant, clumsy Stratocasters.
I definitely prefer the elegant look, feel, and superior breaking angle over the nut of a tilt-back design with a nicely shaped volute. I'd never buy a bass that relied on the afterthought use of stringtrees; I think they indicate an unacceptable shortcut in headstock design and fabrication.
These work for me:
To my eye, Fender-style in-line headstocks look like giant, clumsy Stratocasters.
I definitely prefer the elegant look, feel, and superior breaking angle over the nut of a tilt-back design with a nicely shaped volute. I'd never buy a bass that relied on the afterthought use of stringtrees; I think they indicate an unacceptable shortcut in headstock design and fabrication.
These work for me:
for it it doesn't get any better than an Elrick headstock (even though I hate the ones on the NJ's!)
for it it doesn't get any better than an Elrick headstock (even though I hate the ones on the NJ's!)
Looks nice, it's like a hybrid between Warwick and Monarchs.
I voted short. My preference is medium, angled back (no trees or retainers), and finished to match the body:
[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]
Ken
[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]
Ken
This poll does not make any statistical sense. If we can vote for more than one option--i.e. I voted for short and wide headstocks, which I take to mean a headstock that is both short and wide, not short headstocks or wide headstocks--than your data seems sort of meaningless.
And...I sort of don't care what the headstock is like dimension wise as long is it flows with the rest of the bass and isn't overtly huge or terribly ugly.
-Alex
And...I sort of don't care what the headstock is like dimension wise as long is it flows with the rest of the bass and isn't overtly huge or terribly ugly.
-Alex
I quite like the Warwick headstock, angled tuners are very classy!
However, headless is the boy, give me a headless bass anyday!
However, headless is the boy, give me a headless bass anyday!
People with some sense will probably understand better... A Fender headstock is LONG, Ibanezes are NARROW, Warwicks are SHORT AND WIDE, etc, etc. If someone likes Warwicks, then he/she would vote Short AND Wide. And if someone likes all headstock sizes, he/she can vote for all of them (which is why I didn't put a carrots option)
No need to hate, I was just trying to let you know that your data is skewed, because if you make assumptions that the votes for short and wide go together, your data would no longer be valid. Plus, if people who liked warwick-style headstocks voted for both short and wide, those two options would have the same number of votes and they don't. It is also possible that someone might like long and wide headstocks, such as old Guild ones maybe (like my Starfire)--I could have voted that way, but I don't really care all that much.
It's not really worth debating, plus I wouldn't want to further pummel you into the abyss of Talkbass shame... (jk, no offense
)-Alex
No need to hate, I was just trying to let you know that your data is skewed, because if you make assumptions that the votes for short and wide go together, your data would no longer be valid. Plus, if people who liked warwick-style headstocks voted for both short and wide, those two options would have the same number of votes and they don't. It is also possible that someone might like long and wide headstocks, such as old Guild ones maybe (like my Starfire)--I could have voted that way, but I don't really care all that much.
It's not really worth debating, plus I wouldn't want to further pummel you into the abyss of Talkbass shame... (jk, no offense
-Alex
Good thing you didn't get offended, it was meant to be a joke.
I'm not offended. It was a condescending comment, joke or not, that I for the most part ignored. Relax. Back to arguing about headstocks...
-Alex
-Alex
Ibanez SR is my fave. Small, but not overly small, they just blend well with the bodies, slick and slim. So anything in that category gets my vote.
Not too fond of the 'frying pan' warwick headstock though. Plus, it makes for heavy heads, although I like the angled tuners. I don't like the Fender / MM style either, I prefer a balanced look.
Not too fond of the 'frying pan' warwick headstock though. Plus, it makes for heavy heads, although I like the angled tuners. I don't like the Fender / MM style either, I prefer a balanced look.
