• 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 freeLog in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

When will Spector (and other brands) start making headless basses?

Jason Bonilla

Supporting Member
Mar 15, 2021
1,021
3,012
I see Korg has been making moves at Spector and bringing them up to speed. they've added alot more options to their custom shop in terms of finishes and electronics, roasted necks, body chambering. Even going multiscale with the korean NS Dimension. Spector though once one of the big innovators of Bass had become almost a heritage brand like Rickenbacker and fender, only offering the same thing they had for years (thats not to say that what Spector was offering was bad by any means). I currently have no Spectors of my own but went through a good few of them and can whole-heartedly say they have cemented themselves as one of if not my favorite bass brand.

Though I didn't have my headless Status for very long, I can say one thing, headless is definitely the future, on the merits of comfort and balance alone, it definitely makes playing alot. I know headless basses have been a thing since the 80s, but its finally catching on as something more than a gimmick. Ibanez and Kiesel have been bringing them into more hands and lots of small builders are focusing on headless designs and people are eating them up. I'm also not claiming that headed basses and guitars will disappear altogether, nor do I want them to, in-fact I know first hand that headed basses can have magnificent balance (look at Dingwall), but I think the shift is coming and any brands that focus on behind modern should start to focus on developing a nice headless to get a piece of the pie.

I don't think it'll be too long before Yamaha, starts offering some headless basses, look at Nathan Easts Custom shop 6. And I know Sheldon Dingwall like to make sure his stuff is expertly engineered so it might bee a while before we see a headless Dingwall, but I do think they should jump on the bandwagon as well. I think Spectors would really benefit from offering something headless as well because, if I'm honest, unless the body weighs a ton, they're pretty terribly balanced basses. I know that every year theres an increasing amount of people that will refuse to buy a bass if its not headless or featherweight. I honestly like the feel and sound of heavier basses (I do believe weight can contribute to sound), and from my experience with the the Status headless I had, even a bass thats not terribly light feels great and easier on the shoulders if its balanced well, that bass was around 9 pounds but felt much lighter when I played it. I love the rock solid feel of a Spector body, I can imagine they could make a nice solid body feel much better by making it headless. I don't dislike chambered bodies but it does definitely affect the sound in my experience. I'd much rather have a more solid headless bass than a chambered headed one though.

Just thinking out loud. What do you all think about more brands offering headless basses?
BTW- My main player is a Yamaha BBNE2 (absolutely bonkers bass) that Balances like a dream, making the 9 plus pounds of it a lot easier on me, but I do often wonder if id really purchase another headed bass over the increasing number of headless basses.
 
This is such an interesting question.
The whole idea of "legacy" brands vs. "innovation" brands is a tricky and constantly-moving target.

Take an obvious "legacy" brand like Fender. Nobody seems to be calling for a headless J-bass from them.
However, they have introduced quite a few "modern" products aimed at the developing market: the Dimension bass, for example, but also digital modeling amps,
etc., as well as "modern" refinements to their classic product line (active EQs, high-mass hardware, etc.)
They try to "innovate" as best they can, but if they push too far they alienate their audience. Case in point: nobody really seemed to want the Dimension bass.

Spector is a great example of a brand that is really iconic for one design - the NS bass. Through their history under four incarnations (Original Spector, Kramer era, SSD/New Spector, and now Korg),
the NS has been basically the one thing that people have wanted from them. Sure, there have been other models (the Coda J-bass, Kenmare guitar, etc.) but those were on the fringe - I would be willing
to bet that in any of the ownership eras, at least 85% of the production has been NS basses. (Except the initial SSD period, when Kramer still owned the rights to the NS shape...during which Stu was producing
a different shape called the SD, which did not sell very well.)

This makes me wonder - do people who want Spectors really want a headless one? And, conversely - do people who want headless really want a Spector?
It's a bit like someone saying they want McDonalds that tastes like Wendy's - they're known for different things.
If it's a brand-loyalty thing, fine...but as a manufacturer, they would need a bigger market to justify the product development.

Headless is super-popular right now - I hadn't ever had an order for one in almost 20 years, and I have just finished two headless custom orders, with 3 more on deck.
Lots of companies are staking their claims on that market - Keisel in particular.
But they are an offshoot of Carvin, who always had an "a-la-carte" approach to custom orders that let the customer pick any option they wanted.

I like Spector basses, and I know several of the people in the USA custom shop. Heck, I just emailed with Stu today.
But at this point, I personally see them more as a legacy brand that is associated overwhelmingly with a particular iconic design which has been in production for over 40 years,
and which still represents the vast majority of their output.
I also know that they are increasing production of the USA custom stuff, and that they are doing everything they can to keep up with market demand for....NS basses.
As a result, I'd be surprised if the corporate overlords at Korg chose to invest time/energy/money into developing, prototyping, and marketing a headless bass.
They're already selling everything they can make.

A contrasting example would be a brand like MTD, who have very successfully diversified into headless. The difference is that MTD is still independently owned by Mike,
and has a small crew of 3-4 people. This makes them much more nimble and adaptable than a corporate-owned shop with a longer chain of command.
If you want a well-established, USA-Custom headless built by a brand with a decades-long history of excellent basses, get an MTD.

An offshore headless Spector would be far more likely - the fan-fret and Timbre acoustic bass were both offshore-only projects.
 
This is such an interesting question.
The whole idea of "legacy" brands vs. "innovation" brands is a tricky and constantly-moving target.

Take an obvious "legacy" brand like Fender. Nobody seems to be calling for a headless J-bass from them.
However, they have introduced quite a few "modern" products aimed at the developing market: the Dimension bass, for example, but also digital modeling amps,
etc., as well as "modern" refinements to their classic product line (active EQs, high-mass hardware, etc.)
They try to "innovate" as best they can, but if they push too far they alienate their audience. Case in point: nobody really seemed to want the Dimension bass.

Spector is a great example of a brand that is really iconic for one design - the NS bass. Through their history under four incarnations (Original Spector, Kramer era, SSD/New Spector, and now Korg),
the NS has been basically the one thing that people have wanted from them. Sure, there have been other models (the Coda J-bass, Kenmare guitar, etc.) but those were on the fringe - I would be willing
to bet that in any of the ownership eras, at least 85% of the production has been NS basses. (Except the initial SSD period, when Kramer still owned the rights to the NS shape...during which Stu was producing
a different shape called the SD, which did not sell very well.)

This makes me wonder - do people who want Spectors really want a headless one? And, conversely - do people who want headless really want a Spector?
It's a bit like someone saying they want McDonalds that tastes like Wendy's - they're known for different things.
If it's a brand-loyalty thing, fine...but as a manufacturer, they would need a bigger market to justify the product development.

Headless is super-popular right now - I hadn't ever had an order for one in almost 20 years, and I have just finished two headless custom orders, with 3 more on deck.
Lots of companies are staking their claims on that market - Keisel in particular.
But they are an offshoot of Carvin, who always had an "a-la-carte" approach to custom orders that let the customer pick any option they wanted.

I like Spector basses, and I know several of the people in the USA custom shop. Heck, I just emailed with Stu today.
But at this point, I personally see them more as a legacy brand that is associated overwhelmingly with a particular iconic design which has been in production for over 40 years,
and which still represents the vast majority of their output.
I also know that they are increasing production of the USA custom stuff, and that they are doing everything they can to keep up with market demand for....NS basses.
As a result, I'd be surprised if the corporate overlords at Korg chose to invest time/energy/money into developing, prototyping, and marketing a headless bass.
They're already selling everything they can make.

A contrasting example would be a brand like MTD, who have very successfully diversified into headless. The difference is that MTD is still independently owned by Mike,
and has a small crew of 3-4 people. This makes them much more nimble and adaptable than a corporate-owned shop with a longer chain of command.
If you want a well-established, USA-Custom headless built by a brand with a decades-long history of excellent basses, get an MTD.

An offshore headless Spector would be far more likely - the fan-fret and Timbre acoustic bass were both offshore-only projects.

that's actually what I had in mind, I'm pretty sure a bass like the NS Dimension is a sort of experiment for them to see if there's a market for multiscale Spector's, and I'd say they've seen some success. I don't think its completely off the table to think they would consider making multiscale an option for the USA shop in the future provided the NS Dimension keeps selling well. So that's how id expect them to go if they ever did make a headless bass; to make it a Korean model before anything else. the NS dimension while not a ground breaking bass by todays standards is still a huge leap for Spector, doing something "different" while still keeping the NS body and neck through design that people want a Spector for.

funny you would mention the MTD headless, I actually had a thread on her a while back asking TB to convince me I was an idiot for ordering one on a payment plan, thank fully they succeeded and i canceled the order. I have no doubt it would have been one of the best basses I could ever own but it didn't make sense for me at the moment (I'm 23). Do i regret cancelling it? kinda, but I'm super glad i did haha, id rather not destroy my credit score.
 
When? If I had to guess... probably the Monday after the staff meeting, where the corporate bean-counters announce that the company can probably sell enough of them to make a profit. Headless basses have been around for at least 50 years, now; and, while I will grant you that there appears to be more interest in them now, than in the past? I honestly don't see - or hear - an overwhelming demand for them. IMO, there's sufficient choices available - at different price points - to cover the demand at this time. And, yes; I do own one. It's (probably; it's hard to say for sure) an '82 Aluminum-necked Kramer "The Duke" Deluxe. Quite a nice little bass, IMO; but, AFAIC? One headless bass is plenty...:cool:
 
  • Like
Reactions: jd56hawk
Just one semi-ironic observation: the guy responsible for the "legacy" Spector design is the same guy who basically made headless guitars a reality in the modern industry: Ned Steinberger.
On that basis alone, maybe Spector should consider it - it would be like a "double-Steinberger"!
 
Just one semi-ironic observation: the guy responsible for the "legacy" Spector design is the same guy who basically made headless guitars a reality in the modern industry: Ned Steinberger.
On that basis alone, maybe Spector should consider it - it would be like a "double-Steinberger"!
I'm a big headless fan, and have been for almost 4 decades since I got my XL2. It's simply a better design for a number of reasons.

However, I'm well aware of the number of people who are so locked into the traditional designs that even if someone were to become Emperor and declare only headless instruments, those that survived the initial mental breakdown would form underground societies based upon the trad instruments. Demand for headless will always be limited for a number of reasons and the current popularity will wane to some extent in time, but if I were a small manufacturer, I would offer it on a number of models a la Keisel just to bring potential sales in the door.

I don't see Spector, or most manufacturers bringing out headless models in the future. Ibanez have done well here, but if suddenly all of the 'Asian' brands like Cort, Schecter etc were to, it would dilute the market and maybe not make it viable for anyone. I don't see Fender, Gibson etc bringing out headless instruments as their base wouldn't buy them. Besides Gibson have a track record for borking headless designs; look at how they screwed up Steinberger, and Gibson really don't care about bass much at all, having ceded that market a long time ago.

I would love to see an Ibanez SR/Tune shaped headless 5 or 6, with a curved body like Spector (I know Ibanez have done this in the past) and neckthrough. But it's not gonna happen unless I do it myself.

The reason I used the quote I did in this post is, I know Ned's history with Spector and though I like Spector basses, not having the upper horn extend to F12 makes them unbalanced for me, so I wouldn't buy a current model, one of Ned's few fluffs. If a headless one came out, especially a NT Euro, I'd reconsider.
 
I don’t mind headless basses per se (I own one), but I think that both headless basses and multiscale basses are basically solutions in search of a problem, in that the problems they solve isn’t really a concern for most players. So I think headless basses will remain largely a niche product, at least for the foreseeable future.
 
I don't think every brand has to get into every gimmick or new idea (not that headless is a new idea). Certain brands are iconic for a reason.

What can end up happening is oversaturation in the market of a particular idea. It could dilute brands that branch out and try to please everyone so they're basses aren't so special and makes it so that players will just want to get those basses from the originators, those on board first, or those that specialize in that idea. How many multi-scales are out there now? I wonder if Dingwall is selling the bulk of them?

I think the best approach is to take what is working for your brand and to continuously bring refinements and updates and an occasional variation of those design elements. Or produce something wholly original that still makes your brand stand out and isn't a "I can do that too" reaction.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jd56hawk
I have 3 Spectors and would love to add more, but I’ve moved from 34” scale basses to medium scale, headless over the past few years. There are limited options available unless you go custom shop. Fedora, Stratus and MTD are all on the bucket list and I’d add Spector if they did a headless bantam!
 
Ned Steinberger called from 1979. He wants his future back.

yeah, I was gonna say, headless had its chance in the marketplace in the mid 80s, in a climate MUCH more accepting of new designs, and even then it didn’t catch on.

I think they’re fine. Love Ned, I clicked here because Spector is one of my favs and the NS body is my ride or die. But headless is not going to take over anytime soon.

also, Korg is leaning into Spector’s history as opposed to chasing dingwall and Strandberg and Ibanez. If someday that changes and the ubiquitous Fender “authenticity” starts becoming less popular, then Korg will go whichever way that wind blows. But right now the marketplace wants history, roots, and “classic”
 
I doubt ever lol. I mean, they're neat, Status makes some beautiful pieces as does MTD, and even the Ibanez headless ones are pretty nice looking but for what Spector charges, I'd probably not take the plunge on a $3000+ Euro-made instrument like a headless and 'hope' I like it... Ibanez can afford to have that loss leader, and Status and MTD are pretty much 100% custom order, so they don't lose out on the deal.