Why do people like rosewood boards with unpainted headstocks?

[jthisdell]

Why do some people on Talk Bass obsess over very little thing?

 

[mcnach]

I can understand playing it because you like the way it handles or if you just don't care about looks, but I honestly can't figure out why some people prefer it.

View attachment 7080962

For example, this one I made on the "halo guitars builder" (linked through the picture) looks okay, but the second you change the pickguard to black or just about anything else but tort and it just looks terrible. You would need to paint the headstock just to make it work then.

Funny enough, with a painted headstock (even just black painted), there is a lot more leeway on what pickguard/hardware combos work.

Also, I think a big issue is that modern rosewood is not actually rosewood, but some "technical nearest neighbor" substitute that often looks streaky or even orange (which is why I used "roasted maple" in the builder to get the shade of whatever tripe fender has been using for decades now). I think real rosewood looks just fine (even indian rosewood can look nice if it's not dried to jerky), because it's almost as dark as ebony and goes with everything.

I don't understand why people like things that I don't.

It JuSt MaKES nO SeNsE!

 

[Ritter667]

I would think it has to do with this thing called personal taste.

 

[MisterMagician]

So if a person doesn't share the same taste in aesthetics as you, then they must not care at all?



Theory of Mind



Does it?



Would ya?


Is there?

I can tolerate the people chiming in with less than nothing to add or offer because it's an easy trap for my ignore list, but midwittery sets me off.

Firstly, fisking is the kafkaesque tactic of responding to convenient, disembodied quotes out of context instead of your opponents message as a whole; and this is the most cowardly, and totally self-refuting tactic there is. My paragraph markers are not an invitation for you to respond to each as if they were separate messages that you cannot insert into responding to the Whole.

Worse, you not only broke apart a sentence with a CLEAR meaning to start your fisking off, realizing the utter pettiness and self-exposure you then manipulated and forged the punctuation to cover up your crime against sense and sanity. That's a new low.

Secondly, what did you think you would get out of this? Using the most disgusting and banal tactics to try to pretend to appear intelligent (while missing the actual assignment by a country mile is one thing, but the snide non-quips in the second half of your post were meant to add what exactly?

Overall, one of the weirdest trolls I have seen on this site over God Knows how many years, and that's saying a lot considering with an ounce less smugness you would be just a general talkbass poster and not a parody.

 

[Nolan Tremblay]

I've always prefered the look of a painted headstock on that style of bass to match the body. On certain basses, matching the headstock and the fretboard works aesthetically for me. Overall it's just a preference. I'm not much of a P or J bass person, so it doesn't affect me too much.

I have other aesthetic issues with that headstock before being concerned about the finish.

If I had to take a bass with that style, I'd want this finish:

 

[prndltech]

I’ve seen some people obsess over whether to paint the head stock or not, to the point where they just chopped it off so they don’t even have one!

At least I assume that’s how it went down…

 

[Johnny Alien]

For me I think its just years of seeing thing a certain way. I don't like Precision basses with matching headstocks but do really like it on a Jazz bass. But what I really really like is the variety and options to be available for everyone to be happy.

 

[J-Bass RMR]

 

[murphy]

I do prefer an unpainted headstock....a more traditional look that appeals to my love of Fenders.

If the headstock looks weird or pointy or ?G&L coke bottle...I think painted is better

I love Fender shape. Sadowsky shape, Lakland, Baccus.......The rest you can paint them!

Have some fun....I got a good laugh from peoples comments too..
Not trolls....we all tend to have large sense of humor here....no offence was intended, i'm sure!

 

[MisterMagician]

I can understand playing it because you like the way it handles or if you just don't care about looks, but I honestly can't figure out why some people prefer it.

View attachment 7080962

For example, this one I made on the "halo guitars builder" (linked through the picture) looks okay, but the second you change the pickguard to black or just about anything else but tort and it just looks terrible. You would need to paint the headstock just to make it work then.

Funny enough, with a painted headstock (even just black painted), there is a lot more leeway on what pickguard/hardware combos work.

Also, I think a big issue is that modern rosewood is not actually rosewood, but some "technical nearest neighbor" substitute that often looks streaky or even orange (which is why I used "roasted maple" in the builder to get the shade of whatever tripe fender has been using for decades now). I think real rosewood looks just fine (even indian rosewood can look nice if it's not dried to jerky), because it's almost as dark as ebony and goes with everything.

I cannot edit the OP, so I will just add onto it here. The point of the thread is this, which I didn't know I had to explain a one-sentence premise:

Why do some people prefer clearly clashing aesthetics on their instruments?

I'm not talking about people who don't care about aesthetics, why would they even matter in a discussion about aesthetics. I am talking about people who DO care about aesthetics but consciously pick things that are flawed. It's a very strange venn diagram between people who know what good looks are and appreciate them, and those that purposely like the opposite.

To the dismissive people: Taste is subjective, Beauty is Absolute. Taste is abstract, but the feelings each color gives in relation to each other is concrete.

In other words, you can think spiders look cool but even the people who think spiders look cool have their stomach churn at the sight of them they just choose to give into it. Some people eat feces, still makes them vomit but they do it anyways.

I've seen this discussed for over a decade, and the prevailing answer I've picked up is that it's a mix of "magical thinking" / superstition with a little bit of "I never thought about it before." In other words, it's either people who cannot tell the difference between manipulation of symbols ("it's what was done by all the greats man!" "it's MOJO!" "IT'S WHAT I DO STOP MAKING ME THINK!!!") and actual work being done to the symbolized (ie. WHY it was done in the past, how there were few other options, where it works in one specific context but why it doesn't otherwise, etc), or people who are at least somewhat aware of looks but want to look plain/unassuming/forced-"humble" intentionally.

I could go into a very long explanation of why unpainted headstocks are ugly, go into color theory, etc. but the replies show this is not the site for intellectual conversations about art.

I will just say this simple explanation:
The bare maple headstocks are a beige-ish yellow, which does go with a lot on its own, but creates very strange friction when you add in the brown of the fingerboard (least of all because there is so much of it). Yellow doesn't go with brown well so it sticks out badly. Yellow with a color tends to create a different feeling than brown with that same color, and so you have two emotions that don't fit. Not many things are yellow either, so the random splurge of color at the end is just out of place.

A black painted headstock works well because it removes the sudden interjection of a third, garish color we need to worry about. Black does not go with brown at all, but at a two-way conflict is preferable to a three-way conflict. One poster here was freaking out about how the example used a powder blue bass, ignoring that powder blue is one of the few colors that compliments light brown; I also purposely chose the white guard because both powder blue and light brown go with white. If I used a black bass with light brown board and white guard, you might have vomited on your screen even if you otherwise claim to like that combo (why white doesn't work in that case whereas it works in the other would push this art/fashion seminar into a thesis). It's involuntary.

Again, Taste is subjective, Beauty is Absolute.

I would liken the unpainted headstock to wearing a suit but going barefoot. Or seeing a woman with unshaven legs wearing a short skirt. Slaps you right in the face when otherwise you wouldn't even notice it.

Think of a "third wheel" on a date. Two guys and one girl. One boyfriend/girlfriend and the boyfriend's rowdy friend. boyfriend + friend = boisterous raucous fun, boyfriend + girlfriend = fragile tender romance, girlfriend + friend = no fun with the boys + romance mood killer + someone getting strangled. Then we get even more complex with how boisterous and fragile don't go together, raucous and tender don't go together, and fun (lighthearted) and romance (serious) don't go together. One might be able to get away with one of these inconsistencies and may be able to make a great story off that friction, but having all of them at once is like having an argument with your wife and then someone cuts you off on the road; problems are never additive but exponentially multiplicative.

you've ALL thought about this kind of thing even if you've never consciously considered it. you ALL have rejected otherwise compatible relationships because of this. In fact you probably contrived an otherwise nonexistent "incompatibility" to cover up the aesthetic revulsion in your memory of the event. That you can admit it or be aware of it or not has no bearing on solid theory. The sky is blue, and not one bit of your approval or awareness is necessary for that fact. Same idea here.

One can ignore slight inconsistencies (think about how you've never really considered how black hardware with nickel/steel frets don't match) as long as there is something to make up for it (usually black hardware is on guitars with darker boards, so the black hardware compliments the ebony instead of the frets, and frets being reflective tend to look a bit black from farther away, etc), but not major ones. Like already noted, small problems become major when they happen simultaneously.

 

[Bass4LifeRS]

I've always prefered the look of a painted headstock on that style of bass to match the body. On certain basses, matching the headstock and the fretboard works aesthetically for me. Overall it's just a preference. I'm not much of a P or J bass person, so it doesn't affect me too much.

I have other aesthetic issues with that headstock before being concerned about the finish.

If I had to take a bass with that style, I'd want this finish:
View attachment 7080987

That's the bass I have

 

[FugaziBomb]

I can tolerate the people chiming in with less than nothing to add or offer

Can you?

it's an easy trap for my ignore list

Is it?

but midwittery sets me off

Does it?

Firstly, fisking is the kafkaesque tactic of responding to convenient, disembodied quotes out of context instead of your opponents message as a whole

Is it?

this is the most cowardly, and totally self-refuting tactic there is

Is it?

My paragraph markers are not an invitation for you to respond to each as if they were separate messages that you cannot insert into responding to the Whole

Aren't they?

Worse, you not only broke apart a sentence with a CLEAR meaning to start your fisking off

Did I?

you then manipulated and forged the punctuation to cover up your crime against sense and sanity.

Did I?

That's a new low.

Is it?

Secondly, what did you think you would get out of this?

Laughs, which you're continuing to harvest for me.

Using the most disgusting and banal tactics to try to pretend to appear intelligent

Did I?

(while missing the actual assignment by a country mile is one thing, but the snide non-quips in the second half of your post were meant to add what exactly?

Laughs (see above)

Overall, one of the weirdest trolls I have seen on this site over God Knows how many years

Am I?

and that's saying a lot considering with an ounce less smugness you would be just a general talkbass poster and not a parody.

Would I?

 

[murphy]

I cannot edit the OP, so I will just add onto it here. The point of the thread is this, which I didn't know I had to explain a one-sentence premise:

Why do some people prefer clearly clashing aesthetics on their instruments?

I'm not talking about people who don't care about aesthetics, why would they even matter in a discussion about aesthetics. I am talking about people who DO care about aesthetics but consciously pick things that are flawed. It's a very strange venn diagram between people who know what good looks are and appreciate them, and those that purposely like the opposite.

To the dismissive people: Taste is subjective, Beauty is Absolute. Taste is abstract, but the feelings each color gives in relation to each other is concrete.

In other words, you can think spiders look cool but even the people who think spiders look cool have their stomach churn at the sight of them they just choose to give into it. Some people eat feces, still makes them vomit but they do it anyways.

I've seen this discussed for over a decade, and the prevailing answer I've picked up is that it's a mix of "magical thinking" / superstition with a little bit of "I never thought about it before." In other words, it's either people who cannot tell the difference between manipulation of symbols ("it's what was done by all the greats man!" "it's MOJO!" "IT'S WHAT I DO STOP MAKING ME THINK!!!") and actual work being done to the symbolized (ie. WHY it was done in the past, how there were few other options, where it works in one specific context but why it doesn't otherwise, etc), or people who are at least somewhat aware of looks but want to look plain/unassuming/forced-"humble" intentionally.

I could go into a very long explanation of why unpainted headstocks are ugly, go into color theory, etc. but the replies show this is not the site for intellectual conversations about art.

I will just say this simple explanation:
The bare maple headstocks are a beige-ish yellow, which does go with a lot on its own, but creates very strange friction when you add in the brown of the fingerboard (least of all because there is so much of it). Yellow doesn't go with brown well so it sticks out badly. Yellow with a color tends to create a different feeling than brown with that same color, and so you have two emotions that don't fit. Not many things are yellow either, so the random splurge of color at the end is just out of place.

A black painted headstock works well because it removes the sudden interjection of a third, garish color we need to worry about. Black does not go with brown at all, but at a two-way conflict is preferable to a three-way conflict. One poster here was freaking out about how the example used a powder blue bass, ignoring that powder blue is one of the few colors that compliments light brown; I also purposely chose the white guard because both powder blue and light brown go with white. If I used a black bass with light brown board and white guard, you might have vomited on your screen even if you otherwise claim to like that combo (why white doesn't work in that case whereas it works in the other would push this art/fashion seminar into a thesis). It's involuntary.

Again, Taste is subjective, Beauty is Absolute.

I would liken the unpainted headstock to wearing a suit but going barefoot. Or seeing a woman with unshaven legs wearing a short skirt. Slaps you right in the face when otherwise you wouldn't even notice it.

Think of a "third wheel" on a date. Two guys and one girl. One boyfriend/girlfriend and the boyfriend's rowdy friend. boyfriend + friend = boisterous raucous fun, boyfriend + girlfriend = fragile tender romance, girlfriend + friend = no fun with the boys + romance mood killer + someone getting strangled. Then we get even more complex with how boisterous and fragile don't go together, raucous and tender don't go together, and fun (lighthearted) and romance (serious) don't go together. One might be able to get away with one of these inconsistencies and may be able to make a great story off that friction, but having all of them at once is like having an argument with your wife and then someone cuts you off on the road; problems are never additive but exponentially multiplicative.

you've ALL thought about this kind of thing even if you've never consciously considered it. you ALL have rejected otherwise compatible relationships because of this. In fact you probably contrived an otherwise nonexistent "incompatibility" to cover up the aesthetic revulsion in your memory of the event. That you can admit it or be aware of it or not has no bearing on solid theory. The sky is blue, and not one bit of your approval or awareness is necessary for that fact. Same idea here.

One can ignore slight inconsistencies (think about how you've never really considered how black hardware with nickel/steel frets don't match) as long as there is something to make up for it (usually black hardware is on guitars with darker boards, so the black hardware compliments the ebony instead of the frets, and frets being reflective tend to look a bit black from farther away, etc), but not major ones. Like already noted, small problems become major when they happen simultaneously.

But that is the effect of wearing jewelry ...Bling here and there that stands out.
I think an unpainted Fender headstock is the Bling...a statement in its own right

 

[commonplayer]

I literally do not care about this.

Ah yes, the answer to the question nobody asked

 

[ardgedee]

 

[Thumpin6string]

Why do people like rosewood boards with painted headstocks?​

I can understand playing it because you like the way it handles or if you just don't care about looks, but I honestly can't figure out why some people prefer it.

 

[MisterMagician]

Why do people like rosewood boards with painted headstocks?​

I can understand playing it because you like the way it handles or if you just don't care about looks, but I honestly can't figure out why some people prefer it.

I already explained this in post 30.

 

[pepj]

Generally not a fan of painted headstocks.
But yep, I do have basses with them.
Not going to make a huge deal out of it..its just a preference.

 

[Thumpin6string]

I already explained this in post 30.

Simple answer is that everyone has different tastes. IMHO, they don't clash. My bass has Birdseye maple wings with a Cocobolo center stripe. They don't clash IMHO.

 

[nervous]

As a practical matter I will add that with the interchangeability of some necks (especially Fender) you would immediately severely limit available options if one needed to body color match the headstock color.