Why do people like rosewood boards with unpainted headstocks?

[JMarkD]

Interesting troll. The disclaimer gives that away. Not bad for a freshman Aesthetics course though.

 

[Beej]

Goodness, Truth, And Beauty are a Concrete, Universal Expressions of Love, Absolute Truth, And Natural Law which are The Three Foundations of Creation.

Love, Absolute Truth, And Natural Law can be likened to an Axiom or Reality itself. Goodness, Truth, And Beauty are comparable to Dogmas (True Thoughts) a concrete but fertile plane made in the Foundation of Reality. The universe then is what populates that plane.

These are not "platitudes," by ANY definition. A platitude is a catchy statement meant to exist in place of thinking; these are not statements but concrete elements that underpin the very essence of being that then manifests as everything.

""Goodness, truth and beauty" is a platitude." IS a platitude.
So is "Beauty is still a property of subjectivity."
And "Beauty is a function of taste."
And "[Reality] means absolutely nothing."
And "Engaging in an argument about [Reality] is weird."

These are statements, they are catchy, and they exist in place of actual thought. Worse they are there to try to silence actual thought, because you don't want anyone doing actual thought about you as a person. Even worse, but horseshoeing around into amusement, the mere demand that Essense (Goodness, Truth, And Beauty ARE Essense) does not exist is itself an expression of Essentialism.

"Essense does not exist!"
"Why does it not exist?"
"Because it isn't True!"

This self-refuting statement can be executed two ways, both equally humiliating for you"
"Truth Is The Second Form Of Essense, so to deny the whole under the partial of the category is absurd."
"you are saying it does not maintain the Essence of Truth, therefore you are admitting Essentialism to try to refute Essentialism."

There's a lot of knots you (or the person you stole your ideas from more likely) have to tie yourself into to keep your position going, and each one is a noose around the neck of all Mankind. It doesn't hurt Reality to deny Reality, it hurts us! Just like it doesn't hurt the ocean when you deny the fact we breathe air and so you spite the air by trying to "breathe" water and drown.

Creation is not a mode of your personal ego, so your position openly and proudly (in every sense of the word) means nothing. "Taste is subjective. Beauty Is Absolute." Is a statement, yes, but it's one of Substance; not only is it thinking, but it makes thinking possible.

Specifically, it is a Dogma. Dogmas exist as the middle between Axioms (Inherently Unprovable First Principles) and thought. See the analogy of Reality into Plane into Things I made earlier.

Or how about carl sagan's quote "to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe." that is ironically both friendly to your trite psuedo-intellectualisms and my Real points.

Other than just trying to be unforgivably blasphemous on purpose (which is your clear, blatant goal), there is no meaning to a single thing you have said. What you miss is this makes my ultimate point for me (which your entire attempt here is to try to dissociate from) that Reality Is Real and outside of your ego and that going against it is a concious act.

you are specifically saying things to be as infuriating as possible. In the process of doing that you unwittingly admit there is a Natural Law to be insulted.

Thank God both hell and the ignore list exist. Humanity can't survive much more of this!

You can keep adding paper to it to make it larger and more complicated, but it's still a paper tiger.

 

[logdrum]

Don't ask me. I wear sweat or jogging pants most of the time. Working from home did that. The other day I had to go to a party and found out I forgot my formal shoes in San Diego and made a quick trip to Marshalls to get one. I have never cared about how my bass looks. I do not get the obsession of a matching headstock/ I like Ebony boards if I had a choice and was my decision when I got my Lava Blue SR5 Special, I buy used cars and price and condition is all I care about

 

[RGerhart]

[getting my popcorn]

The hilarity of it all is that the OP genuinely seems to think that there was going to be some helpful responses to the post.

The way this thread is going, I think I also need to get my Himalayan salt lamp out and incense.

 

[Alessandro Cruz]

I really think some admin should close this thread ASAP...

 

[Minimalist]

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.

That's a lot of pseudo-intellectual blabber.

If I understand all this correctly, the basis of your postulation is, that beauty is absolute. That is plain and simple wrong. The foundation of your argument is not sound, and therefore your argument is not sound. One could even say your entire post(s) is (are) invalid.

 

[ardgedee]

Goodness, Truth, And Beauty are a Concrete, Universal Expressions of Love, Absolute Truth, And Natural Law which are The Three Foundations of Creation.

Love, Absolute Truth, And Natural Law can be likened to an Axiom or Reality itself. Goodness, Truth, And Beauty are comparable to Dogmas (True Thoughts) a concrete but fertile plane made in the Foundation of Reality. The universe then is what populates that plane.

These are not "platitudes," by ANY definition. A platitude is a catchy statement meant to exist in place of thinking; these are not statements but concrete elements that underpin the very essence of being that then manifests as everything.

""Goodness, truth and beauty" is a platitude." IS a platitude.
So is "Beauty is still a property of subjectivity."
And "Beauty is a function of taste."
And "[Reality] means absolutely nothing."
And "Engaging in an argument about [Reality] is weird."

These are statements, they are catchy, and they exist in place of actual thought. Worse they are there to try to silence actual thought, because you don't want anyone doing actual thought about you as a person. Even worse, but horseshoeing around into amusement, the mere demand that Essense (Goodness, Truth, And Beauty ARE Essense) does not exist is itself an expression of Essentialism.

"Essense does not exist!"
"Why does it not exist?"
"Because it isn't True!"

This self-refuting statement can be executed two ways, both equally humiliating for you"
"Truth Is The Second Form Of Essense, so to deny the whole under the partial of the category is absurd."
"you are saying it does not maintain the Essence of Truth, therefore you are admitting Essentialism to try to refute Essentialism."

There's a lot of knots you (or the person you stole your ideas from more likely) have to tie yourself into to keep your position going, and each one is a noose around the neck of all Mankind. It doesn't hurt Reality to deny Reality, it hurts us! Just like it doesn't hurt the ocean when you deny the fact we breathe air and so you spite the air by trying to "breathe" water and drown.

Creation is not a mode of your personal ego, so your position openly and proudly (in every sense of the word) means nothing. "Taste is subjective. Beauty Is Absolute." Is a statement, yes, but it's one of Substance; not only is it thinking, but it makes thinking possible.

Specifically, it is a Dogma. Dogmas exist as the middle between Axioms (Inherently Unprovable First Principles) and thought. See the analogy of Reality into Plane into Things I made earlier.

Or how about carl sagan's quote "to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe." that is ironically both friendly to your trite psuedo-intellectualisms and my Real points.

Other than just trying to be unforgivably blasphemous on purpose (which is your clear, blatant goal), there is no meaning to a single thing you have said. What you miss is this makes my ultimate point for me (which your entire attempt here is to try to dissociate from) that Reality Is Real and outside of your ego and that going against it is a concious act.

you are specifically saying things to be as infuriating as possible. In the process of doing that you unwittingly admit there is a Natural Law to be insulted.

Thank God both hell and the ignore list exist. Humanity can't survive much more of this!

That's very random. I guess since you've blocked me you won't read this, but I do encourage doing some readings on the philosophy of esthetics, about which there has been much written over the millennia. It's right up your alley and I believe, with no sarcasm or meanness, that you could find it very interesting.

 

[mambo4]

I like rosewood fingerboards with painted headstocks
Our holy war against the unpainted headstock heretics continues

 

[B-Mac]

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.

Why?

Because not everyone has the same likes and dislikes that you have.

Looks fine to me. No one ever established that all basses must have the matching tie and handkerchief setup.

 

[BassmanM]

But the first were maple on maple.

You're absolutely right. But when he started using rosewood, he left the headstock unpainted.

 

[B-Mac]

Sometimes it bothers me , other times it doesn’t . In this case it did bother mf enough that I had to place a custom order as soon as I was able . I had requested on several occasions until they finally said yes .

View attachment 7080965
My 1st Amethyst Sparkle Stingray5 Special

Sold once I got them to make me this.
View attachment 7080966
IMHO, this should have been the original specs.

Didn’t realize you had a special request on that. How many times did you request before they caved? Just curious.

 

[LadyLoveStingRay5]

Didn’t realize you had a special request on that. How many times did you request before they caved? Just curious.

3. And then maybe a month later I was contacted about that they could do it . I placed my order . Then a week later they announced design experience .