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.
Why does Fender's headstock look "right"?
- Thread starter JoshuaTSP
- Start date
Cuz this just looks COOL!
Not really; I mean, from an objective point of view, it doesn't look cool at all. The irregular curves, uneven angles, the awkward slope.
If you're able to force your mind into an objective mode (something not everyone can do) it's not that interesting in and of itself.
It looks right because we've seen it so often.
It's like the 12-tone Western scale. It sounds right, but technically there's nothing more "right" about it than 24 or higher tone scales, and it's certainly not mathematically correct. But it's what we're used to.
So true but it goes back a bit farther than Bigsby, to a series of folk instruments from Croatia.
... There has been much speculation over the design for many years.
The Fender headstock looks 'right' unless, of course, it's on a left-handed bass. Then it just looks...'left'. 
M. M.
M. M.
While Leo was a visionary, he did his share of 'borrowing.'
Just throwing it out there.......
Beat me to it. He definitely refined the Bigsby headstock to something better but any way you look at it the basic design was stolen. Pure hearsay but I'd heard that the first guitar Leo made was an exact copy of the Bigsby in order to see how it was done before figuring out what he could do better.
There are many trademarked headstocks but Fender is definitely the most common and widely recognized...I am just so use to seeing it that it looks "right". The late 50's Fender Bass headstock is the one I always relate to bass guitar. It's my opinion but I also think it looks "cool"
Hmm, I never knew it used the golden ratio, pic/diagram maybe?
I think the 4+1s are ugly, but I like MM's 3+1.
I think the 4+1s are ugly, but I like MM's 3+1.
It's a simple, yet effective design which doesn't call attention to itself like some pointy, extremely angular headstocks. Kinda like Fender body designs.
Plus, you just SEE them so much they seem to become "the norm".
Personally, I'm indifferent to them. They don't bother me which I guess is the point but I don't look at one and go, "wow, that's beautiful".
Plus, you just SEE them so much they seem to become "the norm".
Personally, I'm indifferent to them. They don't bother me which I guess is the point but I don't look at one and go, "wow, that's beautiful".
This is a troll post right?
Dean?
[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]
[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]
[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]
The Fender headstocks look right to me because of my dad's old 60's Jazzmaster. He bought it in the 60's sometime so it's just something I've grown very used to seeing.
The Les Paul headstock and its various modifications in style like on: Ibanez, Spector, Fodera's, etc, also look just as right to me.
The Les Paul headstock and its various modifications in style like on: Ibanez, Spector, Fodera's, etc, also look just as right to me.
Isn't the fender headstock a violin/bass/cello head just stylized and turned 90 degrees to the side (although I have to say, it looks the rightest to me)
I don't have time to diagram it. It's easy enough to measure, though. I haven't measured every angle, but I believe the ratio is used in multiple places.
No other reason than it's been seen the most and what you see the most eventually becomes acceptable. And humans have a tendency to turn acceptable into preferable. Then add in the human tendency to promote whatever you specifically own, and you have your solution.
To me it boils down to this:
1. It's a simple design that just works.
2. Because of this, It was a huge success, becoming common and often-imitated.
3. Because of THIS, it has become the standard, and feels familiar and "right".
To me Leo Fender's main merit as an industrial designer was not having genious-level artistic vision and foresight, like some people seem to think.
To me what's greatest about him was his practical nature and urge to simplify. The Telecaster wasn't a thing of classic beauty when it was invented. That's what we think of it of it now!
It was, however, a radical new way of making guitars, with every detail being as simple as possible to get the most efficiency out of the industrial process of the time. If you compare it to the later, more refined Stratocaster, you can see it was designed by an engineer and not a musician: it's all right angles, flat shapes and bolt-on construction so it could be made cheaply and quickly by unskilled labor.
And hey, it worked.
It's because Leo could make a good innovative product cheap enough for the masses, not unlike Henry Ford, that he was able to get his investment back and keep on trying crazy new stuff like an electric bass. But not necessarely, as many people seem to forget nowadays, because his first design was such a lovingly crafted and artistically conceived masterwork that the whole world had to take notice. It wasn't. It became beautiful and classic to us later, because it worked so well.
And all that goes for the headstock design, IMO. Which, as some have pointed out, it's not even the original one! It's a refinement, that came a bit later and was much more popular.
It's simple, it's very functional, and it became the norm for very practical reasons. And that plays a big part on why it's so beautiful to us fifty-some years later.
Familiarity is a bigger factor than many people realize when deciding what they like and what they don't. Why do you think advertisement for products and services and radio/tv exposure for mainstream artists work so well? "I know that one!" is halfway there to "I love that one!".
I studied three years of product design in college before changing my mind and studying five more years of graphic design and just recently graduating in it. So I guess I'm slightly familiar or more.
This can apply to generic things like a doorhandle or a faucet, or any given "design classics", from a Fender Stratocaster to a Coca-Cola bottle to a simple Bic pen.
They can indeed "look just right" exactly because those shapes have proved so long-lasting that they've become ingrained in our culture, to the point of being the very first things a lot of people picture in their minds when they think of "guitar", "soda bottle" or "pen".
Sorry about the design geekery, couldn't resist! To anyone even vaguely interested in this kind of thing, I suggest taking a look at Donald Norman's The Design of Everyday Things. It's a very easy, entertaining, and enlightening read.
1. It's a simple design that just works.
2. Because of this, It was a huge success, becoming common and often-imitated.
3. Because of THIS, it has become the standard, and feels familiar and "right".
To me Leo Fender's main merit as an industrial designer was not having genious-level artistic vision and foresight, like some people seem to think.
To me what's greatest about him was his practical nature and urge to simplify. The Telecaster wasn't a thing of classic beauty when it was invented. That's what we think of it of it now!
It was, however, a radical new way of making guitars, with every detail being as simple as possible to get the most efficiency out of the industrial process of the time. If you compare it to the later, more refined Stratocaster, you can see it was designed by an engineer and not a musician: it's all right angles, flat shapes and bolt-on construction so it could be made cheaply and quickly by unskilled labor.
And hey, it worked.
It's because Leo could make a good innovative product cheap enough for the masses, not unlike Henry Ford, that he was able to get his investment back and keep on trying crazy new stuff like an electric bass. But not necessarely, as many people seem to forget nowadays, because his first design was such a lovingly crafted and artistically conceived masterwork that the whole world had to take notice. It wasn't. It became beautiful and classic to us later, because it worked so well.
And all that goes for the headstock design, IMO. Which, as some have pointed out, it's not even the original one! It's a refinement, that came a bit later and was much more popular.
It's simple, it's very functional, and it became the norm for very practical reasons. And that plays a big part on why it's so beautiful to us fifty-some years later.
Familiarity is a bigger factor than many people realize when deciding what they like and what they don't. Why do you think advertisement for products and services and radio/tv exposure for mainstream artists work so well? "I know that one!" is halfway there to "I love that one!".
I studied three years of product design in college before changing my mind and studying five more years of graphic design and just recently graduating in it. So I guess I'm slightly familiar or more.
I wouldn't say that. To me "looking just right" is a natural psychological consequence of any design that was such a big success it has become a standard.
This can apply to generic things like a doorhandle or a faucet, or any given "design classics", from a Fender Stratocaster to a Coca-Cola bottle to a simple Bic pen.
They can indeed "look just right" exactly because those shapes have proved so long-lasting that they've become ingrained in our culture, to the point of being the very first things a lot of people picture in their minds when they think of "guitar", "soda bottle" or "pen".
Sorry about the design geekery, couldn't resist! To anyone even vaguely interested in this kind of thing, I suggest taking a look at Donald Norman's The Design of Everyday Things. It's a very easy, entertaining, and enlightening read.
As an Amazon Associate, TalkBass may receive commissions from qualifying purchases made via links on this site.
I've always favored the Ibanez 'genie boot' on my Roadstar II, especially
the 'tulip' tuners......talk about sexy!
the 'tulip' tuners......talk about sexy!
