Why does Fender's headstock look "right"?

[fretlessguy]

Well, regardless what inspired Leo's design, or even if we like it or not, we all know that when you see it you think "Fender". Many folks who aren't musicians or know much about guitars and basses recognize it and the brand that goes with it. Golden Ratio or not, it is as functional as well as stylish.
So what makes Fender headstocks right? Familiarity. I guess you could call it an icon.

FG

 

[vinz]

headstock from LAKLAND Basses looks cool too though...

 

[P. Aaron]

The asthetics of the Fender designs are debatable regarding whether they're 'art' or not. I like how they look, and how basic they are.

I think the major reason they've been copied is not so much the love of their shapes or function as much as the fact that most modern Western popular music is composed of the tones these types of instruments produced and sold to a buying public.

 

[Woodwolf]

I love the Fender design and yes it is an icon. It isn't perfect in regard to response type anomalies, but that's a case of taking the good with the bad. I think it's important to point out that luthiers who copied the iconic format and put their own touches on it, did so for financial success, and the real reason the market strayed from Fenders to look-a-likes was due to Customized features. In the end the original iconic form has a classic iconic sound few others can capture at will at Fenders pricing. The shape, design, and choices...seems to do something reliably good and there's value in that as a tool and for collectability reasons.

 

[Thorsoundcore]

While Leo was a visionary, he did his share of 'borrowing.'

Just throwing it out there.......

YUK!!!

 

[nuno.ka]

The fender headstock always reminded me of a horse's head.

 

[no1likesme]

I admit it...I like the Fender style headstock. What intrigues me most about this subject is the number of boutique (and not so boutique) P and J copies that try to come up with an alternative to the Fender shape...and fail miserably. In fact, to my eye, most are an embarrassment to their creators. I won't mention names, 'cause I know how sensitive folks can be. That in itself tells me the Fender design is special. No, I don't own a Fender, but my boutique 'copy' stayed with the original shape (pretty much).

M. M.

I am not quite sure what "boutique" basses you mean by this but IMO the Sadowsky, Valenti, and Lakland (and possibly more, these just came to mind) headstocks look better than fender.

 

[blowinblue]

I am not quite sure what "boutique" basses you mean by this but IMO the Sadowsky, Valenti, and Lakland (and possibly more, these just came to mind) headstocks look better than fender.

Like I said, I won't mention names, 'cause we know how sensitive folks can be. Hint...you're on the right track.

M. M.

 

[GreaserMatt]

isint that just a regular fender headstock?

yes

 

[copreus]

For those of you drawing parallels between DB heads and the Fender headstock: see below
Yes, the point can easily be argued. Very stylized to afford function but the lines are there.
Missed the Golden Mean aspect, but that would add to the stability of the design.

Since both Leo and George (Geo. Wm. Fullerton, d. July 4, 2009) are no longer with us, we'll likely never know the details and speculation will run rampant for years -- unless we run into them on the Golden Shore.
--c.

 

[Zureta]

For those of you drawing parallels between DB heads and the Fender headstock: see below
Yes, the point can easily be argued. Very stylized to afford function but the lines are there.
Missed the Golden Mean aspect, but that would add to the stability of the design.

Since both Leo and George (Geo. Wm. Fullerton, d. July 4, 2009) are no longer with us, we'll likely never know the details and speculation will run rampant for years -- unless we run into them on the Golden Shore.
--c.

Awesome diagrams. Thanks for sharing!

As an aside, I have nothing against all this talk of golden this and that in this particular thread, but my feeling is that the "golden ratio" aspect is often overrated/overused.

Either by lazy designers looking for a shortcut to make anything seem (or just sound) classier without much work:

"I ran out of ideas, so here's let's throw in some golden ratio! If it's good enough for Da Vinci, it's good enough for me! My art history teacher would be proud."

Or design commenters trying too hard to sound educated and smart:

"This is clearly good design because of its clever use of the golden ratio. But you wouldn't know anything about it would you? It's all very technical and you probably don't know nearly as much about ancient greek aesthetics or naturally occurring patterns as I clearly do. Just trust my superior intellect and good taste."

Not really much to do with what we're talking about, just a personal pet peeve I had to get out. Please go on.

 

[mongo2]

Because it was first.

Just for the record, this was the first Fender bass headstock:

[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

It was a larger version of the Telecaster guitar headstock design but I think it looks even closer to a stylized DB pegbox from the side than the '57 Precison/'54 Stratocaster design.

 

[Zureta]

Just for the record, this was the first Fender bass headstock:

[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

I think it looks even closer to a stylized DB pegbox from the side.

Agreed. But it's the 1957 redesign that has become the standard and everyone is most used to, because that's what every other guitar and bass hero has used in the last fifty years. Familiarity and all that.

 

[mongo2]

Agreed. But it's the 1957 redesign that has become the standard and everyone is most used to, because that's what every other guitar and bass hero has used in the last fifty years. Familiarity and all that.

No doubt, just wanted to make sure we all were on the same sheet of music.

 

[daydreamer0801]

I personally don't think the Fender headstock looks right. I just think they look great.

 

[$Lindz$]

We have no one even slightly familiar with industrial design--or design in general? Nothing "just looks right".

Since I design cars, I decided to contribute to this thread, with some car-based analogies, even. Heh.

The Fender "looks" right because of its balanced proportions (perhaps Golden Ratio, though have you verified this at all?) but also because of its commonality. For instance a Ford Model T looks more like a "classic car" in the traditional sense than a Bugatti, etc because of its widespread use and its pioneering of mass-production. Leo Fender = Henry Ford of instruments.




Having said that though, I prefer my Gibson's. Perhaps because it was designed by a car designer, but I like the dynamics and movement of the Thunderbird/Firebird headstock more than any other instrument's really. THIS is perfection, to me:

 

[Kenny Allyn]

Looks kinda interesting in reverse too!

... Still looks right to me either way

 

[Rugaar]

Fender built lap steels before "Spanish" guitars and the first headstocks were quite a bit more utilitarian than what we're used to seeing. The first Broadcaster headstock prototypes were based on the lap steel design.

Link Removed

Link Removed

 

[dlmarquez]

...and to which we all compare?

In my opinion, it doesn't look right! I've had 3 fenders and they were all very good basses, especially the first, a 1974 J bass.
However I have never liked fender headstocks!
I am bugged by the unsymmetrical look of them.
I Much prefer the Gibson 2X2 headstock.
And every bass that I own or will own will have opposed rather than inline tuners.
enough said for me!

 

[Zureta]

Since I design cars, I decided to contribute to this thread, with some car-based analogies, even. Heh.

The Fender "looks" right because of its balanced proportions (perhaps Golden Ratio, though have you verified this at all?) but also because of its commonality. For instance a Ford Model T looks more like a "classic car" in the traditional sense than a Bugatti, etc because of its widespread use and its pioneering of mass-production. Leo Fender = Henry Ford of instruments.

Hey, that's pretty much what I said before! Pretty cool to see my opinion shared by someone who probably has a much better idea of what he's talking about.

Having said that though, I prefer my Gibson's. Perhaps because it was designed by a car designer, but I like the dynamics and movement of the Thunderbird/Firebird headstock more than any other instrument's really.

Had no idea about the Raymond Dietrich as a guitar designer bit. Nice to know. As a bit of a car design buff myself, I always though modern electric guitar/bass design has some interesting parallels with the automotive industry.

It always struck me as funny about the guitar/bass market is that top makers like Fender, Gibson and Gretsch pretty much live off the success of their best designs from the 50s and 60s, and not much else. I mean, P and J basses, Strats, Teles, the Les Paul, SG... Did those companies' creativity and craftsmanship really peak five decades ago and they just decided "hey, those models are pretty good! let's stop while we're at the top and never bother inventing new stuff again"?

I keep imagining it's something like as if General Motors spent the last half century offering nothing but variously hot rodded versions of the '57 Chevy Bel Air and the '58 Corvette. Who knows, maybe they'd be better off today that way.

THIS is perfection, to me:

Great, now after all that car talk I can't look at that without thinking of stuff like this: