• 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.

Why does Fender's headstock look "right"?

...and to which we all compare?

Man, that is a great psychological question.

I am having a Jazz clone built as we speak. I tried to think of every headstock design possible that was NOT like a Fender, and I finally gave up.

I think the Fender headstock says "authority" or something like that, and everyone wants their guitar to be legit in their eyes and the eyes of others.

I'm not going to use the word "Fender" on the headstock decal, but I am using the Fender font. Gold script has the same power as the headstock design.

In a word, it's ICONIC.
 
So true but it goes back a bit farther than Bigsby, to a series of folk instruments from Croatia.

Kontra_Tamburitza.jpg


tamb16.jpg


;) ... There has been much speculation over the design for many years.

Yes, that's right! Leo stated his inspiration was the headstock of a very old Croatian instrument.... And I'm proud to be Croat!:hyper:
"It is not widely known that Leo Fender, a famous builder of rock guitars (Fender Stratocaster), used the shape of a Croatian tamburitza head (more precisely, of the so called "brac" or "bas-prim", see below) for his characteristic guitar head. This was a result of Leo's acquaintance with a Croatian room-mate in his student days, who was a tamburitza player. Information by Nenad Bach, who mentioned this this story on his CD "I love losers" (...Leo Fender mentioned in an interview for Musician magazine that he was inspired by the headstock of the tamburitza when he designed the Fender Stratocaster...). And every song on the CD is accompanied with the tamburitza play. Listen to his Can We Go Higher?."
 
Just to be contrary(but this my true feeling), I've never been a big fan of the Fender headstock. It adds a lot of length compared to a 2/2 headstock. Don't get me wrong - I've owned P basses and generally like the look, but I think a nice squareish stock has it's merits as well as some of the more novel shapes. It's like many other designer items, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. My Guild B4 acoustic would look funny with the Fender headstock - it's square stock with abalone inlay looks "right"(IMO).
 
Maybe not, but I imagine you'd probably be a little weirded out if someone tried to introduce a vastly different alternative to those 3 (don't get me started on American perceptions of bagged milk)

You got me curious there. What, pray tell, are American perceptions of bagged milk?

Funny you mention that, because I couldn't help feeling a bit silly talking about "gallon milk jugs" as examples of mundane, commonplace objects because I've never used one in my life.

When and where I grew up milk was always packed in one-liter plastic bags, like these:

leite_pasteurizado_B.jpg


But in later years they have been pretty much phased out in favor of "tetra pak" cardboard boxes, the same I later saw in Europe. Also one liter:
Invalid Link Removed

So, no jugs, and definitely nothing gallon-sized are really associated with milk in my mind. Are those bags and boxes attractive? No way. Are they what "look right"? To me, yes. :D
 
The Fender bass headstock is a brand design much like a logo. The fact that is aesthetically pleasing shows us that it's an excellent design.

It also keeps the strings in line and there's room for the string tree.

I prefer MM's 3 over 1 design myself, again by Mr Fender?

I also like the look of Rick and SX (old style) heads.
 
+1

In addition, Mr. Fender built a very functional product. Not flashy, but functional. The headstock works! I like that......

When form follows function, you usually have good results.

I thought Leo was very much about looks first sound second. Apparently this was the case with his amps at least where I've heard he used to just put in numbers and sizes that looked right, not very functional there.
 
Part of the original question concerns the sound? I'd just like to add this; in certain circles it is believed that the longer the string is past the nut...the lower the resonant result. On the other hand, the sum of any configuration past the nut has a tonal signature too. Assuming we've all played the market pool of basses and many Fenders, maybe this comment doesn't have merit? Personally, I believe design has a potentcy yet doesn't have the final say. And this fact aligns with the many tonal variations out there? I wish a design meant reliable Tone for sure, but I don't think that's true in every single case. Exceptions are out there providing significance to many design interpretations. It's frustrating to ponder and experience.
 
...and to which we all compare?

+1

In addition, Mr. Fender built a very functional product. Not flashy, but functional. The headstock works! I like that......

When form follows function, you usually have good results.

isint that just a regular fender headstock?

I think you're taking about the 'normal' Fender headstock that came after the CBS corporation took over the company - the original Fender headstock was quite small and slender, as were the early basses and the necks, which were pencil thin. After CBS took them over, they wanted a bigger headstock to put a bigger logo on so it could be seen on TV better - that's the headstock that most bass players are familiar with.

I like the original headstock by Leo, with the original lettering and everything - he WAS a genius - but the headstocks you gus are talking about aren't by him.

Cheers,
Cameron
 
Speaking as another artist/designer here...

...Leo had all the fine aesthetic instincts of an artichoke. Look at the Broadcaster/Telecaster guitar for an example. The headstock was designed to two criteria: saving wood and putting all the tuners on one side. Someone later said that there was barely room for the decal.

When Leo designed the Precision, he not only didn't improve on the Tele, he went backward: the amoeba pickguard is uglier than the one on the guitar.

Enter Freddie Tavares, who designed the Strat and split-coil P to Leo's specs (but I'll concentrate on the P here). All the disparate elements that comprised the characteristically Fender take-a-board-and-bolt-stuff-to-it-until-you're-done process have become integrated. A single pickguard now covers the routs, mounts the controls, and provides a place for the jack. And it's gracefully shaped to the contour of the body (something that Freddie didn't change) in such a way that it is one of the most natural-looking pickguards you can imagine. Compare with Leo's version, which randomly covers about half of the top, and still requires a separate piece for the controls and yet another piece for the jack! To give Leo credit, nobody knew how bass players would play the thing, so he was probably being careful: he didn't know whether players would use the thumb (as evidenced by the placement of the finger rest -- and note, there is at least one photo of Freddie, and accomplished musician, playing a first generation P with his thumb) or whether guitarists who took over the bass would play with a flatpick, which would require a guard to avoid scratching the finish on the top.

So Freddie, having successfully integrated the body elements,drew up a headstock based on the Strat, which he probably designed in the beginning to work in various formats. The result was that the total design looks like it came from the hand of single gifted person, which in fact is the case.

A lot of time has been wasted on the role that Paul Bigsby played in designing the Strat/2nd generation P headstock. The short answer is, "if Fender stole the idea, then why doesn't the Tele headstock look like that?" The long answer is, "given the flaws of the original headstock design, how many really cool designs can you come up with that incorporate 6-on-a-side tuners?" The answer to that is, not very many. People notice the superficial resemblance [and it's superficial only] and suddenly a conspiracy theory emerges. Sorry, I don't buy into any of that. Bigsby designed a pretty ugly guitar, if you ask me, and it was plastered all over with arm rests and doodads with Merle Travis' name and whatnot; the Tavares headstock was MUCH better from a design and manufacturing point of view. Or, to put it in simple terms, the Bigsby guitar looked to the past -- the Strat looked to the future.

Add to that the element of familiarity (noted above) and it was inevitable that the Fender headstock would look "right" if the instrument succeeded at all.
 
Speaking as another artist/designer here...

...Leo had all the fine aesthetic instincts of an artichoke. Look at the Broadcaster/Telecaster guitar for an example. The headstock was designed to two criteria: saving wood and putting all the tuners on one side. Someone later said that there was barely room for the decal.

When Leo designed the Precision, he not only didn't improve on the Tele, he went backward: the amoeba pickguard is uglier than the one on the guitar.

Enter Freddie Tavares, who designed the Strat and split-coil P to Leo's specs (but I'll concentrate on the P here). All the disparate elements that comprised the characteristically Fender take-a-board-and-bolt-stuff-to-it-until-you're-done process have become integrated. A single pickguard now covers the routs, mounts the controls, and provides a place for the jack. And it's gracefully shaped to the contour of the body (something that Freddie didn't change) in such a way that it is one of the most natural-looking pickguards you can imagine. Compare with Leo's version, which randomly covers about half of the top, and still requires a separate piece for the controls and yet another piece for the jack! To give Leo credit, nobody knew how bass players would play the thing, so he was probably being careful: he didn't know whether players would use the thumb (as evidenced by the placement of the finger rest -- and note, there is at least one photo of Freddie, and accomplished musician, playing a first generation P with his thumb) or whether guitarists who took over the bass would play with a flatpick, which would require a guard to avoid scratching the finish on the top.

So Freddie, having successfully integrated the body elements,drew up a headstock based on the Strat, which he probably designed in the beginning to work in various formats. The result was that the total design looks like it came from the hand of single gifted person, which in fact is the case.

A lot of time has been wasted on the role that Paul Bigsby played in designing the Strat/2nd generation P headstock. The short answer is, "if Fender stole the idea, then why doesn't the Tele headstock look like that?" The long answer is, "given the flaws of the original headstock design, how many really cool designs can you come up with that incorporate 6-on-a-side tuners?" The answer to that is, not very many. People notice the superficial resemblance [and it's superficial only] and suddenly a conspiracy theory emerges. Sorry, I don't buy into any of that. Bigsby designed a pretty ugly guitar, if you ask me, and it was plastered all over with arm rests and doodads with Merle Travis' name and whatnot; the Tavares headstock was MUCH better from a design and manufacturing point of view. Or, to put it in simple terms, the Bigsby guitar looked to the past -- the Strat looked to the future.

Add to that the element of familiarity (noted above) and it was inevitable that the Fender headstock would look "right" if the instrument succeeded at all.

I wanna use this to bring up a good point...


Often times people who get credit for doing something aren't actually the ones who do it. In car design the "designers" who have their name on even the most prestigious cars are often only making decisions/managing a team. The people who come up with the ideas and actually design things get no credit.

Whatever, that's how corporate design works and you have to play that system.

But I wouldn't doubt if "Leo's designs" were hardly his designs. I don't know enough history about this to comment definitely, but i wouldn't doubt what lpdeluxe said as being the truth, IMO.







Carry on...
 
i think the fender headstock looks right on a fender body. the curves and shapes of the fenders suit the headstock very well. also, as other have stated, it is a very musical shape. besides, it's easy to hang on the friggin wall.
 
I wanna use this to bring up a good point...


Often times people who get credit for doing something aren't actually the ones who do it. In car design the "designers" who have their name on even the most prestigious cars are often only making decisions/managing a team. The people who come up with the ideas and actually design things get no credit.

Whatever, that's how corporate design works and you have to play that system.

But I wouldn't doubt if "Leo's designs" were hardly his designs. I don't know enough history about this to comment definitely, but i wouldn't doubt what lpdeluxe said as being the truth, IMO.







Carry on...

That's true. Fender was looking for a design that would say "Fender" unmistakably (it might have said, just as loudly, "Bigsby" to the locals in Southern California -- Merle didn't gig with the B guitar much, preferring his Super 400 -- but to the world at large, it was no contest) and the modified scroll did the trick.

At the same time, for every good idea there are lots of bad ones, and give Fender credit for knowing the difference.

In recent years there have been Mercurys touted as resembling Mercedes (as I said at the time, if MB had advertised that they resembled Mercs they might have had something) and Dodges that were similar to the 1937 Cord: those make Fender's transgressions look pretty small.

Me, I think basses are ugly -- I've never gotten used to their asymmetrical shape -- but I play Precisions anyway.