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
Very interesting points. I'm really digging the variety of opinions and points of view in this thread!
One additional thing that is usually forgotten is how each new and improved Fender model was originally designed and marketed to replace the older ones!
More refined aesthetics aside, the Stratocaster was originally meant as an upgrade from the earlier Telecaster. It had one more pickup for additional tonal range, deep double cutaways for easier high fret access and what was called by Fender the "Comfort Contour Body" for better ergonomics, the whole thing with the all-electronics-under-the-pickguard for simpler maintenance, and of course the famous tremolo/vibrato system.
And yet, while the amazing design of the Strat went on to become a huge hit and an instant classic, the Tele was never in danger of being overshadowed and replaced by it.
I guess the folks at Fender overlooked all that stuff about familiarity we have been discussing. It didn't really matter anymore if the Tele had a worse design than the later models or not. It was the first, it was good, it had become a classic and was going to stay that way. We can, if we want, just mentally ignore any of the "designed by an engineer" clunkyness in a Tele as part of its plain, workhorse appeal.
For many people, myself included, despite the improved tech specs the Strat was never a "better" guitar than the Tele. They're both fine in their own merits, and just sound and feel different.
Same thing with the Jazz Bass, which was originally called "Deluxe Bass". It was sold as an upmarket improvement on the Precision Bass because of the larger tonal range, more modern and refined body shape, and so on.
But that's not how it worked out, was it? Does anyone nowadays really consider a P-bass to be a poor man's J-bass? If so, please keep to yourself or this thread will become a flamewar faster than you can say "artichoke".
It's also interesting that at the same time that the Jazz Bass became such a huge success, "deluxe" or not, its guitar counterpart, the Jazzmaster, was pretty much a failure as not many people were interested in it. That model only really began to get any respect after being discontinued, as a "cult status" icon instead of a huge popular success like the Tele or Strat.
And the ironic thing is that the Jazzmaster was also originally marketed as the "Deluxe Model", as it was supposed to be a new and improved Stratocaster. See how well that worked.
Anyway, just wanted to share. It's easy to forget that even visionary, innovative and highly successful people like Leo and companies like Fender can fail spectacularly in some predictions, and make all sorts of wrong bets. I guess we tend to only remember more of the stuff that went right and less of what went wrong with time.
That certainly happens in the industrial design world. Particularly when you're dealing with famous names such as Pininfarina, Porsche or Starck, which have become so much of an upscale brand or griffe that the actual design or general quality of the products don't make much of a difference.
(This is a personal pet peeve of mine as a graphic designer, because it makes many people immediately associate the word "design" with "frivolous artsy expensive luxury", and refuse to believe it can, sometimes, instead mean useful problem-solving skills actually worth paying money for.)
Many companies just slap the famous signature on any old product, from wristwatches to airplanes, and voilà — instant upmarket flair. And the real people working on those studios can't really complain about having to sign "by Porsche" or whatever instead of their real names, because it goes with the job.
But it's important to remember that this is by no means a recent phenomenon. How many acclaimed masterworks from, say, Raphael or other famous painters in the renaissance period were really made by one or several of their pupils? We'll never know.
One additional thing that is usually forgotten is how each new and improved Fender model was originally designed and marketed to replace the older ones!
More refined aesthetics aside, the Stratocaster was originally meant as an upgrade from the earlier Telecaster. It had one more pickup for additional tonal range, deep double cutaways for easier high fret access and what was called by Fender the "Comfort Contour Body" for better ergonomics, the whole thing with the all-electronics-under-the-pickguard for simpler maintenance, and of course the famous tremolo/vibrato system.
And yet, while the amazing design of the Strat went on to become a huge hit and an instant classic, the Tele was never in danger of being overshadowed and replaced by it.
I guess the folks at Fender overlooked all that stuff about familiarity we have been discussing. It didn't really matter anymore if the Tele had a worse design than the later models or not. It was the first, it was good, it had become a classic and was going to stay that way. We can, if we want, just mentally ignore any of the "designed by an engineer" clunkyness in a Tele as part of its plain, workhorse appeal.
For many people, myself included, despite the improved tech specs the Strat was never a "better" guitar than the Tele. They're both fine in their own merits, and just sound and feel different.
Same thing with the Jazz Bass, which was originally called "Deluxe Bass". It was sold as an upmarket improvement on the Precision Bass because of the larger tonal range, more modern and refined body shape, and so on.
But that's not how it worked out, was it? Does anyone nowadays really consider a P-bass to be a poor man's J-bass? If so, please keep to yourself or this thread will become a flamewar faster than you can say "artichoke".
It's also interesting that at the same time that the Jazz Bass became such a huge success, "deluxe" or not, its guitar counterpart, the Jazzmaster, was pretty much a failure as not many people were interested in it. That model only really began to get any respect after being discontinued, as a "cult status" icon instead of a huge popular success like the Tele or Strat.
And the ironic thing is that the Jazzmaster was also originally marketed as the "Deluxe Model", as it was supposed to be a new and improved Stratocaster. See how well that worked.
Anyway, just wanted to share. It's easy to forget that even visionary, innovative and highly successful people like Leo and companies like Fender can fail spectacularly in some predictions, and make all sorts of wrong bets. I guess we tend to only remember more of the stuff that went right and less of what went wrong with time.
Yeah, that's the danger of hindsight: you think you can tell "why" things happened. Good luck with that.
But some designs have so much sweat equity in them that they become classics. The first two Precisions were ab ovo (given that the split coil version was intended to fix some of the single coil's problems) new. In fact, the P 2.0 couldn't be improved on except incrementally, and in directions that many of us have rejected.
Other examples are the Gibson LP, SG and 335. None of the clones and copies are better (understanding that it took a few tries to get the Les Paul exactly right) and all of those variations from other makers are inferior to the real things.
Oh well: I'm typing on my aggravating laptop from a hotel in OKC. Time to give it up until I'm back at my "real" keyboard.
Quadzilla
Supporting Member
Nice headstock, eh? Guess in the early 70's, Univox and other companies loved the Fender headstock so much that they dittoed it. 
Sorry bout the crappy cell phone pics...
Sorry bout the crappy cell phone pics...
Well people, think of it this way: If someone went in a time machine and told Leo Fender to put reverse headstocks on all the Fenders, we'd all be talking about how regular headstocks would look weird. Just putting that out there....
I agree the Fender is pretty sweet - whether that's due to design, familiarity, or whatever . . . it works for me.
The Ric 4001 is a pretty close second - best 2/2 headstock.
The Ric 4001 is a pretty close second - best 2/2 headstock.
I don't know that the fender headstock is all form following function. It's got shape for shape's sake.
I suppose the 4 in-line is functional in its simplicity. All the tuners are the same (that's simple).
The top angle (from E tuner to G tuner) is functional to allow the strings to extend straight from the nut to the pegs.
But the bottom shape is pure random art. I like it but it's not functional.
I suppose the 4 in-line is functional in its simplicity. All the tuners are the same (that's simple).
The top angle (from E tuner to G tuner) is functional to allow the strings to extend straight from the nut to the pegs.
But the bottom shape is pure random art. I like it but it's not functional.
What?! How do you know? How do you know that I didn't grow up in China or Burma? Kinda presuming a bit there. Anyway, I see your point...and I raise you a "we're getting away from the point of the thread."
My mentioning the western scale was just as off topic as the poster who mentioned it to me was. It's about the Fender headstock.
I only say that because that whole discussion is pretty deep on it's own. It could easily hijack this thread if we get into it.
It's all good. Y'all can tell me why you think I like the Fender headstock. And why you think that I think that the western scale sounds more resolved and comfortable than some other scale. I don't really care. I like it...I know why I like it. I'll leave the mind reading up to you guys.
Hey! hey!...what am I thinking right now?
I think it's just because it flows with the rest of the body style. From an aesthetic point of view, it flows nicely with the body.
I'm kind of a Steinberger head person myself.
And Warwick. Gotta love LEDs.
I'm kind of a Steinberger head person myself.
And Warwick. Gotta love LEDs.
But as was said in a post before yours it was modified so it really wasn't, plus the tele style head was before even that.
Hey! hey!...what am I thinking right now?
You're thinking overanalysing things gets tiresome and pointless pretty fast!
That was easy.
Whoa. Had to look that one up.
Wasn't the SG originally a replacement for the Les Paul? Fender wasn't the only one less visionary than we think.
If I remember the story correctly around 1960 Gibson wasn't selling many Les Pauls and people were favoring the more modern Stratocaster design. So they made a double-cutaway, lighter and cheaper to make flat-top body to compete with the Strat, using the marketing pitch "the fastest neck in the world". But only later they called it the SG (short for "Solid Guitar", not Satan's Guitar as some believed
). It was originally simply the new Les Paul, and replaced the "old" model entirely for a while. It wasn't until 1968 that Gibson saw that while the SG was a big hit, famous musicians were still in love with their old Les Pauls, and started making them again.Here's my favorite quote from an Invalid Link Removed about it:
Yeah, and how often the Jazz Bass and (particularly) the Jazzmaster guitar are the first choice of jazzists, their obvious original target audience? Hindsight indeed.
Yep. The very first ones were even called Les Pauls but he didn't like the design and made them remove his name.
I own examples of all three Gibsons I mentioned. The SG is by no means the only popular instrument that nobody "got" the first time around. And, like the LP, it required a little development before it was right. But the Les Paul looks backward: it's as close to a traditional guitar style you can manage with a solid body. The SG is lighter and has much improved upper fret access, compared to the LP it replaced -- but Gibson, with a few false starts (including delicate neck joints) made it into a winner. Mine is what a Strat should have been: shorter scale, set neck, and humbuckers.
The Precision, itself, didn't exactly take the world by storm -- it took a few years for musicians to figure it out. Now, it's entrenched.
The Precision, itself, didn't exactly take the world by storm -- it took a few years for musicians to figure it out. Now, it's entrenched.
A lot of instruments didn't catch on when they were first introduced. The Gibson V and Explorer didn't do well when first produced, being much more successfully reissued later.
