• 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 This Obsession With The Fender Headstock?

KingRazor

KingRazor

Jun 4, 2010
6,747
415
37
Beaverton, Oregon USA
#1
I just don't understand. I understand personal preference. Trust me, I'm a picky guy, I like what I like and don't like what I don't.

But the level of fanaticism I see sometimes is just ridiculous.

For instance, one thing that I just find odd is how revolted people are by the new SX headstocks. People HATE these headstocks. Why? I really don't see anything wrong with them. The old headstocks didn't look much better, IMO. But, they look more like Fender headstocks.

I've seen people add wood to a headstock to make it more like the Fender one. Even if it didn't match. Obsess much?

I don't even look at the headstock of my bass. I'm far more concerned with how the body looks. It makes up the bulk of the instrument and IMO is the best looking part most of the time. Find a nice piece of flamed maple with a translucent colored finish? That's just sexy.

I could understand if it was simply a "I prefer the Fender style headstock". I'd be okay with that. But modding your headstock to look more like the Fender headstock (especially if you use wood that doesn't even match) or choosing outright to not purchase an instrument because the headstock isn't a Fender-style, that's just odd.
 
#2
I started playing in 2003 and when i first started looking to upgrade 2 years later and was looking at fenders , I thought god those headstocks are huge and ugly , at the time i was playing a dean edge. I honestly thought a P or J headstock was so dang huge.

Then I got my 2nd bass , a fender due to the tone I loved out of it and grew accustomed to it, but really i dont think a fender headstock is all that and i honestly perfer the original P basses headstock ,the "tele" shape.
 
#3
I agree that people make way, way too big a deal out of headstock shape and design in general. It's just a part of the bass and not even the most prominent. People will say things like "Yeah, it's an awesome bass... I love the playability and tone and build quality... but I'm iffy on the headstock so I'll pass. Definite no." and I just can't figure that out for the life of me.

Do you remember when the Carvin SB4000 came out and there was that big uproar over how hideous the headstock is?

Invalid Link Removed

It just doesn't bother me at all. *shrug* :hmm:
 
#5
KingRazor said:
For instance, one thing that I just find odd is how revolted people are by the new SX headstocks. People HATE these headstocks. Why? I really don't see anything wrong with them. The old headstocks didn't look much better, IMO. But, they look more like Fender headstocks...
Click to expand...

I think that quite a few people bought SX for a very specific reason that it was the cheapest and yet decent instrument that looks like a Fender. These people lose almost all interest in the brand once it stops looking like a Fender, and were just bemoaning the fact that they can no longer find a decent Fender looking instrument for $150.

It has nothing to do with the relative beauty or ugliness of the headstock, but the difference it has from Fenders.

Of course, the reason why anyone would want a non-Fender bass that looks like a Fender is another thing all together. The most polite thing one can say is that Fender set a standard in which everything else is measured against.
 
#6
nocontrols said:
Do you remember when the Carvin SB4000 came out and there was that big uproar over how hideous the headstock is?

Invalid Link Removed

It just doesn't bother me at all. *shrug* :hmm:
Click to expand...

I dig everything about that Carvin, precisely because it is so different from a Fender.

It looks like you took a Jazz bass and left it in the sun too long and it melted. Very cool.

And I'm a Fender enthusiast!
 
#7
It's got little to do with how beautiful the headstock looks in itself, and everything to do with its history. The bass landscape has been so dominated by Fenders for fifty years that people just think this is what a bass headstock "ought" to look like. Its an iconic design, plain and simple.
 
#8
There are other threads explaining the technical artistic reasons why the Fender (P and J) headstock is so aesthetically pleasing. There is some kind of fundamental proportional calculaton at play. Not sure if Leo had a clue or not, but evidently it's the kind of thing art students are trained to recognize.

Either way, people are hooked on that headstock, and some designs that emulate it are okay, others not.

I like a big fat headstock, like that vintage Strat headstock that's almost as big as the body. Maybe it's a phallic thing, I dunno.
 
#9
bassobrutto said:
It's got little to do with how beautiful the headstock looks in itself, and everything to do with its history. The bass landscape has been so dominated by Fenders for fifty years that people just think this is what a bass headstock "ought" to look like. Its an iconic design, plain and simple.
Click to expand...

I have never, in my life understood this. Why would you like something for any other reason than that you like it?
 
#10
For historical reasons the basic Fender design is totally iconic. Therefore variations on it tend to become eyesores, especially if the bass is a straight Fender copy otherwise.

Traditionally, the headstock is the part that distinguishes a guitar from others, and luthiers take much care to design one that will be recognizable and still aesthetically pleasing.
 
#11
I was just randomly thinking of this exact point earlier this evening. The main critique I hear/read about someone not liking a headstock is "it's so ugly, it doesn't look anything like a Fender" or something similar. I guess the Fender headstock is nice, but it seems more like nostalgia or brand recognition than anything else. A lot of guitarists are the same way about Gibson headstocks. There are custom guitars out there that are nicer and more expensive than a Les Paul Custom that people will make weird critical comments about how ugly the headstock looks...when really what they end up saying is it doesn't look like an LP headstock. I see it said about Lull a lot and the guy makes gorgeous instruments. I guess if you want an exact Fender replica but for some reason don't want a Fender I understand it (sort of). I'm totally willing to judge a headstock design on its own merit, there are plenty that look nothing like Fender that are great or horrible for their own reasons.
 
#12
I tend to look at the bass as a whole. The headstock is part of the bass.

If I'm going to seriously consider buying a bass, I want to like the whole thing. The one exception I've made to my rule was for my Ibanez ATK. I was looking for a cheaper bass so I could save wear and tear on my 'Ray (especially around my young twin boys (aka: My Twinado)) but still have something of decent quality. The ATK was on a great sale so I decided to go for it, even though I wasn't completely sold on the headstock. After a few years with my ATK, I'm still not 100% in love with the headstock, but I've decided that it "fits" the bass so I'm over my old issues.
 
#13
IMO most headstocks are ugly. There are only a few I really like. I pick my basses by tone and playability though. My bass that I feel has the best tone is also in my opinion the ugliest bass I own. I don't care for the headstock or body shape. I'm not gonna say any names though since some people might call me a heretic or something lol.
 
#14
Regarding the Fender thing: I love Fenders and I love that headstock but I don't feel any particular need to remain faithful to it. Different companies, different headstocks... it's OK NOT to be Fender! And if you do need Fender-specific on a budget, Squiers are a great option. That kind of ties in with that other thread that's floating around but I'm just saying... I don't see why it should be a priority but even if it is, you have options aside from SX. People get pretty durn picky which is funny considering they're only paying $200.

bassobrutto said:
It's got little to do with how beautiful the headstock looks in itself, and everything to do with its history. The bass landscape has been so dominated by Fenders for fifty years that people just think this is what a bass headstock "ought" to look like. Its an iconic design, plain and simple.
Click to expand...

See, that bugs me. When I start hearing the word "ought" (as in: this is how a headstock "ought" to look, this is how music "ought" to sound, this is how you "ought" to play) I immediately start detecting the presence of mindless dogma. I HATE mindless dogma. I love Fender and I love Fender designs but the moment I start thinking that's the UNIMPEACHABLY CORRECT way to go about it and that it needs that to be "right" then I've become a tool. There is room for all sorts.

electracoyote said:
There are other threads explaining the technical artistic reasons why the Fender (P and J) headstock is so aesthetically pleasing. There is some kind of fundamental proportional calculaton at play. Not sure if Leo had a clue or not, but evidently it's the kind of thing art students are trained to recognize.

Either way, people are hooked on that headstock, and some designs that emulate it are okay, others not.

I like a big fat headstock, like that vintage Strat headstock that's almost as big as the body. Maybe it's a phallic thing, I dunno.
Click to expand...

Maybe Leo was a Freudian! We need a Freudian bass discussion thread... "What's the best bass for my mother to play metal?"
 
#15
Some people can make due and that's cool. However...

The Fender bass is the face of the electric bass. Period. It is the most copied bass in the world to the point that companies like Sadowsky, Lakland, and other make upscale copies of this bass.

It's not so much the headstock as it is the body. They go hand and hand together like Peanut butter and jelly. Any changes and it's more like peanut butter and turkey or pickles and jelly.

There are tons of basses out there that have there own body shape with there own headstock's and it works but the minute you use the iconic Fender bodies people will look for the headstock's. I've never seen other basses with non Fender bodies really go for the iconic Fender headstock, but that's not to say it hasn't been done.
 
#16
Now this looks nothing like a Fender headstock.

Untitled.jpg


Problem...solved?
 
#17
nocontrols said:
I agree that people make way, way too big a deal out of headstock shape and design in general.
Click to expand...

I gotta disagree with you there man. The look of a bass is an extremely important feature to me and the headstock is a huge part of the look. The headstock is often a bass company's most prominent feature simply because it is usually the easiest way to recognize that company. A company may have loads of body shapes but you rarely see any with more than two headstock designs. Even without the logo I can tell you pretty loads of different companies bassed on shape alone. The headstock makes a very strong aesthetic statement and can truly be a make or break feature for certain people, me included. There are plenty of basses that I refuse to own because their headstock designs just look awful to me (Sukop, Linc Luthier, The Low End, among others).

To the OP, perhaps it is because Fender did it first, but their headstock design is easily the single most iconic visual feature of their basses because it's on every single one and it's looks damn good! I think the "flow" between a headstock and body is important. They have to look like they make sense and for Fender basses (and a whole lot of others) that headstock shape makes a whole lot of sense! My current favorite headstock?

IMG_2158.gif
 
#19
nocontrols said:
See, that bugs me. When I start hearing the word "ought" (as in: this is how a headstock "ought" to look, this is how music "ought" to sound, this is how you "ought" to play) I immediately start detecting the presence of mindless dogma. I HATE mindless dogma. I love Fender and I love Fender designs but the moment I start thinking that's the UNIMPEACHABLY CORRECT way to go about it and that it needs that to be "right" then I've become a tool. There is room for all sorts.
Click to expand...

No matter how you dice it up it's how it was designed and therefore it what people expect. This Fender canvas has been altered and tampered with to no effect. If you don't like it move on, but don't change it and expect people to like it. The funny thing about conformity is when people force you not to conform and in the end who has really lost focus.

The Fender design obviously works because people are drawn to it. The same way there is different types of music that "ought" to sound like it's genre. I wouldn't call it mindless dogma if you tamper with what people know and love and not expect some kind of backlash on something so loved and sentimental.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back