• 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?

#23
KingRAW said:
The funny thing about conformity is when people force you not to conform and in the end who has really lost focus.
Click to expand...

Nobody's forcing anything. :) My whole point is that it's all good. I would be CRUSHED if Fender stopped producing their beautiful and deservedly well-received headstock but nobody else needs to bow to it. Variety is the spice of life. Incidentally, my tastes aren't radical at all. I'm basically a traditionalist, I just like having options and everyone having options. I don't like any art form being based in a rule book.
 
#24
KingRazor said:
So apparently all I have to do to make a ton of money selling basses is just come up with a headstock design everyone loves that isn't just a Fender copy.

Or that is a Fender copy...
Click to expand...

The answer is making a whole new bass that is original to itself with clever design and functionality. Whenever you put trademark elements that people know they will forever reference and critic the known source.

In other words...go with a clean slate.
 
#25
arsie said:
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.
Click to expand...

Very well said!
 
#27
Kwesi said:
Also, I think new SX headstock was so ill-received because it looks like they didn't even try to come up with a cool headstock design, Fender-esque or not. It looks like a boat oar.
Click to expand...

Agreed. It reminds me of the parts necks that come with an intentionally unshaped headstock.

But with all the controversy and legal issues regarding headstocks, I kind of sympathize with any company that tries to design a unique and appealing headstock these days.
 
#29
arsie said:
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.
Click to expand...
well yeah!

i don't get why people care so much what other bass players do. other people's reasons for doing stuff are their own, and they are free to like or dislike anything out there for no reason at all. it doesn't have to make sense to you, either. keep your eyes on your own paper.
 
#30
electracoyote said:
Agreed. It reminds me of the parts necks that come with an intentionally unshaped headstock.

But with all the controversy and legal issues regarding headstocks, I kind of sympathize with any company that tries to design a unique and appealing headstock these days.
Click to expand...

I'm with you there, man. It's gotten to the point where I just can't imagine coming up with a totally original design because there are sooooooo many out there.
 
#31
I'm not even particularly crazy about the Fender headstock, but spiky/pointy ones like the new SXs just look dumb to me, IMO.

Dean, Peavey, BC Rich (clearly not the vintage ones, which had a nice looking headstock) and all the rest with jagged headstocks just look off to me, regardless of body shape.
 
#32
I have not considered this before but I have just looked at my 3 basses hung up on the wall and yes, the MIM P headstock does look huge and ungainly next to my Ibby BTB and EWB, Leo Fender being an engineer wanted to make a practical and functional instrument, like on his guitars, he believed in having the tuners in a row and the strings straight from bridge to tuner, so it could be argued that the Fender headstock design is born out of practicality.
IMO the Jazz actually looks worse with this shape headstock ??
 
#34
KingRazor said:
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.
Click to expand...
You know where you are right? Talkbass. Here we discuss and nitpick everything down to the smallest detail. In that respect it's no wonder that Fender-lookalike instruments that deviate visually in the very visible headstock will get opinionated. Obsession? Maybe. GAS could be more of an obsession, or browsing the classifieds, etc etc. Just roll with it or roll out. :)

:bassist:
 
#35
I wish fender would do a 2x2 kinda headstock. Don't get me wrong I like the old school one. It just bothers me when my instruments don't seem to have symmetry. I don't know why but I have to have even things like 22 or 24 frets as opposed to 21. Nothing wrong with inline headstocks or odd numbers of frets it just bothers me.
 
#36
farbeyondwillie said:
I wish fender would do a 2x2 kinda headstock. Don't get me wrong I like the old school one. It just bothers me when my instruments don't seem to have symmetry. I don't know why but I have to have even things like 22 or 24 frets as opposed to 21. Nothing wrong with inline headstocks or odd numbers of frets it just bothers me.
Click to expand...
just the mere nature of bass, fat strings to skinny strings, blows any chance of symmetry. but i'll defend your right to like a 2+2 headstock. got several basses with them myself. only one headstock is symmetrical, though.
 
#38
Fender bass headstocks look incredibly cool. They are part of the overall design of the bass and it is a design that doesn't need improving. I have never had a problem with neck dive on any Fender bass. And anyone who says the look of the headstock doesn't matter is probably the type of person who doesn't bother to comb the back of their hair.
 
#39
JimmyM said:
just the mere nature of bass, fat strings to skinny strings, blows any chance of symmetry. but i'll defend your right to like a 2+2 headstock. got several basses with them myself. only one headstock is symmetrical, though.
Click to expand...

I don't know man I think it revolves around evens. The strings have never entered my thoughts on it until now. (damn) On the other hand I don't have any basses that could be folded in half perfectly and that kinda makes my skin crawl.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back