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 This Obsession With The Fender Headstock?
- Thread starter KingRazor
- Start date
- Aug 5, 2005
- 7,243
- 92
- Disclosures
- Endorsing Artist: J.C. Basses
I enjoy the ergonomic benefits of a non-inline heastock - namely that every inch you don't have hanging off the end of the neck is another inch (okay, not quite) that the center of mass is shifted back toward the body for proper balance.
Tony Bacon, in The Fender Book:
Bigsby's shop was in Downey, CA, 15 miles from Leo's. But Leo stated in an interview that he had seen and been inspired by instruments from Croatia with all the tuners on one side. C.F. Martin's design came from having worked for J.G. Stauffer in Vienna before emigrating to the US. It seems the "Vienna School" of luthiers in the early 1800's favored the slotless, one-sided design.
While this may be true for you... for now, I think the opposite is true for most people.
Every time someone copies Fender, it lends credibility to the original design.
Also, the more you see or hear something over and over, the more it tends to become acceptable and sometimes pleasing in people's minds. I used to dislike Fenders myself when I was younger for exactly the reason you mentioned. Tastes change over time though.
I remember the first time I listened to Primus, or even Rush. I didn't like it. I knew the musicianship was amazing, but I just didn't get what all the fuss was about.... until, I became accustomed to the overall sound then I really "heard" what was going on and was able to recognize the genius there.
Same holds true for headstocks, guitar bodies, fine liquor, caviar, automobiles, art, architecture ...pretty much everything material.
Buy a Steinberger...headstock obsession=over 
I like the headstock on my Godin Shifter...looks like a Tele headstock...so much so that I wonder how they are getting away with it.
I like the headstock on my Godin Shifter...looks like a Tele headstock...so much so that I wonder how they are getting away with it.
THORRR said:1st Place Winner:
"LEAST IMAGINATIVE DESIGN" Award for the most BLAH variation on a Fender Headstock.
While their basses are excellent, I wouldn't even consider buying one because of this awful headstock. It demeans the rest of the instrument.
A-C should strongly consider a redesign.
+1
If it's a little "thinner", I might be able to stand it.
I like MTD headstock the most
If I chose to be totally anal and demand that all my basses have a Fender head and a Fender logo (they don't ALL - BTW) - then it's my decision and I am pleasing my own internal muse.
Still - even though I love the bass, my SR500 head leaves a lot to be desired. If it has a Stradivari head design on it, it would be nicer.
An Archimedean spiral is so pleasing to the eye, and Leo got it right if only in 2D profile. This I feel is the real appeal!
I feel the Fender design appeals to that sense of balance and design like a Roman column and it's 18:5 ratio:::
Last year I designed a headstock for a buddy who manufactures neck and although it is based on the Fender-ish design, it has much more scroll work to it, and it silhouettes out as a Fender shape - it's just different enough to keep it out of litigation.
The only love I can find for a headstock other than a Fender is the old Mosrite. They were just incredible and satisfied my personal criteria for a good shape that pleases the eyes.
I think it's the dual parallelograms - in the body and carried out again in the head - that lets it work though.
Yeah - I did some research for my friend and he's starting production in June of necks with the headstock design I worked out for him.
Still - even though I love the bass, my SR500 head leaves a lot to be desired. If it has a Stradivari head design on it, it would be nicer.
An Archimedean spiral is so pleasing to the eye, and Leo got it right if only in 2D profile. This I feel is the real appeal!
I feel the Fender design appeals to that sense of balance and design like a Roman column and it's 18:5 ratio:::
Last year I designed a headstock for a buddy who manufactures neck and although it is based on the Fender-ish design, it has much more scroll work to it, and it silhouettes out as a Fender shape - it's just different enough to keep it out of litigation.
The only love I can find for a headstock other than a Fender is the old Mosrite. They were just incredible and satisfied my personal criteria for a good shape that pleases the eyes.
I think it's the dual parallelograms - in the body and carried out again in the head - that lets it work though.
Yeah - I did some research for my friend and he's starting production in June of necks with the headstock design I worked out for him.
Lol, it helps if you're basses don't totally suck also. What headstocks do you happen to like?
Call me crazy but I like the Ibanez headstock.
Actually, I like Ibanez SR, Gibson and even the Fender telecaster headstock.
I don't like headstocks that look like there's a lot of extra material. I'm very minimalistic in that sense. For instance, I like the SX Ursa headstock with the dixie cup mod more than the original SX headstock.
It's just a copy of this anyway.
An Archimedean spiral is so pleasing to the eye, and Leo got it right if only in 2D profile. This I feel is the real appeal!
Arsie and SurferJoe said all that needs to be said. It's a design that baldly mimics (in 2D) the headstock of upright basses and other stringed instruments, and follows an aesthetic right out of the history books.
The rest is brand loyalty, marketing, and self consciousness.
btw, i agree about the alleva coppolo headstocks. respect to the rest of the bass because it's a damn fine bass, but the headstock looks like a foot without the toes.
Count me out. I'm not obsessed with Fender headstocks. I like how they look, I understand their symbol and iconic status, but I got a Yamaha whose headstock couldn't look more different, and I love it too. I love both looks, and I like that each headstock matches the overall look of each bass perfectly. Switch headstocks between the two, and both would just look kinda ridiculous.
I agree, though, that the looks of the body are more important. I wouldn't normally own a headless one, though, unless it was a Steinberger (Hohner copy too). I do like headstocks.
thumpbass1 said:
Yeah that's what my brothers been telling me. I trip out when he tells me about alot of things that aren't as original as I thought.
1st Place Winner:
"LEAST IMAGINATIVE DESIGN" Award for the most BLAH variation on a Fender Headstock.
While their basses are excellent, I wouldn't even consider buying one because of this awful headstock. It demeans the rest of the instrument.
A-C should strongly consider a redesign.
+1!!
Seriously, the A-C is one of the least inspired (to put it kindly) head stocks out there. IMHO the Fleabass' cartoonish head stock looks better:
[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]
From an aesthetic viewpoint, a headstock actually can be important. My next bass will probably be a Hofner Contemporary. For my purposes, that's what I need. But I'll get it in spite of the headstock. Because Hofner headstocks have always bothered me quite a bit. Pretty ugly, IMO. Even worse than SX headstocks.
1st Place Winner:
"LEAST IMAGINATIVE DESIGN" Award for the most BLAH variation on a Fender Headstock.
While their basses are excellent, I wouldn't even consider buying one because of this awful headstock. It demeans the rest of the instrument.
A-C should strongly consider a redesign.
You know I hated everything about the A-C Headstock... until I played one, lol. Now I just hate the cost
! Those are some fine sounding instruments, enough to make me totally forget that I ever even disliked the headstock which is quite a feat because I get real stingy about how my basses look.
I;m not obsessed with Fender headstocks, but I know what I like and don't like. There is some ugly stuff out theer that doesn't go along with the rest of the bass. Alleva Coppolo is a fine example. Great bass, ugly headstock - especially for that price. I know its a matter of taste, but wow......
I think it's some kind of statement on marketing, branding and public relations the way headstocks have turned into corporate logos. I started out on an upright bass and no upright player ever gave a moments thought to the shape of the headstock. All basses (more or less) had the same shaped headstock and you pretty much expected them to.
Then Leo comes along and just copies the general "feel" of an upright stock for his bass and other guitars and suddenly it's now "his" logo. Well, yeah, his adaptation of a traditional design was new but it's still a derivative work. But now viewed as a logo the issue of "public confusion" arises. Say two companies both create derivative headstocks based upon the upright scroll headstock. Now the lawyerly question would be is the public confused between the two brands.
So now headstocks are things to keep lawyers in their expensive cars and a simple common traditional decoration is forgotten. Personally I hate the look of headless instruments but I must admit that they certainly do put an end to all this nonsense.
