# Aesthetic value of guitar headstock??



## Hired Goon (Mar 4, 2008)

Arguably Gibson LP and Fender Strat have desirable headstocks. They are instantly recognizable, timeless, and seem to be aesthetically pleasing. Other guitars may be well put together with decent woods and components, but if they have what appears to be an ugly headstock, they may not ultimately be that commercially successful. For me, a perfect example of this is The Heritage. I don't think anyone would disagree that the specifications and overall build quality are right up there, but the headstock is so damn fugly I would never consider one, which is a shame. I can't buy this probably great guitar, because of the poor aesthetic design of the headstock. I'm sure they would actually sell more with a different headstock design.

I've never found Dean guitars to have a particularly desirable headstock either. It's personal preference of course, but I think the majority of people would find these 2 headstock designs relatively less attractive than most others.


----------



## davetcan (Feb 27, 2006)

and then there's










Worst looking headstock in the history of guitar making but I'm sure he makes damn fine guitars. I can live with the Heritage, and do, but I'll never own a Tyler.


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

Steinberger came up with the headstock template that all companies should, but will not follow..........


----------



## lbrown1 (Mar 22, 2007)

I actually don't really like the Gibson headstock aesthetically......but I very much like the PRS one.

Fender's is great - it looks great - but also having those tuners along the top - I find - makes it easier to adjust tuning on the fly


----------



## al3d (Oct 3, 2007)

it's VERY hard to do a good headstock design, i'm gonna be making one for a new electric company in a few weeks and it's gonna be a LOT of work i'm sure. doing something has cool as fender or Gibson will be very hard.


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

Accept2 said:


> Steinberger came up with the headstock template that all companies should, but will not follow..........


if you mean the lack of one, then i agree. i've always loved that look


----------



## mrmatt1972 (Apr 3, 2008)

[/IMG]

I live with this because the guitar plays and sounds really good. Some people actually like it (or think it's funny), and it is useful for poking bass players in the back, but really, aesthetics don't matter to me as much as playability and sound.


----------



## Scottone (Feb 10, 2006)

This type of thing is pretty subjective of course. Personally, I have some trouble getting my head around a classic body design with a radically different headstock (i.e. Suhr, Tyler, G&L etc) although these are great guitars.


----------



## smorgdonkey (Jun 23, 2008)

I don't like really ugly headstocks either. It would likely stand in the way of a number of purchases. I like the ESP/LTD 'smurfhat' that is discontinued...it has nice string layout too for pull over the nut. I like Seagull too and it shares the smart layout attribute as well.


----------



## Robert1950 (Jan 21, 2006)

Headstock aesthetics are a minor issue for me. As long as it isn't absurd like the Dean spread eagle headstock or something equally as gaudy.


----------



## Hired Goon (Mar 4, 2008)

I wonder how much impact the headstock design has on sales though. Would The Heritage have sold more with a different design? Would Dean sell more if they had a different one? It's sad that we are influenced by such things for a musical instrument, but that's the way most of us are. 

I think to compete you need a great headstock design - and there are only so many ways to make one - perhaps most of the good shapes are already taken. Those James Tyler guitars above...wtf was he thinking? The Lindert one you could argue you use it to get a few laughs, but I think most wouldn't take it seriously.


----------



## Sneaky (Feb 14, 2006)

Let's not forget the Musicvox... 











from the Salvadore Dali school of lutherie.


----------



## Powdered Toast Man (Apr 6, 2006)

Sneaky said:


> Let's not forget the Musicvox...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That looks like a field hockey stick!


----------



## Sneaky (Feb 14, 2006)

I like traditional. Gibson, Martin and Fender got it right. I don't like the PRS design, or anything pointy.

I love Thomspon's headstock... simple, yet unique:










I had a Bourgeois JOM for a while that I loved, but I could not get over the "modern" headstock, so I sold it. (I think Dana worked for Paul Reed Smith at one time... hmmm)


----------



## Powdered Toast Man (Apr 6, 2006)

I think original headstock designs look much better with an original BODY design to go with it. A good example for me is Musicman. Different than the Fender layouts, but a nice, simple headstock to go with it.

Nothing looks more ridiculous to me than a standard Strat or Tele or LP body with a different headstock. Those are Fender and Gibson's iconic guitar designs - don't go sticking your own headstock on there. It looks odd.


----------



## zontar (Oct 25, 2007)

I don't really look at the headstock, so it's not a big deal, although I do appreciate a nice looking headstock.
In addition to the Gibson & fender ones, I really like the headstock on my Iceman. (And it fits the comment above of the headstock matching the body.)









but the only way a headstock would prevent me from buying a guitar would be an issue of structure/function.

For example, those huge Dean headstocks make the guitars neck heavy. I also don't like reverse headstocks where all the tuners are on the bottom. I find them awkward to tune. But even then I might still ignore that.

And I don't find the Heritage headstocks ugly.


----------



## Mooh (Mar 7, 2007)

Sneaky said:


> I had a Bourgeois JOM for a while that I loved, but I could not get over the "modern" headstock, so I sold it. (I think Dana worked for Paul Reed Smith at one time... hmmm)


This is an exceedingly minor issue for me. Never in a million years would I be disinclined to like a guitar as a whole based on the shape of the headstock alone. There are way too many other issues. Sure many are disproportionately large or small, or symmetrically off to my eye, but that kind of like judging a car by its hubcaps...when you're scooting down the highway at 120kph it doesn't matter at all. What baffles me is the proliferation of copycats in the industry. I'd rather see originality.

As for the Bourgeois, I really like that!

Peace, Mooh.


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

I don't think there is anything wrong with not purchasing a guitar for ANY reason. For a lot of us they are a luxury item that requires hard work and savings. There is nothing wrong with wanting it to sound AND look the way you want. Personally, I don't like what I perceive as ugly headstocks and I don't want a guitar that I don't like the look of. It can cause a war sometimes when you say that, but I don't believe there is anything wrong with that.



> For example, those huge Dean headstocks make the guitars neck heavy. I also don't like reverse headstocks where all the tuners are on the bottom. I find them awkward to tune. But even then I might still ignore that.


I have a 1981 Dean E'Lite and it's perfectly balanced. As are most other vintage Deans I have played. When it comes to the look of the Dean headstock, the guitar are so over the top I think the headstock suits them. I mean, the 'shrimpfork' headstock they used for awhile looked much worse in my opinion.


----------



## zontar (Oct 25, 2007)

torndownunit said:


> I don't think there is anything wrong with not purchasing a guitar for ANY reason. For a lot of us they are a luxury item that requires hard work and savings. There is nothing wrong with wanting it to sound AND look the way you want. Personally, I don't like what I perceive as ugly headstocks and I don't want a guitar that I don't like the look of. It can cause a war sometimes when you say that, but I don't believe there is anything wrong with that.
> 
> 
> 
> I have a 1981 Dean E'Lite and it's perfectly balanced. As are most other vintage Deans I have played. When it comes to the look of the Dean headstock, the guitar are so over the top I think the headstock suits them. I mean, the 'shrimpfork' headstock they used for awhile looked much worse in my opinion.


Well, you do have to happy with a guitar before you buy it, if you're not, it's probably best to pass on it. But for me the headstock isn't a huge issue in terms of appearance. But if I like it, even better. It's a bonus.


----------



## Mooh (Mar 7, 2007)

torndownunit said:


> I don't think there is anything wrong with not purchasing a guitar for ANY reason. For a lot of us they are a luxury item that requires hard work and savings. There is nothing wrong with wanting it to sound AND look the way you want. Personally, I don't like what I perceive as ugly headstocks and I don't want a guitar that I don't like the look of. It can cause a war sometimes when you say that, but I don't believe there is anything wrong with that.


It's entirely personal (I didn't say there was anything wrong with it) and objective, but appearance *for me* comes a distant third to tone and playability. My oldest Beneteau, and my Godin Belmont both have unattractive headstocks *to me* but everything else about them rocks me so they're keepers.

I think by taste we're conditioned to like/dislike whatever form/proportion/symmetry/design. It can evolve over time, at least mine has. 

Peace, Mooh.


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

Mooh said:


> It's entirely personal (I didn't say there was anything wrong with it) and objective, but appearance *for me* comes a distant third to tone and playability. My oldest Beneteau, and my Godin Belmont both have unattractive headstocks *to me* but everything else about them rocks me so they're keepers.
> 
> I think by taste we're conditioned to like/dislike whatever form/proportion/symmetry/design. It can evolve over time, at least mine has.
> 
> Peace, Mooh.


Ya but for me, I can find plenty of guitars that I like all aspects of. There is no reason for me to compromise on any part of the guitar, whether it's playability or looks. There are plenty of guitars that cover both. I mean, there are literally hundreds of brands to choose from nowadays.

This is not directed at you or even anyone in the thread. It's just a general comment on the attitude that someone is an uneducated buyer if one reasons they don't buy a certain guitar is the aesthetics or their tastes. I find that attitude to be really common on a lot of the forums. The bottom line SHOULD be that someone should buy what they like, whatever their reasons are for liking it. Which, again, I know you aren't disagreeing with. It's just a comment on these types of threads in general and the direction they tend to take.


----------



## Sneaky (Feb 14, 2006)

Mooh said:


> This is an exceedingly minor issue for me. Never in a million years would I be disinclined to like a guitar as a whole based on the shape of the headstock alone. There are way too many other issues. Sure many are disproportionately large or small, or symmetrically off to my eye, but that kind of like judging a car by its hubcaps...when you're scooting down the highway at 120kph it doesn't matter at all. What baffles me is the proliferation of copycats in the industry. I'd rather see originality.
> 
> As for the Bourgeois, I really like that!
> 
> Peace, Mooh.


Man it was a great guitar, and when you look at the picture, you can see it really is a near perfect design... look at the nice straight string pulls. But I tried and tried, and could not look at that guitar without thinking how wrong it looked. 

I'm all about fashion I guess.


----------



## copperhead (May 24, 2006)

seems like a headstock can make or break a guitar company which could be a good thing if your looking a quality guitar and don't care if its the big manufacturer f or g you might get a gem on eBay


----------



## Hired Goon (Mar 4, 2008)

Copperhead...that is my point exactly...a simple headstock may make or break a guitar company. Although I agree with Mooh that tastes evolve and after awhile things you thought were at first ugly seem to grow on you. I have always hated the general look of an SG but now I want one.


----------



## J S Moore (Feb 18, 2006)

Sneaky said:


> Let's not forget the Musicvox...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That looks like a Les Paul with a stiffie.


----------



## six-string (Oct 7, 2009)

yeah headstocks are the most important part of the guitar. 
it where all the tone and mojo comes from.


----------



## Mooh (Mar 7, 2007)

six-string said:


> yeah headstocks are the most important part of the guitar.
> it where all the tone and mojo comes from.


Step away from the LSD...


----------



## six-string (Oct 7, 2009)

okay maybe after this solo...


----------



## jimihendrix (Jun 27, 2009)

check these out...


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

six-string said:


> okay maybe after this solo...


I think to that bass, it's mandatory to be wearing those pants.


----------



## Budda (May 29, 2007)

The thumbs up headstock, wow!

and the peavey shark guitar, that's using your head lol


----------



## Maxer (Apr 20, 2007)

I think a lot of this goes down to conditioning and degree of reverence one feels for 'tradition.'

I'm more into what sounds and plays good - but that said, I can't stand the Peavey split headstock design. I like Fender's designs and Gibson - I love Yamaha Pacifica headstock designs and I dig the Hagstrom take too... lots of nice curves to it. I'm not crazy on Godin's SD/Exit 22/Radiator/LG designs but they're not near ugly enough to make me want to stop playing and enjoying their guitars.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

If I really liked the guitar I wouldn't care what the head stock was like, I would buy it anyway. Lots of head stocks can be reshaped. While I have that ability, I realize others do not and would have to pay to have it done if it were really something they wanted to do.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

six-string said:


> yeah headstocks are the most important part of the guitar.
> it where all the tone and mojo comes from.


I have no love for Gibsons, but I like the look of this guitar.


----------



## 4Aaron GE (Jul 12, 2009)

The headstock does make for a lot of what I think of a guitar. I know it shouldn't. I should really only care for how it plays and sounds, but there it is. For instance, I love the headstocks on my ESP and my brother's Jackson. They're simple headstocks that really suit the guitars. But there are others that are just hideous. The current standard BC Rich headstock is one. A few years ago, I went to a music store and found a one of those semi-acoustic thinline guitars in a Warlock body. I thought it was great. However, what killed it for me was the stupid beetle mouth looking headstock. If it wasn't for that, I probably would have been several hundred bucks poorer, but had another nifty guitar. That said, the headstock they used in the 80s was pretty nice. (Yes, I have a thing for angly, pointy headstocks)

However, I must admit that if the guitar has enough value for the money, I'm willing to overlook it. My bass is testament to that. I'm not particuarly thrilled with the headstock, but I like the rest of it enough to not care too much.


----------



## Nork (Mar 27, 2010)

i play a parker, which basically has no headstock and i find it particularly pleasing. sleek, simple, lovely. i like the strat h/s, gibby's...epi's are nice too...

that tyler one is hideous, afaik. i've never played one, but based on that, i wouldn't buy a guitar. but i don't buy stuff based on looks!


----------



## zontar (Oct 25, 2007)

Actually I was going to mention that I have never liked the look of headless guitars (Like Steinbergers) it just looks like there's something missing.
But as for buying one, at one point I wouldn't have, but now--if it balanced well and played well I could see buying a headless one, although I'm more likely to buy one with a headstock--even an ugly one.

And I love that reversed Les Paul.

I really want one.


----------



## Hired Goon (Mar 4, 2008)

_Nork..."but i don't buy stuff based on looks!"
_
Yeah but this is how the vast majority do, and not just guitars. Cars, shoes, cell phones, golf clubs, books, women, etc. Sad but true. This of course being no big secret, I'm still surprised at the decisions of some guitar makers.


----------



## jimihendrix (Jun 27, 2009)

hey there...with regards to the heritage headstock...that company is made up of gibson's former employees that refused to transfer to nashville when gibson moved from kalamazoo, michigan...

there is a ""madrid protocol" that trademarks guitar body and headstock shapes...gibson has been known to sue other makers that copy it's well known "open book" headstock design...

each guitar company must have its own unique headstock design and be careful not to resemble any other manufacturer's trademark shape...

headstock designs coupled with a lack of imagination leads to "ugly" headstocks...


----------



## ne1roc (Mar 4, 2006)

I'm a fan of compact hear designs like Music Man and the Peavey Wolfgang. Headstock aesthetics is surprisingly important to me for some reason?


----------



## al3d (Oct 3, 2007)

i've come to love the peavey headstock..small, yet impressive in it's design and style. Not to mention the guitar itself is just a rock machine..




ne1roc said:


> I'm a fan of compact hear designs like Music Man and the Peavey Wolfgang. Headstock aesthetics is surprisingly important to me for some reason?


----------



## Lemmy Hangslong (May 11, 2006)

Yeah Music Man makes a great headstock design. I also like Blade Levinson for a different headstock design.


----------



## zontar (Oct 25, 2007)

I remember when I first saw the Music Man bass headstock with the 3+1 arrangement--I liked it and I remember thinking the guitars should have 4+2, but the ones at that time were 6 a side.

When they finally did the 4+2 I liked it.


----------



## Gene Machine (Sep 22, 2007)

The aesthetics of the headstock are important to me. I prefer guitars that have nice looks, fender, gibson, PRS, Martin. I think it speaks to the design genius of Leo Fender, who came up with the strat, tele, G&L headstocks and maybe Music Man (not sure about that one?) I like them all.

I don't like Tyler, Epiphone, pointy stuff, most strat-wannabes including those ugly Rondo headstocks. geez the guitars look ok but those headstocks kill me. Their original LP shape was deal-withable but the new designs are fugly.

Good luck with your design, AL3d, it will be a daunting task coming up with something as classic as the Fender shape.


----------



## cknowles (Jan 29, 2008)

This one is quite pretty IMHO.
Especially when connected with one of these...


----------



## WEEZY (May 23, 2008)

I love the G&L headstock... it keeps the guitar in tune and makes a great beer-opener in a pinch.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

I must be the only one, but I'm really partial to the 6 inline shredder headstocks eg. Explorer, Charvel/Jackson et al, esp the reverse (upward pointing) ones. The sweep/angles just fit them so well.








This Peavey Vandenberg's nice.


----------

