Respond to This

Why

Why do some guitarists cut half of the head of guitars off? Does it really affect the sound? I never understood this concept.

glenn-branca.jpg
Responses
Respond to this

Re: Why

11/15/2010 10:52 PM

Chris Pinto (24466) wrote:

Maybe they have anger issues?

I don't know, I've actually never seen this before, to be honest. Although, it could be a certain brand of guitar that has this specific headstock.

Believe it or not, Fender, PRS & Gibson headstocks are actually registered, and copyrighted.



Respond to this

Re: Why

11/19/2010 3:56 PM

Robert De Groot (4781) wrote:

I believe this concept was first introduced by that
well renouned, yet still unnoticed and infamous, old
jazz player willie "guitar" lee johnson jefferson.
He thought that cutting the lower part of the
headstock made the guitar much easier to play and
sounded less tinny. He was one of the original
designers of the famous Fender Telecaster along with
Leo Fender.

Respond to this

Re: Why

11/16/2010 9:22 AM

Ken Richardson (9051) wrote:

I think a certain amount of those guitars come from the maker or factory with a funky shape.

THe Parker Fly has a very minimal shape! but it seems to get the job done.

Who is the guitarist in the photo?



Respond to this

Re: Why

11/16/2010 3:00 PM

Steven Johnson (1327) wrote:

Glenn Branca

Respond to this

Re: Why

11/16/2010 9:59 AM

Randy Hano (12149) wrote:

Here is a headstock for you.

45597455.jpg



Respond to this

Re: Why

11/16/2010 11:20 AM

Chris Pinto (24466) wrote:

See, Randy, that's why I don't give you any of my guitars. Every guitar you have, you have to go and break the headstock off!



Respond to this

Re: Why

11/16/2010 1:18 PM

Randy Hano (12149) wrote:

It is all part of the magic Chris! Playability dude. Hey, do want your Carvin modified too? lol

Respond to this

Re: Why

11/16/2010 3:22 PM

Steven Johnson (1327) wrote:

It's not a The Parker Fly. It's probally a cheap guitar he found in a pawn shop.

I'm starting to think some Japanese companies made them that way.

Jon Spencer seems to be a big fan of them.

6655.jpg6671.jpg

Respond to this

Re: Why

11/16/2010 3:27 PM

Ken Richardson (9051) wrote:

Just throwing Parker out there as an example of a minimal size headstock there ....

Yes, it probably DID come from the factory like that - like I just posted.

Respond to this

Re: Why

11/16/2010 8:27 PM

Warren Hunt (5730) wrote:

I have seen a strat with the top curl of wood broken off the headstock and it was from hitting a wall while the owner was putting the guitar away.

The extra wood should add to sustain and tone so I would not want to cut down my headstock.

Respond to this

Re: Why

11/18/2010 10:09 AM

Ken Richardson (9051) wrote:

I don't know that I would change a guitar that way either. I am open to trying out different makes and models of guitars, so would try out one with about any shape of headstock.

Respond to this

Re: Why

11/18/2010 10:54 PM

Warren Hunt (5730) wrote:

I agree Ken. I dont worry about the resale value of a guitar as I used to play them very hard and I wear the colour off in the strumming/picking area in about 12 months and the frets down in about 18 months. All that was before the shoulder accident so they last longer now.

I would not however break a guitar just to make it look different. Yes I would try different makers for different shapes etc.

Respond to this

Re: Why

11/19/2010 8:32 AM

Ken Richardson (9051) wrote:

I don't look at the resale value of my stuff too much, but I try not to spend too much for it if I can!

I got a good clean Ibanez bass for pretty cheap recently, but later found a Washburn that was about 1/2 as much, but needed some work - strings, solder a wire in place, dust/clean up, and setup. Both basses are pretty cool in their own ways, and a lot of bang for the buck. I got a tuner and bag with the Ibanez, but the Washburn is 34" scale so have a full scale bass similar to a P-bass for a good price.