Okay OSG, tell me what you think about headless guitars.

[Science_Penguin]

Headless guitars have made something of a comeback, at least over in the Prog Metal circles I frequent. First Ola Strandberg releases his Bodens, then Kiesel releases the Vader, companies like Agile started jumping on the apparent new trend, and now there's a distinct resurgence of interest in the old Steinberger GMs. There's talk of them all over the place, and it even has me interested in putting something together, just to see if there really is a big enough advantage in the stability and weight reduction department.

But, frankly, I could use a different perspective, and clearly, the best place I can think of to get that is a community built around older-than-dirt guitar designs from the 60's.

So, OSG, what do YOU think of headless guitars? Ever played one? Ever OWNED one? Never touched one but have plenty of opinions on it? Never had any interest at all? Whatever ya got, post it here! I'm genuinely curious.

[soggy mittens]

[...]
So, OSG, what do YOU think of headless guitars?[...]

[Singlebladepickup]

^^^^

[Science_Penguin]

Not unexpected.

[Fiddy]

2 members replies does not = "OSG".

I could be down but most designs I see look cheesy.

[Science_Penguin]

I know... I know... but we're off to a pretty good start.

[StevenO]

I don't really understand their purpose, personally. Tuning a guitar at the butt of the body doesn't really make sense, ergonomically. Unless people like the aesthetics of not having a headstock, it doesn't make sense to me. If it's not aesthetics, why not have a headstock-like end to the neck anyhow, if you like the function of having the tuners at the butt of a guitar. There are plenty of aspects of musical equipment that are included for aesthetics when they have no real functional purpose.

I actually think Harvester could come up with areally interesting headless-guitar concept.

[marqueemoon]

I'm fully on board with this.



Definitely not in the budget though.

I would not miss ringing strings behind the nut. I actually use hair ties wrapped around the headstock and over the strings to kill this on my live guitars.

[Telliot]

I just can't get beyond the aesthetics of it — nor do I see why it would function any better — and so I'm left scratching my head and wrinkling my nose.

[Larry Mal]

Right, I mean, with the typical headstock, you could pick a string with your right hand and tune with your left, right?

That simple bit of ergonomics goes right out the window without a headstock. Talk about reinventing the wheel.

It would probably make for a stronger guitar, though, if that was a consideration.

And for the love of God, you'd better have the body for it. Your typical guitar design, the good ones anyway, are beautiful bits of functional art that make anyone look better. The guitars without headstocks can make an impression, certainly, but if you're a typical person in typical dress you'll look like a total asshole with one of them.

[MechaBulletBill]

Like headless humans, they look wrong, unsettling and concerning.

[PorkyPrimeCut]

Normally removing the head results in death.

It hasn't worked.

Kill them with fire!

[mackerelmint]

I don't see the point, unless maybe to combat neck dive, but that's addressable without decapitation and as others have noted, the practicality of picking with one hand and tuning with the other is pretty much done away with. I wouldn't buy one.

[fat finger]

They work out well if you need a guitar to match your keytar.

[shadowplay]

If you are cool and somehow beyond the aesthetic gravity of mere morals, headless away all you like, see Cosey Fanni Tutti, Otherwise...best avoided.

Fundamentally I believe if your music is good I don't give a shit about your equipment.

D