Tripping over cords onstage is a profes- sional hazard. It’s stupid, we’ve all done
it, and sometimes with disastrous results. I
recall doing it one time in front of a club
full of onlookers, and unfortunately, the
cable was connected to my guitar that was
standing on a riser. I watched helplessly
as my favorite guitar—a Rickenbacker—
bounced once on its headstock and then
sprung into the air like a pogo stick before
coming back down again on its face. The
entire event lasted just a few seconds, but
the damage was done. A clean crack of
about 4" now ran through the 4th- and 5th-
string tuner holes. Unbelievably, the guitar
was still in tune and I was able to carry on
with the gig. Was I just lucky or did the
design give my axe more of a chance?
Over the years, different guitars have
acquired reputations for their ability (or
not) to stand up to abuse. So why don’t all
guitars sport sturdy, break-resistant pegheads? As a builder, headstock strength is only
one small item on my checklist of concerns
when designing a guitar, and as always, it’s
a balancing act. Of course, you can eliminate the headstock completely and move
the tuners to the opposite end of the string
length. It’s hard to break something that
isn’t there.
To design a headstock, you have to
think in terms of three dimensions, or
axes. We usually think about the first two
when considering the shape of the design
as viewed from the front. This affects string
length and angle relative to the guitar’s
centerline. The two-dimensional design is
what gets the most attention because the
peghead shape is often the signature of a
guitar. Designing a head shape that’s unique
isn’t as easy as it might seem because there
are quite a few absolutes that have to be
obeyed. It really comes down to geometry,
which is determined by the path of the
strings. The lines of the strings are gener-
ally tapering down to a single point that is
theoretically off the end of the headstock.
If you want to keep the line straight, there
is a finite place where this line intersects
the outside diameter of the tuner capstan
post. Straight string pull has an effect on
both tuning and vibration transfer, and
they are somewhat at opposite ends of
the tug-of-war. If the design calls for this
straight string pull, the limiting factor for
shape is now the clearance distance between
the tuning machine’s gear housing and the
inside edge of the tuning key. There are var-
ious ways to address this—curves, stairsteps,
and angles—but there’s not a lot of wiggle
room on the sides. This generally leaves the
tip of the headstock to make your state-
ment. In order to go beyond this constraint,
a builder will have to angle or “break” the
string as it comes off the nut, which is gen-
erally the case.
The headstock: We may take it for granted, but
a good design balances many considerations.
I think it’s more complex than just size.
I do, however, believe that the headstock
does vibrate in the manner of a tuning
fork at the end of the neck, and it can be
tuned to enhance, or at least vary, a guitar’s
nature. Anyone who has clamped a capo
to the end of the headstock will tell you it
makes a difference.
Another often-overlooked aspect of the
headstock is that a string’s overall length
determines its tension at pitch—longer
being tighter. This may be one of the most
important things to consider when determining the tuner locations, with the difference between in-line and split-side configurations being the most obvious. In-line
designs can make the overall length longer,
and the strings at each end are subject to
different amounts of tension. A builder can
manipulate the lengths to change playability and tone this way. Another way to balance tension is to split the sides unevenly
by, say, four and two, or even five and two
for 7-string instruments. Any approach
will have consequence in size, strength,
and sound.
So far, we’ve just looked at two-dimen-
sional shape, which is pretty easy. Drawing
in two dimensions on a flat surface isn’t
really designing, because it doesn’t take into
account a number of structural demands
that exist in three dimensions. The third
axis gives us the backwards headstock angle
needed to seat the strings firmly in the nut.
A most notable exception to this is Leo
Fender’s design, which accomplishes almost
the same effect by scalloping away the head-
stock’s face to create string angle. The short-
coming here is the need for string trees to
increase the break angle, which can hamper
tuning stability. The payoff is ease of manu-
facture and cheaper material costs, along
with a very robust headstock. It’s pretty
hard to snap a straight piece of maple.
JOL DANTZIG is a noted designer,
builder, and player who co-founded Hamer
Guitars, one of the first boutique guitar
brands, in 1973. Today, as the director of
Dantzig Guitar Design, he continues to
help define the art of custom guitar. To learn
more, visit guitardesigner.com.
