Talk:Electric guitar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Guitarists / Guitar equipment  (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Guitarists, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Guitarists on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Guitar equipment task force.
Note icon
This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.
WikiProject Musical Instruments (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Musical Instruments, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of musical instruments on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Removed some unnecessary text[edit]

The first three paragraphs or so seemed more like a joke than actual information. Putting an unfunctioning picture link up and writing about the joys of "poop guitars" is not the best way to start an article. Please put a better intro in or just leave it like it is.

Please sign your posts on talk pages. But wow, that's certainly an improvement! Poop guitar indeed! Thank you.
Agree it reads like a joke, but we might also take account of Hanlon's razor. Musicians in general, and we electric guitarists in particular, are a fairly hot-blooded lot, and as such we have an intrinsic problem in sorting out which are our opinions and which are facts. (;-> Andrewa 16:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Bad picture redux[edit]

I don't think this is a very good picture. It's blurry, and it illustrates two no-name brand guitars. One looks strikingly like a Gibson Explorer and the other is not quite an ES-Whatever. I think the article should have a clear image of a Gibson or a Fender. I resent the comment below that a Stratocaster doesn't "excite" potential readers. There are hundreds of thousands of Stratocaster-lovers out there. Onsmelly 06:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, Strat rules!!!!!!!!!!!!! Ootmc 23:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I (POV) dislike (/POV) strats but I must concur. Tremspeed 21:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Agree that the Rosa is a no-name guitar, but the Maton is certainly not! Andrewa 03:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The photo of the two off-brand guitars (one of which being a strat copy) was a bad representation of the electric guitar. I replaced it with a photo of a Gibson Les Paul, as this is a much more common example of an electric guitar. The only other model that is this widely identifiable is the Fender Stratocaster. Jamisys (talk) 19:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Just to set the record straight neither of the guitars in the picture is even remotely like a Fender Stratocaster (aka strat). The Rosa has two humbucking pickups, basic controls, and an avant-garde body shape. The strat has three single pole pickups, each subtly different from the other two with the centre one reverse wound, and with distinctive angled positioning and a unique control configuration. It is a classic double cutaway shape. About all these two have in common is that they are both solid body, with about the same scale length and (originally) the same tremolo arm. The Maton is even more different, it is not even solid body, has no tremolo arm, and has basic electrics and two identical "fat" single pole pickups.
The suggestions above that the Maton is similar to a Gibson ES-xxx and the Rosa to a Gibson Explorer are almost as wide of the mark. The Maton/Gibson score card is: Similar - electric but not a solid body; Similar to some ES models - two pickups, one cutaway; Dissimilar to all ES models - scale length, pickups, control circuitry, body shape (the single cutaway ES models have a completely different lower horn), body depth, body construction. The Rosa/Gibson score card: Similar - two humbuckers, similar scale length (shared also with the strat and many others), and both are avant-garde body shapes; Dissimilar: Actual body shape, tremolo arm (all Gibson units are mounted above the belly, while the Rosa unit and all Fender units are routed in), control circuitry. Andrewa (talk) 14:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Rosa Hurricane[edit]

Does this thing actually exist? The only mentions I seem to find of it online are on this page and pages that are verbatim copies of it.

Yes, this thing actually exists, see the image description page. The body shape is also available as a strat replacement body shape from Warmoth Guitars, who call it a Star, but there are also other guitar body shapes called Star.
I'd love to know more about it myself! I bought it second-hand about ten years ago, cheapish ($100 AUD) and sadly neglected (you never buy a guitar with three strings missing, one broken and two too rusty to tune, however cheap... but I just kinda liked it), and set it up. I suspect Rosa may be an Australian importer's brand for MIJ student instruments, probably Rose Music, hence Rosa. Eston was their brand for Italian-made EKO guitars (I have one of those too), and some semi-acoustics were just branded RM, which stood for Rose Music. But, there's no evidence that Rosa or RM guitars are particularly common (unlike Eston ones), so I've no intention of starting articles on them.
It's a surprisingly good guitar. 01:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I quit that rosa hurricane photo because nobody knows that guitar, and looks very old and of bad quality, and the guitar sucks(sorry but its true it looks very cheap) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:48, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

I would love to own a Rosa Hurricane, sadly I will never find it because of its rarity. Please reply back to give me info about this guitar. HAHA425

Easily obtained from any one of many custom builders who use Warmoth Guitars components, and to your own exact order. It's basically a very standard, functional spec: Star body, strat neck, two high-output 70s style humbuckers, strat trem if you want it (but mine goes very nicely as a hardtail), basic controls. Your choice of body and neck woods, machine heads, finish, etc..
If were doing it I'd make exactly one change... A coil-tapped bridge pickup for when you want the extra bite of a single pole, and I'd control that by either an extra two-position switch, and leave the traditional three-position selector as that, or more likely use a five-position multipole selector switch to give (in order) bridge pickup single pole/bridge pickup double pole/both pickups with bridge single pole/both pickups double pole/neck pickup. (I know that most hybrid pickup setups put the single pole in the neck position but this guitar is all about maximum impact/minimum complexity, and those five combinations give max variety and are in a very logical order both electrically and tonally.)
Get locking strap anchors, they are essential for this body shape, and be prepared to spend a significant part of the budget on a high quality custom-built case, it won't fit any standard case, flight cases included. My case was made by TLC Cases (Australia) and cost more than I paid for the guitar and is worth every penny.
I even used to think that the blanks used to make the Rosa came from Warmoth, and were just mismatched in scale length, but the measurements don't support this and I just can't imagine Warmoth getting the routing as wrong as this one was. Andrewa (talk) 14:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I think we need a picture of the "Log". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bunnyyyyyyyy (talkcontribs) 17:31, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Removed list[edit]

The page as it existed was useless, full of misinformation and cliche, and displayed a total lack of NPOV regarding the instrument. This revision improved, I think, but it still needs a lot of work, particularly where the history is concerned. I deleted the "list of important electric guitarists" because there's no way that such a list could be inclusive of everyone that a small subgroup considers important. Important guitar players should be cited as necessary within the body of the article.

Where'd you put the deleted list? Perhaps it could be moved elsewhere? Somebody went to the trouble of collecting and compiling those names (not to mention typing them in), and it's a bit discouraging to have it all disappear! In the future, it's a good idea to copy and paste a deleted list like that into the talk page, in case others deem it meritorious and wish to do something with it. Sara Parks Ricker

It's in the history if anyone feels like reviving it. Quite frankly though, it was heavily slanted towards a certain type of player, and didn't seem to me to add anything to the article. In any case, it was mostly an incomplete duplication of the list at guitarist which strikes me as a much more appropriate place for such a list. In an entry under "electric guitar", a list of different peoples favorite electric guitarists does not seem to have the same sort of relevancy. IMHO, it seems like the links to specific players should relate to their specific contributions to the instrument, and should be included in the body of the article rather than as a (highly incomplete) list tagged on to the end. JFQ

It's a good rule of thumb to not delete content, but to find it a good home. I took the list out of the history to merge it with guitarist (which I'll probably move to List of guitarists... later), but only George Harrison had to be added. Anyway, I agree with your reasoning for removing it from the article, JFQ. Whenever I come across some out of place content like that and I don't know what to do with it, I simply copy it to the talk page. It's easier for people to get at than the history logs. --Stephen Gilbert

I didn't notice that George Harrison wasn't on guitarist page, so deleted the list thinking it only contained duplicate content. Good thing you double checked. JFQ

String numbering[edit]

Does anyone know about how the strings are numbered? I keep telling my friends that they're numbered starting with the high, trebly strings. The deep, thumping "low" strings actually have "higher" numbers, which leads to confusion. --Ed Poor

I don't know how you number your strings, but when I was taught, 1 was the high E and 6 was the low E. Of course, string numbering is subjective. -- Gpietsch 16:22 Sep 27, 2002 (UTC)
Thats right. The 1st string is the high 'e', the 6th is the bass 'e' (etc) -- User:GWO

This is an example of something that might actually be useful to incorporate into the main article. If nothing else, it might help readers who are puzzled by the fact that the strings referred to as "high" are typically those physically lowest on the neck as the guitar is played (well, as it is played by most guitarists anyway). The string known as the "low E" is in fact the topmost string, as the guitar is usually played. C d h 05:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell all US string manufacturers number the high E as the 1st string, the low E as the 6th. (talk) 09:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I personally play electric guitar. From low to high the strings are low E, A, D, G, B, and high E. Jonathan Brooke 13:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathan Brooke (talkcontribs)

Digital guitar[edit]

I added a paragraph about Gibson's new digital guitar, but I'm not a musician and don't know anything about it beyond the marketing information in Gibson's announcement. I'm sure someone who knows more can improve on what I wrote. For example, I'm not qualified to assess the extent to which guitarists and music buffs have embraced or rejected the notion of a digital guitar, but that's probably worth a sentence or two. -- Pat Berry 16:21, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

I added a token sentence to the end, similar to the effects pedal paragraph which states that few guitarists have thrown away their Fenders just yet. I've read some praise for the Variax, but truth be told guitar players steer clear of new technology for the most part. And to be honest, I'm not sure the Magic from Gibson has left the prototype stage and its been several years. Tremspeed 22:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Bad picture[edit]

The picture of the boy playing a stratocaster-like guitar is way to big and in general a bad picture. It fills no obvious function as stratocaster-like guitars is most likely not interesting for people reading about electric guitars. It would make more sense to have a picture of one of the famous guitar players mentioned, than a crappy picture of a random kid.


Sorry for the mistaken reverts. The edits I labeled vandalism actually seem to have been reverting vandalism. I'll be more careful in the future. Badagnani 06:43, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Looks like the "GAY PRONO" reference that has caused such trouble was added by on August 1 and Mshecket's revert at that time failed to catch it. Thus, it's shown up in most recent edits, including reverts, and caused WP contributors such as myself to blame innocent reverters as vandals. Thankfully this is resolved (for the time being). Badagnani 07:07, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Destroying guitars[edit]

I think this mat fit better in an article on pop/rock groups Guitars are often theatrically destroyed during live performances, see The Who. Guitarist-bowhunter-activist Ted Nugent has ended many of his concerts by setting up a guitar on stage and shooting a flaming arrow into it. --Light current 23:24, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Odd or even harmonics?[edit]

The article currently reads, under "electric guitar sound and effects",

... The most dramatic innovation was the generation of distortion by increasing the gain, or volume, of the preamplifier in order to clip the electronic signal. This form of distortion generates harmonics, particularly in even multiples of the input frequency, which are considered pleasing to the ear.

Until very recently that boldfaced "even" was "odd" -- it was changed in the most recent article edit that isn't obviously vandalism, by an anonymous editor, whose IP has made no other edits. I'm worried that this is a subtle insertion of misinformation. I don't know whether odd or even harmonics are considered more pleasing to the ear. Does anyone know which is right?

Zack 07:45, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Both even and odd harmonics are required for that overdriven/distorted tone. The person who claims that only even harmonics are pleasgin to ears reeks ignorance. Pleasing to ear concept is very subjective + it is the odd harmonics that are actualy responsible for that distorted sound. Even harmonics add color to the tone (by making the wave form asymmetrical)

The problem with being bold enough to accuse someone else of being blatantly ignorant is that it usually requires some level of ignorance in order to publicly make such a statement. ZACH's gut feeling about a misinformation insert was correct. I also agree that this was not deliberate sabotage-just an opinionated but misinformed contributor. Many myths and confused or misinterpreted terms exist in this area. Here are some facts pertaining to audio waveforms and musical modulation: Distortion is an often misused term in regards to guitar. Physicists and audiophiles call any deviation in shape from the input waveform, however small, distortion. In this context, all guitar amps (even 'clean' ones) distort the signal by coloring the tone and changing the dynamics. The term guitarists are referring to is actually calledclipping, which occurs when the signal voltage of an amplification stage is increased past the level of linear reproduction. This point occurs when the sine wave peak voltage surpasses the circuit supply voltage. Since the amplifying devices(tubes, transistors, or semiconductors) can only output the same voltage they are supplied with, the peaks of the output sine waves are 'clipped' off due to current starvation. As attempted gain increases, more and more of the magnified sine wave is cut off, while the level of weaker signal content, such as harmonics and string noise, continues to be increased. This causes most or all signal elements to have more or less uniform amplitude. When this is done actively without clipping, it is called audio compression. The perceived effect is the shift of tonal elements away from fundamental and toward the harmonics (and background noise during absence of signal). This affects all harmonics relative to the fundamental. While it is true that asymmetrical waveforms of severely clipped signals tend to favor odd order harmonics, the perceived harmonic content is a result of the altered waveform, not the other way around. And the term 'harmonics' does indeed mean one thing to musicians and another to audio enthusiasts. The subject of odd vs. even mathematical harmonic content in audio signals and the psychoacoustic benefits of each is still a relatively subjective and speculative field of study which can get audio nuts all riled up faster than a "Ford vs. Chevy" debate at a tractor pull! SplinterHead (talk) 05:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I think the term 'reeks of ignorance' is possible a little harsh. I was led to believe the modern 12 note musical scale was based on the arabic model scale and even frequencies were determined to be 'more pleasing' for most of the classical composers and thus most western musical sensibilities. Just my two cents worth. Anyway can anyone please explain the concept of odd or even harmonics? . I thought by definition a harmonic was a multiple (higher or lower) of the original or base note's frequency. ? ? Does anyone have a list of the frequencies for the western worlds 12 note scale ?

An "odd" harmonic is like 3rd harmonic, 5th harmonic, etc.; an "even" harmonic is like 2nd harmonic, 4th harmonic, etc. Distortion definitely generates more odd harmonics than even harmonics. A pure square wave has only odd harmonics, and distortion makes a waveform more squarish. I don't know if even harmonics really sound more pleasing to the ear than odd harmonics. Anyway, I changed the article to say "odd", as this is certainly correct. - furrykef (Talk at me) 04:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Looks like its an argument of semantics here. "Odd" harmonics, like the 3rd, 5th and 7th etc are the "even" harmonics when viewed in terms of frequency. --LiamE 09:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
No, the normal and well-established usage is as stated by Furrykef above, that the odd multiples of the fundamental frequency (3f, 5f, 7f, etc) are referred to as the 'odd' harmonics and even multiples of the fundamental (2f, 4f, 6f, etc) are the 'even' harmonics. For an example of this usage, see [1]. (Of course, the overtones are not actually exact multiples of the fundamental, due to the physics of the strings, but they're close.) -- The Anome 09:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Not quite so simple. Yes, a physicist will generally regard unison is the first harmonic, but musicians have traditionally called the note an octave up the first harmonic, and they stay one out from there on, physicists referring to three times the frequency as the third harmonic, musicians calling it the second. This may be changing, which is why I call the musicians' usage traditional. Andrewa 03:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
The frequencies are listed under scientific pitch notation. Andrewa 03:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

There are no doubt some musicians who confuse the terms harmonic and overtone (the first overtone is the second harmonic), but it's a bit much on that basis to say that this is "traditional" "musician's usage". It's confused-person's usage, and that's all it's ever been. TheScotch (talk) 07:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


Shouldn't this article have more on hollow-body and semi-hollow guitars? I mean, jazz musicians used these years before solid-body guitars existed and they are still used today.TheKid 15:18, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Rem text[edit]

Removed text

with a solid or semi-solid body

from the intro. My Maton Freshman is every bit an electric guitar. See Talk:Gibson ES-335 for a little more on the solid body vs arch top wars. They don't belong here of course. Andrewa 20:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

hate to be a pedant, but semi-hollow body does not necessarily mean acoustic. hollow bodies are also every bit electric guitar. Joeyramoney 22:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Um, agree sort of. IMO semi-hollow body includes guitars such as some Fender Telecaster models which have tone cavities in an otherwise solid body. These aren't acoustic guitars in any sense at all.
But your point escapes me. Andrewa 03:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
The hollow bout of a Telecaster Thinline is not a "tone cavity." The Thinline was designed by Roger Rossmeisl to make a lighter instrument permitting the use of heavier wood in manufacture and having a stylistic flair in the f-hole.
Many semi-hollow body guitars have limited acoustic capabilities. Some have none significantly greater than a solidbody. In each case it is not hollowness that determines acoustic properties, It is the design of the instrument to produce sound in a particular way. (talk) 14:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

String harmonics are present in stringed acoustic instruments. Violinists make use of them and it is possible create them on an acoustic guitar. If you try to tap them along the strings entire length you will get 3d's, 4th's and others to include even D for the E string. To state that overdriving a circuit will create overtones is misleading. Since the basic tone is clipped and now has a lower volume relative to the overtones, it's easy to think that they are created. The observation on acoustic string harmonics bears this out. You can then conclude that the harmonics are there even though you can't hear them. the way to prove this is to use an equalizer or a low/high pass filter. The description of an electronic pickup is not that accurate. The electromagnetic pickup was already in use before the introduction of the first electronic circuit in the late 40's. Probably the best way to settle the debate on odd/even harmonics is to have physicist/guitar player put in his 2 cents. Before passing judgement on the physics of the vibrating, keep in mind that all science depends on observations. If a scientist can't explain an observation, he has to come up with a theory that will explain it. If a scientist does not include a practitioner's observation, he's speculating like the rest of us. Solenoids move because of current. The magnets in a guitar pickup do not move. The theories on string harmonics should be able to explain the role of harmonics. I've noticed that if I can't get harmonics on the first three frets, the instrument's tone is inferior. This implies that harmonics sustain the note. A dead instrument's string usually goes thunk...Radical man 7 23:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC) In case you're wondering, These comments in this area is not my doing.... it's a software glitch. Radical man 7 00:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Re-Organized Links[edit]

Hey Everyone, I re-organized the links in the same format as the Guitar Page.

If you see anything that was miscatagorized, or anything that doesn't belong - please remove it.

Please sign your posts on talk pages. Andrewa 00:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The Physics[edit]

Shouldn't there be some information on how an electric guitar actually works, just something brief about the string vibrating in a magnetic field creates a changing field which induces a current into a coil wich goes to the amp (i think) etc? -- 10:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I added a bit about this (as did others). One problem seems to be how to incorporate the material. The intro paragraph starts out on a technical note, but it isn't until later that the actual discussion of the pickups etc begins. To some extent, this may be difficult to avoid. Perhaps the article could stress that the guitar is more than an instrument, it is as much a social statement (as Dylan reportedly found out when he showed up for a gig with an electric), and even a cultural icon (witness the use of the guitar in the Hard Rock Cafe's logo). Beyond that, an electric guitar is just a device with fairly simple electronics components (including magnets, wires, resistors, and usually at least one capacitor). So there might be some difficulty in knowing which type of description best captures what an electric guitar "is." C d h 05:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


the uses section seems a little pointless to me.. and the section on classical usage seems a little bit too much of a niche bit of information also? Bungalowbill 02:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Rem text[edit]

In contrast to the acoustic guitar and most other acoustic string instruments, the solid-body electric guitar does not rely as extensively on the acoustic properties of its construction to amplify the sound produced by the vibrating strings; as such, the electric guitar does not need to be naturally loud, and its body can be virtually any shape. Since all the sound produced by the amplifier comes from string vibrations detected by the electronic pickups, an electric guitar that produces minimal acoustic sound may have maximal sustain, since less of the energy from the string oscillations is radiated as sound energy. For this reason, electric versions of almost all other similar string instruments have also been produced.

That information belongs in the solid body article, as it's not really about guitars as such. It's also arguably POV regarding sustain. Andrewa 01:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the portion that discusses sustain probably doesn't add much to this article, the contrast that the author was trying to make seems a relevant one, since a natural question would be for the reader to ask, "ok, what distinguishes an electric from an acoustic?" The point about the theoretical prospect of acheiving maximal sustain by not "wasting" the vibration as audible sound is an interesting one, though you could be right that it is more germane to an article devoted solely to the solid-body guitar. More properly, it would go in a discussion that compared the various builds of guitars, since the theoretical relationship between sustain and audible sound would apply to semi-hollows and even kitchen-tabletops. C d h 05:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

solid body electric guitar strings[edit]

there is different types of strings that is spesified about sertain types of music deppending on the thikness of the string ... i don't know much about that , since i am not proffesional , and i don't know yet how shoul i upgrate my guitar. so i need to know some about this staff

It would be really good to get a summary of common string gauges, not just for electric guitar but for mandolin, banjo and twelve string guitar, all steel string instruments in fact. Maybe an article on string gauges would be a good place. Ideally, we'd include historical gauges as well as current trends, and such things as Ernie Ball's light top and heavy bottom innovation (slinky he called it), the difference between jazz and rock gauges, Jimi Hendrix and Robin Trower and the extra light era, the impact of Pink Floyd using heavier gauges to produce extreme bends without losing tuning, the various folk trends. There's lots of stuff to cover. Andrewa 09:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Types of guitars[edit]

I suggest that the types of guitars section be reorganised and the bit about types of guitars at the top be added

Proposal: Break out Guitar-dedicated articles[edit] The refactoring is in-progress. It will have negligible effect on the present article. MichaelSHoffman 03:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The refactoring is done. MichaelSHoffman 08:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Gotta Say[edit]

of all the guitars to have as the representative picture on the top of the page- a Washburn copy and some skiffle reject? the humanity. Tremspeed 21:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I chose this particular combination because it shows some of the enormous variety of electric guitars... hollow and solid body, single and double pole pickups, trad style and rad style, handmade and mass produced, double sided head and single, locally made and imported, professional quality instrument and entry level student model.
No doubt it could be improved upon. The electrics of both are very simple (that's what I play and therefore tend to own), neither is made in America which is the home of the EG (the closest to MIA that I currently own is an MIJ Fender), and both are similar age, late 60s and I guess early 90s.
If we went to only one guitar in the lead photo, we've got a problem... the obvious choices are MIA Fenders and Gibsons, and there's a strong POV problem in choosing either!
And, I think we should probably stick to six-string standard tuning models in the lead photo.
I'm fascinated that you call the star body a Washburn copy. It's not in the current Washburn Guitars catalog AFAIK, although it is available as a blank from Warmoth Guitars. I'd be very interested in any information about the history of this body shape.
On further research (see below), it appears the claim that it's a Washburn copy is just plain wrong... It's a Jackson shape originally, see Star (guitar). We can only guess that the writer doesn't like Washburns, or skiffle, or Maton guitars... and that they've never played a good Washburn, or any Maton. Andrewa 07:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
As for the Maton, it may not be as famous as the Gibson archtops on which it is based, but it's got a good and well-deserved reputation. Suggest you broaden your horizons a little, the more different sorts of music you learn to play well the better you play them all has been my experience. Andrewa 18:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Star body shape[edit]

The star body shape of the Rosa may be originally by Jackson Guitars rather than Washburn, see and also of course our own article on Jackson Guitars which mentions this shape. Andrewa 06:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

It's probably not a Washburn Guitars body shape. Their star shape, as seen on the Dime 332B, has an extra horn in the lower tail position which the Jackson, Rosa and Warmoth designs don't have. See Dimebag Darrell for a picture of one of these in action. Hey, it was hard enough to get a case for the Rosa as is! Andrewa 07:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


I'm not sure if or how this should be added to the article. My name is Rich Travis; my dad used to be a pretty popular studio musician, and played with atkins, maphis and our cousin Merle Travis. I remember sitting in Merle's RV at the Marion County, illinois fairgrounds talking about the first electric guitar; merle said he had an idea and just drew up a design for a guitar (he had notebooks full of drawings and cartoons he did), then had a friend who was a machinist (Who I now know was Paul Bigsby) make him up one; this intitial solidbody guitar had most of the features of a modern solidbody. What i'm not seeing written anywhere is what I clearly remember him saying, that Fender asked if he could make a guitar based off of his design, and merle agreed. Apparently Bigsby found out about it while fender was first coming out with the esquire and got all bent out of shape; I think he said something like "the machinist was going to sue me", I don't remember exactly but it was something on those lines. I had gotten the impression that Merle had been expecting to make a lot of money off of what became the esquire (and later the telecaster), but after Bigsby stated raising hell he got leo to say the idea was all his and deny Merles involvement. Since this was during a conversation about "almost-was" deals, I think that was the situation. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by Paganize (talkcontribs)

It would be really good to record this oral history ASAP, every passing week decreases its usefulness, and it is extremely important information. But Wikipedia is not the place for it. Andrewa 03:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
See Andrewa 19:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Reference in Variety, June 17 1937[edit]

Hello I just want to add a reference in relation to the origin of the electric guitar from Variety. This reference was found incidental to some other research. There's no technical detail to show how different this "recently invented" electric guitar is from the models mentioned being made by Rickenbacker in 1931, just this short news item, which carries the names of the people involved and the company. Maybe someone can work it into the introductory section on the origin of the guitar.

"A Robot Guitar" - Paul Martin planes east next week with his recently invented electric guitar which the Gibson co. of Kalamazoo will market. Tony Freeman is the inventor. (DAILY VARIETY June 17, 1937, p. 2)

GermanicusCaesar (talk) 23:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Number of strings[edit]

First off, Tiny Grimes plays 4-string "tenor" electric guitar, so that's one the article missed. If I were knowledgeable about the issue, I'd organize a number-of-strings section that discussed the general issue of extra strings, usually bass, sometimes doubled, and what goes into the decision, and a better discussion of how the 12-string is a totally different issue. Ortolan88 02:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Adding one-string and four-string sections. Ortolan88 18:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC) (aka Brian Engstrom)[edit]

This bloke, it seems, remained, ahem, one of important innovators of the tonal palette of the electric guitar as modified by effects boxes, from 21:51 UTC, 7 October 2006 right up until about twenty minutes ago, UTC - see [2]. Despite, by my calculations - (~24 days x 24 hours x 60 minutes)/15 - robbing about 2 304 people of their 15 minutes of fame, I think he's done well. I'd certainly join his fan club, just as long as he changed his name to Brïän Ëngström. Best of luck with the basketball and discus throwing, Engsy.--Shirt58 12:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
ps: If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it. Of course, this goes for me as well.

Wiser now: what a silly thing to add to an article talk page!; I also realise I forgot to en-dash en-dash tilde tilde tilde tilde the later comment.--Shirt58 11:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Junior Barnard before Charlie Christian?[edit]

Junior Barnard was playing electric guitar in Bob Wills and His Texas Playboys at about the same time as Charlie Christian's first efforts, in the mid-30s. He, Christian, Noel Boggs, and Eldon Shamblin were all working in Oklahoma radio stations at the same time. I'd have to check some sources to say whether he recorded earlier than Eddie Durham or not, but I know for a fact that he was playing "fuzz" 25 years before the Beatles, and deserves some credit for innovation here. 23:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

He needs an article! Badagnani 00:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Done. Badagnani 00:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Added By Sean Sweeney (

The first use of electric amplification that I can verify would be a film from Roy Smeck from around 1932 playing Farewell Blues with an Hawaiian acoustic string band. He's playing a lap steel. The video is on Youtube. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

common brands[edit]

The list of guitar brands are all linked. I have found some that link to the wrong pages, but I do not know much about guitars to fix them.Snowman 00:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

revised stuff[edit]

Someone put a lot of '-' in the article, really screwing it up. I just fixed it up and everything so it should look really good now. If there's any mistakes, feel free to fix it up.

Hope I helped!! 03:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Yuri Landman[edit]

How much of this text did Yuri Landman write? His name comes up twice on the page, despite his marginal, at best, significance in the history of the electric guitar. I'm just sayin'...

Hollow Body correction[edit]

the pickups convert a combination of string and body vibration into an electrical signal.

Can this be correct? How would a pickup convert the body vibration of the guitar into an electric signal. Based on my understanding of how a pickup works, this seems unlikely. As a simple test, if you removed the strings from a hollow body guitar and vibrated the body, would the pickup still generate a signal? I agree that a guitar's construction shape the sound that it produces, but I don't think the wood alone could generate a signal in its pickups. I'm not an expert so correct me if I'm wrong. -- 02:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The article is right. Do a simple test... tap the belly of a hollow body guitar while it's plugged in to an amplifier. Hear the tapping in the amp? But in a way you're right too... without the strings you probably wouldn't hear anything. The pickups detect the relative movement of the pickups to the strings. The movement of the pickups is more significant in a hollow body than in a solid body.
Actually, I'd argue that the clean sounds (little or no distortion) of a solid body also have significant pickup movement in the tone, and that the body movement of a hollow body is insignificant when it's used with heavy distortion. But solid bodies tend to be played dirty, and hollow bodies clean. In each case, it's just what they do best. Horses for courses.
Thanks for the contribution! Andrewa 01:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Hollowbodies still retain a very distinctive character when distorted - George Thorogood's songs have many excellent examples of an overdriven hollowbody guitar. There just aren't many people looking for that particular tone these days. Of course, if by "heavily distorted" you mean fitted with EMGs, then pumped through a distortion pedal and a Mesa Triple Rectifier, then you are probably correct. Emoticon (talk) 21:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the point is that the pickup will detect any vibration, and that at least some of this will alter the string's own vibration/resonant frequency. You're right that tapping the body can generate current from the pickups (and worse if they've gone microphonic!). It's interesting to note that, Eric Johnson, for example, bangs on the back of his Strat (bangs, not taps) with his fist while standing directly in front of his amps, during some of his songs. C d h 05:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Pickup is a general term. There are a range of designs and implementations. The coil wound pole-piece style we are most accustomed to on electric guitars can capture a wide array of sounds. One can scream into it or simply tap it with a fingernail. No strings are required. However, it is not optimized for these uses. It doesn't do a very efficient job. It is designed to be used with vibrating ferrous strings. It does this so well that other potential sound sources become negligible. Think of the way a highly directional microphone works in a radio studio. Ambient sound is gone. If one removes the strings from Eric Johnson's Strat and he bangs on it in front of his amp, thuds will be reproduced. This is not musical. What Eric is actually doing is hitting the guitar to cause the vibrato unit's sustain block to re-vibrate the strings. If his left had is fretting a chord as the strings respond, this will be the unstrummed sound that will be reproduced and eventually will feedback from the amp. BellwetherToday (talk) 13:11, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


There is no mention of the little switch featured on the body of most electric guitars. It's name escapes me. (talk) 21:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Removed link[edit]

That was a link to a site where you pay money for PDFs about music theory and such. I don't think its appropriate, but feel free to readd it if you disagree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

i was mistaken about my apologies. it is an excellent free resource for guitar information. (talk) 20:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

originally used in 1970?[edit]

come on are you serious? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Dodô & Osmar and the "pau-elétrico"[edit]

These two "baianos" (from Bahia, Brazil), Dodô and Osmar, invented in 1948 the first electric guitar of the world that was diferent of the previous jazzistic electric guitar. The "pau-elétrico" can be considered the first electric guitar with the rock characterist (at the later time). This sound had its typical acute color characteristic and sustained sound, without microphonic feedback. It's a pity that the world doesn't see this truth.

  • If you do have reliable sources for your claim, why don't you add these informations to the article? Malfacteur (talk) 09:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Photo caption is Wrong[edit]

It looks to me like the guitar on the left is a Godin with P-90 pickups. These are in fact single coil pickups, and not humbuckers. (talk) 15:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

EDIT: I was wrong, I expanded the photo and they are indeed humbuckers. (talk) 15:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


Do we really need a section about Vox? A section about Gibson seems to me much better use of space. --Merijn2 (talk) 20:32, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I actually went ahead and removed that and the Fender sections. I don't think we should discuss individual manufacturers in such detail in this article. Baron Von Tarkin (talk) 16:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Merger prosposal[edit]

I am proposing that string-through body, an article that I found on new page patrol, be merged into this article. Talk amongst yourselves.

Edit mercilessly, critique mercifully. --I dream of horses (T) @ 22:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that they should merge, just because if someone searches for 'string-through body' and all they get is the page for 'guitar', it might not be very helpful. But, the string'through article could stand some expanding. (talk) 21:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I created the String-through body article because I thought it was a worthy topic. Anyone is welcome to merge it or to expand it; however, I'm not sure what else there is to say about it. It's not a very complicated subject. (talk) 22:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

me be bold!!!Gzuckier (talk) 01:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure where the writer of string-through body got their information from, but let us put a stop to the proliferation of an "urban myth" about guitars right here. The FACTS of the matter are thus: The tension of a guitar string is determined by 3 things; The length of the string, the mass of the string cross section(guage or thickness), and the pitch it is tuned to. NOTHING else affects string tension or the pull against the neck. Running the strings through the body may affect the angle of the bend that the string makes over the bridge saddle, but the tension between bridge and nut is ONLY determined by those 3 factors. It is simple physics. I'm not talking about sustain, tonality, or loudness, only tension and the effect it has on the neck, truss rod, etc. This applies to all guitars, all types of guitars, and actually, to all stringed instruments. Unfortunately, many such myths exist about electric guitars, and some have been around so long that they are generally believed to be true, even by 'experts' who should really know better! -SplinterHead 11-22-09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:09, 22 November 2009 (UTC) I have since signed up and have merely removed the sentence which incorrectly stated that string-through body setups caused higher string tension and neck warpage, and added a bit to clarify the statement about tremelos and body-anchored-string incompatibility.SplinterHead (talk) 06:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Multiple vandals[edit]

Page has been under attack my multiple vandals today. Working to repair. Jusdafax 15:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, I think it's all put back. Suggest an admin deal with the two vandals in question. Jusdafax 16:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

"tremolo bar" incorrect?[edit]

The page states:

Some electric guitars have a vibrato arm (sometimes called a "whammy bar" or incorrectly "tremolo bar"[11]

Reference 11 is simply the paragraph:

The word Tremolo properly describes variation of volume, not pitch (vibrato); however, the misnaming (likely originating with Leo Fender printing "Synchronized Tremolo" on the headstock of his original 1954 Stratocaster) is too well-established to be easily reversed. Thus the correct name for it is "Vibrato bar".

This seems like OR to me; especially the phrase "likely originating with".

I looked it up in a dictionary and one of the definitions was "A vibrato in singing, often excessive or poorly controlled.", so I think "Tremolo properly describes variation of volume, not pitch (vibrato)" is bunk.


I tracked the change down to:
Note: (→Tremolo arms: add detail into a footnote)

SubtractM (talk) 07:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the offending reference for now, and replaced it with "citation needed"

SubtractM (talk) 21:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite needed on history and stringing[edit]

I didn't tag the article -- since it's accessed so often -- but a complete rewrite is needed on history. Most of the stringing information needs to be deleted, or moved to the more general guitar article.

All these claims and counterclaims about who did what first? Jeez mebezze. Would you say that guitars are about art, or competition? Well, for those of you who feel it's about competition, straighten up and fly right. Provide reliable citations and references for your claims.

Stringing. Most of this material is off-topic, here. Guitars have been strung in many ways long before electrification. So, the information about stringing doesn't belong in this article, but in the more general article about guitars -- since the information applies to both. Changing the stringing does not change the underlying technology -- which is guitar technology. Don't confuse the novelty of a popular act or a new instrument release with being something original. When a group uses a 5-string, when a manufacturer releases a new 5-string, note of that belongs on the group's or manufacturer's page. No doubt they'd like to think they are making "guitar history" (wouldn't we all?), but it ain't so. Piano non troppo (talk) 18:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

People cant spell![edit]

I was just reading an article when I read the word colour, it was spelt color!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC) 

lolwut? There's only one English-speaking country where it's spelled (correctly) without the 'u', and that's the US. (talk) 06:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


Hello fellow editors. I just wanted to post a note that I would like to improve this article. I think it's got some good elements but also some questionable information without sources. You'll probably notice me working on the page and introducing more academic sources. Baron Von Tarkin (talk) 16:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


This section is rambling , contradictory and full of non-notable material. 1Z (talk) 00:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

"...base, bridge of top of the instrument..."[edit]

That sentence could use some work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:38, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). Katerenka [talk] 19:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, but it's not obvious to me what it should be. —Darxus (talk) 20:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia Critique Project[edit]

This article covers a variety of different areas of the history of the guitar and it very well-written. It supplies details of its historical significance to society as well as the questionable original source of the electric guitar. Since the original creator is unknown, they give a couple variables that could have been involved. The sources seem a bit short but I am sure with further research, one will find that the information is very accurate.

The illustrations are as expected; an abundance of electric guitars and their different parts. It does cover the subject thoroughly by giving the reader a guide of the guitar to look over while reading the article. Although the sources seem to be slim, I do not believe it has been marred by various contributors. Because of my personal background with the electric guitar, it seems as though information is not random slander or junk. Furthermore, comparing this article to a conventional encyclopedia, the information seems appropriate and significant to the potential readers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HIST406-10Sbyrne (talkcontribs) 16:09, October 5, 2010 (UTC)

Don't know how to make the action perfect[edit]

I have a tremonti SE single cut guitar and its a stoptail model,im having problems to adjust the action on that particular guitar..I need help in choosing the correct measure on the stoptail if im going to be adjusting the action.. can you give some pointers?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billx6664 (talkcontribs) 14:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Distortion and Gain[edit]

When distortion became popular with guitarists in the early 60's, particularly in Britain, the guitarists couldn't get the sound they wanted because amp companies had spent years trying to replicate the clean sound of the acoustic. Guitarists such as Dave Davis form the Kinks, Jimmy Page and Ritchie Blackmore in their session days and others, used to split the speaker cone to get distortion. As amps became more powerful, the amps output would be greater than the speakers could handle and so gain and distortion were achieved at high volume. Many modern amplifiers have a gain control so that distortion can now be achieved at relatively low volume. (talk) 10:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)Neil Pearce 28/4/'11

Distortion or "overdrive" can have many sources. There are effects pedals which can either produce a clipped signal within the pedal, or amplify the input signal such that the preamp produces a clipped signal. The preamp itself can boost the guitar's input into some level of distortion, or the power amp stage can be driven into distortion. Finally, the speakers can be pushed beyond their normal rated travel. Most guitarists consider distortion that occurs "late" in the signal chain (from the power amp and/or speakers) to have the most preferable sound; the transistors (or triode tubes) in these stages are designed for higher signal levels and so will "clip" more gradually, creating a smoother tone. Conversely, distortion "early" in the chain, from an effects pedal or preamp, is less desirable because it is generally harsher. So, while distortion sounds can be achieved without high volume, by using a pedal or controlling the power amp's gain control independently of the preamp, what many consider the "best" distorted tone cannot be achieved this way.Liko81 (talk) 18:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Direct electromagnetic induction[edit]

Here's the very first sentence from the lede:

An electric guitar is a guitar that uses the principle of electromagnetic induction to convert vibrations of its metal strings into electric audio signals.

Well guess what... If you take an acoustic guitar, stick a microphone on it and amplify the sound, you also have a situation where you have "a guitar that uses the principle of electromagnetic induction to convert vibrations of its metal strings into electric audio signals." In this case, the induction is happening in the microphone transducer. So to distinguish what an electric guitar is really doing differently, I changed "electromagnetic induction" to "direct electromagnetic induction". There is no air-sound from the strings being amplified. The signal is generated directly from the strings.

An electric guitar could be set up inside a vacuum bell where all the air is pumped out. Pluck the strings and it will still play music. You cannot do that with an acoustic guitar. It would be totally silent. This is a fact that someone might want to add to the article. Better yet, someone could shoot a video of this experiment and post it. That would probably be the most dramatic demonstration I can think of for distinguishing the difference between an acoustic guitar versus an electric guitar.--Tdadamemd (talk) 13:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


This section of the general article on Electric guitars cites a Gibson marketing piece on their chambered Les Paul guitars to support the assertion that semi-acoustic guitars "have greater resonance and sustain" (see Dave Hunter, Chambering the Les Paul: A Marriage of Weight and Tone (Gibson Lifestyle, 2007)). First, the cited article itself suffers from a lack of subjectivity and credibility since it is a marketing piece by Gibson. Second, the cited piece does not concern itself with semi-acoustic guitars. Third, a chambered Les Paul in no sense is a semi-acoustic instrument. It is in all respects a solid-body. Finally, let alone objective sources, there is no physics to support the original assertion. BellwetherToday (talk) 15:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Main Guitar Brands[edit]

What is the purpose of this section in the Electric Guitar article? The information the list purports to offer is unverifiable. It may form the basis of an article of its own, but it does not strike me as contributing anything to understanding "Electric Guitar." It appears to be well suited to marketing or promoting favorite brands. In what countries, for what style of music, etc are amongst the many more important criteria absent from the list. It seems clear that whatever content may be in this list is better found in unlisted form both throughout this article and in more specialized articles where it is clearly related to topics that add useful contextual information. Thoughts anyone? (talk) 18:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Strumming the same as picking?[edit]

One picture caption states that the instrument is "plucked, either by fingerpicking, or with a pick" (plectrum?); fine, but an electric guitar can also be strummed, i.e., all the strings are struck, to produce (usually!) a chord. Maelli (talk) 17:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Inventors of the Electric Guitar and Les Paul[edit]

In a recent spate of edits to the article Electric_guitar, there seems to be an undercurrent of factions emerging regarding the invention of the instrument and some of them touching upon the legacy of Les Paul.

There was the piece that another editor removed about the good physicist from NCSU who, according to a little historical display at the institution, it is claimed that he was the first inventor. This despite the fact that it appeared simultaneously with the advent of Les Paul's log. Well, their claim is very fuzzy and on the face of it Slingerland did the same thing nearly a decade earlier. Only a visit to the University by a researcher will shed light on what this is all about. Sensibly IMO, the mention of it was removed.

Someone else was willing to suggest that Les Paul invented the guitar and not simply the electric guitar. In fairness that was probably not the intent of the edit but it was the result. Even the Les Paul article begins by claiming he invented the electric guitar. I was a bit surprised myself. Then further along the article gets a bit more serious and well-considered and no, Les, for all the many things he did invent, ... well, the early history of the electric guitar is murky at best. Others seem to begrudge Les his place as a major innovator in the development of amplified guitars and the solid body electric guitar in particular.

I doubt the dust will ever settle entirely on this sort of debate. At the same time, this is probably not a concern of WP editors who are foreswarn to remove original research from articles. We are supposed to be supplying verifiable evidence from reliable sources. There are times when one inevitably feels deep down that those sources are wrong, are merely repeating a popular canard, or have overlooked a deeper truth. Time for someone with a lot more documentary experience to chime in here! Logic dictates that it is not the province of an encyclopedia to correct the record according to our own lights. It is our responsibility to use the record as it stands in a responsible manner and from a neutral position. If we can't do that then we are blogging. There are plenty of venues on the internet from forums to blogs to e-zines and e-books to carry on a vivid debate. The last two venues mentioned may even be recognized as a reliable source by WP. That's where original research belongs, along with point of view.

Hey! I'm writing this to remind myself as much as for any other reason. And, in the way of improving the Electric_guitar article, perhaps there are other thoughts. Anyone? --BellwetherToday (talk) 04:08, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Electric vs. Acoustic, a definition[edit]

I have this feeling that the distinction now made between acoustic guitars and electrics is not being made sufficiently clear. Anyone else get that feeling? I know that historically quite a bit of thought has been going into refining the distinction. Here's my go at it:

″An electric guitar primarily or exclusively uses an electro-acoustic transducer called a pickup to detect string motion, converting it to an electrical signal that is subsequently processed into a clearly audible sound by another transducer, the speaker. By comparison an acoustic guitar uses either primarily or exclusively a mechano-acoustic transducer, the bridge, for detecting string motion and the top plate of the guitar for the conversion to audible sound.″

Well, the prose is rough but the description holds up. The point is to make clear the core design distinction across the spectrum of guitar types. I post this here to get a little feedback from the regulars. Once I clean it up a bit for readability, I would like to begin introducing it in the electric guitar article. Any thoughts?--BellwetherToday (talk) 04:35, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Wrong picture or wrong caption?[edit]

I notice the picture in the infobox which features two solid body type of electric guitar, with a capture of: Two types of electric guitar, but if you will classify both guitar they will belong to solid body guitars. although both guitars has different modifications, parts or design. they are the same in classification as solid body guitars. I thought that other readers and users notice it. The photo must be changed.

If the photo aims to feature different types of electric guitar, I recommend to change the photo with its proper one, the photo must feature a picture of solid body and hollow or chambered body guitar. The Fender Stratocaster was the most popular solid body guitar, while Gibson Guitar Corporation is known for manufacturing quality hollow or chambered body guitar. if the article features the proper photo, no one will be confused.

Please, consider my suggestions and recommendations... (talk) 06:48, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

The guitars depicted are clearly different. The distinction made is significant, as you yourself note. You correctly observe that the distinction is not amplified in the caption. Both you and I recognize that the guitars shown are different electric guitars. Where is the confusion you mention?
You indicate that there is a formal classification scheme for electric guitars but do not reference any. You lobby for presenting only guitars made by the largest of manufacturers. You even go so far as to promote one particular manufacturer and some marketing concepts peculiar to it. There are many instrument manufacturers, not just two or one, or even a few. Frankly, I do not see the point in re-representing only images from the manufacturer that pays the most for marketing. Images already seen the world over. You yourself are evidence of this. It ceases to be informative or, for that matter, even interesting. Clearly you recognize the wide PR appeal of an indexed Internet page on nearly any cultural topic of wide interest such as this. Yet that view strikes me as short sighted, even counter-productive.
Let me point out that a solid body guitar and a chambered body guitar have an identical appearance. What precisely is the point of showing them side by side? The suggestion that they are distinct "types" is dubious. You mention hollowed body guitars in a vague manner. Most designs are not true electrics, and you neglect to mention a wide range of types of bona-fide electric guitars. I am having a hard time visualizing any single graphic representation that could suffice in a similar space. Where is this better depiction that you visualize? ... Thoughts? (talk) 04:20, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

First solid body guitar[edit]

The article dates the first solid body guitar back to 1940 by Les Paul; anyway the first solid body guitar dates back to 1937 by Valentino Airoldi as written in the Wikipedia article "Solid Body". — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:09, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Claims of prior art are the sort of thing that is bound to happen and the reasons for its abuse are legion. The Wikipedia article on the subject does a passable job in presenting a working description. A few requirements for claiming prior art:
it is generally expected to provide a description sufficient to inform an average worker in the field that the invention is within the scope of what is claimed
it must be available in some way to the public in a fixed form at the time
it must be publicly knowable, i.e. it cannot be kept for merely personal use
In regard to this suggestion, I notice that relatively recently here and elsewhere on the web a claim has been floated about that one Valentino Airoldi of Galliate, Novara, Italy invented the first sold body electric guitar in 1937. That would be wonderful and enlightening news except for this: there appear to be no reliable sources of information for this claim.
While the early history of the the development of the the electric guitar is one that lay in muddy waters, there has been considerable and solid scholarship devoted to research of the topic. Not so in the case of Mr Airoldi. Further, it is clear from the story told about him, even were it proven to be factual, that this claim does not meet the criteria for prior art. A similar claim has been made on behalf of Bill Wilson from the University of North Carolina, it too fails to be backed up by scholarship and remains as fondly embraced folklore. In either case, beyond a small group of enthusiasts, there is no recognized body of scholarship that examines the scant documentation. Even among the enthusiasts, there is much contention about the facts and the interpretation of them contained in the narratives now being repeated. All that we can be certain of here is that this material, at this time, constitutes original research.
A key element not to be overlooked is history. What specific influence did either of these individuals have on the subsequent development of the instrument? An encyclopedia article is not a mere collection of anecdotal remarks. As editors, we must respect the importance of notability.
Possibly of interest to you is the Editor's postscript to Valerio Simei's article on the topic published in 2000: ″Valentine Airoldi - Una Leggenda Metropolitana″:
PS [NdR] In realtà la prima solid body tradizionale escludendo le lap stel, fu una Vivi-tone a catalogo nel 34. La Rickenbacker ne introdusse una, la electro spanish, nel 35 ed era fatta in bakelite. nel 36 la slingerland ne commercializzò una in legno massello.
All of this information has long ago been included in the Wikipedia article. Let me point out that you misread the article. Nowhere does it say Les Paul invented the electric guitar. In fact, the first sentence of the second paragraph of the main article states that the year of invention for the electric guitar was 1931. And later, in the article sub-section: History, the same date is given for the solid body version. BellwetherToday (talk) 18:35, 12 July 2014 (UTC)