Talk:Vibrato systems for guitar

What What WHAT?

Someone please tell me who has ever called this a "waggle stick". Come on. Please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.226.78.94 (talk) 18:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Waggle stick

See http://talk.mxtabs.net/index.php?showtopic=1626 for the best reference I could Google up... but I think you're right, the term waggle stick normally describes a particular piece of male anatomy. I guess both the poster to the mxtabs blog I just quoted and the anon who added the term to this article are just being funny. Most and possibly all other Google hits are either similar jokes, or nothing to do with guitars, or Wikipedia mirrors. So I've removed the term from the article, it doesn't seem to belong. Interested in any other views. Andrewa (talk) 13:00, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Tremolo or vibrato?

Tremolo is a variation in volume, not pitch? That's not how I understand tremolo. This is from the Wikipedia article on "Tremolo":

"Tremolo is a musical term with two meanings:

A rapid repetition of the same note, or an alternation between two or more notes. A rapid and repetitive variation in pitch for the duration of a note. This is more usually called vibrato."

I consider the above definitions to be accurate. I will deliberate on how best to edit this entry accordingly.

Michael 8:49 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time April 13, 2005

OK, I decided that it was simplest to delete the second paragraph. I don't think the word "tremolo" is used incorrectly in "tremolo arm." The tremolo arm can be used to bend a half step or greater, which is somewhat analogous to vocal tremolo but not vibrato.

Michael 8:54 A.M. EDT April 13, 2005

All my sources say that it was an erroneous name given by Leo Fender when he invented the synchronized trem; I've tried to be diplomatic in re-adding, but I don't think there's much dispute. Deltabeignet 17:40, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's an ongoing and natural discussion! IMO the dispute is by people who are either ignorant of guitar culture, or in some cases possibly don't regard the electric guitar as a musical instrument (;-> anyway! See Talk:Vibrato unit, and also Vibrato unit#Vibrato or tremolo?. Andrewa 17:17, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I've been playing electric guitar for most of my life and consider it an instrument. Yet, calling the vibrato bar/arm a tremolo bar/arm is one of the silliest mistakes a person could perpetuate. A lot of material (guitar magazines, instruction books) correctly call a vibrato bar a vibrato bar. That's because a vibrato bar modulates pitch. If it modulated volume, it would be a tremolo bar, but it doesn't do that. "Whammy bar", even though it's slang, may be the best thing to call the device. Most guitar-like MIDI-controllers let you assign the whammy bar to any MIDI parameter. These could be tremolo arms. But they could also be vibrato arms or low-pass filter arms or resonance arms, etc. "Whammy bar" is generic and there is no ambiguity. If it didn't sound so silly, I would definitely prefer it. In my opinion, this article should be retitled. --Trweiss 00:01, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Leo Fender screwed up when he named it a tremelo arm, it should really be called a vibrato arm. Nothing is going to change the fact now. I don't think the name of the article should be changed for this reason, even though it was named incorrectly, that is what it's name is now. Jim

Please sign your posts on talk pages, Jim. Some very interesting stuff on this in the various articles now, particularly at Vibrato unit#Vibrato or tremolo? and in tremolo arm. Leo Fender did call the later Mustang trem a DYNAMIC VIBRATO, and stamped those two words on all the tailpieces in capital letters! Maybe this was to better compete with the Bigsby, from which the Mustang trem borrowed some design features. Andrewa 00:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Range of Strat-style trem

My experimentation would suggest about five half-steps down and one to two half-steps up, but, considering that this is clear original research, I can't think of how to include it. Deltabeignet 22:16, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

IMO it at least scrapes in as encyclopedic. Original research is sometimes a bit hard to delineate. We don't insist on citing a source for the information that the sky is blue!

My caution would be, how generally true is this? I'd specify the precise model and year of an example, and give its variation, in the article; That's encyclopedic and valuable information IMO. Choose an example you think typical, but I wouldn't try to justify the choice in the article; The information as to why you hold the opinion that this is a typical model is probably original research. I'd give the information as to all the guitars you tested (and I'd love to see it myself), but put it on this talk page, not in the article.

Commendable attitude, just BTW. Andrewa 17:17, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

From the playing about i've done with this type of trem, the range depends on the way you set it. For instance, if you unscrew the two screws holding the spring claw a couple of turns, the tail will hinge out further and allow more than two half-steps up.Cameron McCormack (talk) 15:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. And also the string gauge and the number of springs fitted... the standard strat claw and bridge and most imitations allow for up to five springs but only three are normally fitted. It works with anything from one to five, and perhaps with none at all (haven't tried that). With one spring you'll get almost no downbend at all, even with light strings, but lots of upbend range if you're carefull, and two or three quickly broken treble strings if you're not but some bands might like even that effect (cheaper than smashing the axe...). Two works well with ultra-light srings, or with standard lights gives some downbend but better up. Four and five springs are dive-bomb territory, lots of downbend range, especially if you fit Ernie Ball 2626 strings (.012 top E to to .056w bottom E) or similar, which also gives clarity and stability at the bottom of the dive.

And also, what range is musically useful? For surf sounds, you're only really able to use the range over which a three-string chord will stay in tune, which is where the Jag trem (properly set up, 30 mins each string change even if only one string) really shines. For shred, the only thing that seems to matter is if the strings stay intact most of the time, so bring on the 'stang trem.

Frankly, I'm not a great fan of the strat trem, it does everything reasonably well and for most working musos therefore probably the only real option, but for most styles there are better options.

The Bigsby is worse, the only reason for fitting one IMO is if your guitar won't take a better design, which many won't (semi-acoustics in particular... but check out Gibson Vibrola units, you may find one you like and there's a design to fit anything that any Bigsby will fit, or more modern designs by Stetsbar and Kahler who both make top-of-belly units). I'd prefer no trem to a Bigsby! Fortunately, you can block many Bigsby units simply by slackening the strings and removing the spring, no tools required (do a gentle upbend with the strings slack and it will generally just fall out on the floor, and then think hard about where you want the non-removable trem arm to end up so as not to stress and/or mark the guitar body or get in the way of either playing or putting the guitar away in the case, then tighten the strings up again without the spring in place and you're done), and put it back just as easily (so don't lose it, but most do). That's my POV, even worse then OR.

But step one is to get the facts sraight. Talk pages are a valid place to do this. Hope this helps. Andrewa (talk) 18:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Locking tremolo, etc

Some very interesting contributions from an anon. Some very good stuff, but also a bit of bias and some outright errors.

I've removed the word 'sadlle' that they used to replace 'nut'. Nearly every trem (not all) I've ever seen has more than one saddle; The trem we're discussing in the section affected has six. It's the whole bridge that moves as a unit. Probably best just to say bridge in hindsight.

I've also removed (a development of Floyd Rose, see below) from the description of the Fender two-point synch trem. It's very interesting if true, but I'm skeptical. I've never heard this development attributed to Rose before. I'd think if it were true that Fender would be obliged to admit it on their web pages, or that Rose would claim it on theirs, and neither do as far as I can see. It sounds like folklore to me.

OHO! My guess, following some more anon contribs, is that some people confuse the Fender two-point synchronized tremolo with the Floyd Rose two-point locking tremolo. These are completely different concepts, but both based on the original strat trem and with similar names. I'll put something into the article to clarify this. Andrewa 23:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

And the additions or more commonly, string nut from inside a wikilink (admittedly a red one) and or tuning keys are also gone. The terms head nut and machine heads are fairly standard, and I'm very skeptical that there's any Rose-equipped guitar in the world with plain tuning keys rather than machine heads.

Finally and most important IMO, I've done some rephrasing to the surviving additions to the Rose trem section. The point about the early units not having fine tuners, and being favoured by some guitarists, is a good one but IMO overstated. Most guitarists think the fine tuners are an improvement, as do Floyd Rose themselves! Similarly, the claim that most guitars are now available with Rose trems is just not true. No arch-top is AFAIK, nor are 12-strings, for example. It's an obvious overstatement by an enthusiast. But, my original phrase was probably too conservative. I've now gone for something in the middle. Andrewa 23:48, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

More interesting additions by anons. Good stuff, but I suspect that some of this material would be better moved to the Floyd Rose article, rather than here. Andrewa 14:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

On the unpopularity so far of the Speedloader system, the current article reads: Part of the reason for this may be the decline of the heavy vibrato effect in popular music. Hmmmm. IMO a much larger part is the need to buy special strings, limiting the choice, locking you in to one supplier, putting the guitar off the road in the case of any supply hitch and as a result making the instrument useless for any working muso of less than superstar status. But it may catch on, I've been wrong before. Andrewa 23:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

In that no-one speaks, I've removed the sentence. Andrewa 00:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I've just stumbled onto this page and I know I'm talking about an extremely old comment here, but I think there might be some truth to this in general about Tremolo that may be worth mentioning.

Modern rock is often heavily based on power chords and other techniques that are pretty brutal to the strings. At least in my experience with the Fender system (and I'm a very less-than-stellar non-serious guitarist with an American Standard Stratocaster), playing hard, palm muting, and executing bends on one string while keeping others sounding at a steady pitch means the system gets in the way more often than I use it. Either the bridge moves inadvertantly, or the strings go out of tune way more easily than they should.

Never mind the joy of trying to correctly tune a guitar where the bridge moves to lower all strings every time you tune one up. If you use a lot of Drop-D or Eb, it's a nightmare. It's a balancing act that I don't think many musicians want to deal with when the positives are well outside of their stylistic tastes CSZero 16:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm a permanent beginner on the guitar, but I agree with your assessment completely. It's a headache with options on becoming a nightmare. Gzuckier 16:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

So, block your trem. Any reputable music shop or guitar tech or many advanced guitarists can do this for you. It makes the guitar play like a hard-tail. I recommend putting a machine screw in the trem arm socket so the trem arm can't even be fitted, otherwise you risk damage if someone borrows your guitar and fits the trem arm not knowing it's blocked, but not everyone does this.

Or, check out the tremsetter at http://store.hipshotproducts.com/cart.php?m=product_detail&p=115 which is easily fitted (even easier than blocking) and gives the strat trem a lot more stability while leaving it usable. Andrewa (talk) 14:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Floyd Rose, who or what.

Floyd Rose, the person, is referenced with a link. the problem is that it is a link to the Floyd Rose, the object, artical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.212.92.168 (talk) 21:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

EVH's involvement in Floyd Rose fine tuners

I clearly recall reading a short article in some guitar magazine in which Floyd Rose himself confirmed that Eddie Van Halen had given him input on the range of the bridge end fine tuners. Van Halen indicated that it would be more practical for him if the fine tuners could accomodate tuning the low E string down a full step to D (or in Eddie's case, Db), enabling him to retune for songs such as Unchained without unlocking the nut. What I can't remember for the life of me is where I read this, so I suppose it's not entirely helpful. Hopefully someone else reading this might remember the article I'm thinking of.

Please sign your posts on talk pages. Andrewa 02:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Mustang trem

I've removed the phrase wrapped around. That's how I've mostly seen Mustang trems rigged, but it's been pointed out to me that in all the Fender catalogs the strings are simply passed through the bar, in a similar fashion to those on a conventional open tailpiece. Possibly wrapping them round Bigsby-fashion gives still more range, but the design seems to have them straight through. Andrewa 02:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

And the mystery deepens... at http://www.warmoth.com/hardware/bridges/bridges.cfm?fuseaction=mustang_trem we read The strings load from the front and wrap around the height adjustable string mounting bar. Yeah, that's what I thought too! Watch this space... Andrewa 10:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Naming "controversy"?

I think "controversy" is the wrong word. Everyone agrees that Leo got it wrong and this invention is misnamed. I propose changing the name of this section to "Vibrato or tremolo?", which is what's used on the vibrato unit page. 64.171.68.130 23:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Well done

This article is very well done, someone should nominate it for WP:FA status. 128.158.145.51 14:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The Guitar Riff is nice, but the single note doesn't really show the vibrato sound. I think this is mostly because the note fades too quickly.RSido 17:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

GA review

Hi there! I'm quick-failing this article's Good Article nomination because it lacks any references at all. All Wikipedia articles need references to reliable sources in order to facilitate verifiability. See this page for a "how-to" on using citations and references in Wikipedia. Once that problem has been corrected, please feel free to renominate the article for a full review. If you have any questions, please contact me via my talk page. Cheers! Esrever 02:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Kevin Shields

I'm adding references to Kevin Shields, because it beggars belief that there has been no mention of him thus far. 85.134.144.6 16:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Would somebody please fix this?

The first sentence in the second paragraph reads: "Since the regular appearance of mechanical tremolo arms in the 1950s, guitarists ranging from the gentle inflections of Chet Atkins to the buoyant effects of surf music aficionados like Duane Eddy to art rock innovator Frank Zappa." What? I would edit it myself except that I have no klew what it's trying to say. Terry Yager (talk) 22:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. You're right, the grammar was a mess. Not altogether happy with the result but it's a start... Andrewa (talk) 10:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

How many designs?

Current article reads

Almost all tremolo arms are based on one or more of Six basic designs:

Almost all tremolo arms are based on one or more of Six basic designs:

• Stetsbar tremolo
• Bigsby vibrato tailpiece
• Fender synchronized tremolo
• Fender floating tremolo
• Floyd Rose locking tremolo
• Kahler Tremolo System

I don't know about the Kahler and Stetsbar units, but the Floyd Rose is an improved Synchronised Tremolo aka strat trem (article reads using a blade edge pivot but otherwise based on the strat trem) just as the current Fender two-point is a (different) improvement, whle the 'stang trem (aka Dynamic Vibrato and not represented on this list) is a completely different design... it shares the floating bridge concept with the floating tremolo but the tailpiece is in many ways more like the Bigsby. I suspect that people have just been adding their favourite (eg Floyd Rose) to the list, and removing the ones they don't like (eg the 'stang). Andrewa (talk) 11:19, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... and the Floyd Rose is a locking trem not floating, I'll fix that... Andrewa (talk) 11:19, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

OK... ready to do something about this.

First a quick look at the six designs listed already.

Existing list

with some comments Andrewa (talk) 14:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Stetsbar tremolo

See Stetsbar, a cam-driven system not closely based on any of the traditional designs. Andrewa (talk) 14:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Bigsby vibrato tailpiece

A very old venerable design, see Bigsby vibrato tailpiece, belongs on the list. Andrewa (talk) 14:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Fender synchronized tremolo

AKA strat trem, also belongs on the ist of basic designs. Andrewa (talk) 14:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Fender floating tremolo

The Jag trem, first of the two Fender floating bridge designs. But is the 'stang trem really based in this design? Either the 'stang trem should be on the list in its own right, or this entry should be broadened to cover all floating bridge designs. Andrewa (talk) 14:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Floyd Rose locking tremolo

See Floyd Rose, derived from the 'strat trem and very important as it waa the first mod to the venerated 'strat trem to gain significant acceptance. But no way is it a new basic design. Andrewa (talk) 14:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Kahler Tremolo System

See Kahler Tremolo System, another cam-driven system, probably it and the Stetsbar are best seen as the same basic design. Andrewa (talk) 14:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Then rationalise

Watch this space. Andrewa (talk) 19:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

So... the basic designs that have significant following are the Bigsby, the 'strat trem, the Fender floating bridge design(s) (Jag and 'stang... one design or two?) and the modern cam-driven systems based on pedal steel design, which was also largely developed, interestingly, by Paul Bigsby. So it seems as though he and Leo Fender continue to dominate the development of the trem arm to this day, it's all still based on their work. And rumour is that neither was much of a guitarist...! Andrewa (talk) 15:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Missed out of the list above

Ibanez ZR and Ibanez Edge are both variations of the 'strat trem. The B-Bender is a bit like a trem, in particular like the cam-driven systems, and all are probably best seen as derived from pedal steel guitar technology. Andrewa (talk) 15:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, there are at least four and probably more designs of Gibson Vibrola, two long ones and two short... and that's not counting the Bigsby, which has also been called a vibrola when fitted to Gibson guitars, in both long and short form. Andrewa (talk) 18:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Time to be bold

Let's have a go at replacing the list with something accurate... Andrewa (talk) 18:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Tremolo and Vibrato

See http://tunings.pbworks.com/about-Fender-and-names which is my own WP:OR but might help understand what is going on here! Andrewa (talk) 11:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Description under "Detail of the Strat-style tremolo" Picture

It states "there is provision for up to five springs. Only three are fitted here to allow for use of light strings, there being no other adjustment."

Another adjustment is possible - the two screws that connect the spring claw to the body can be screwed in or out to further tweak the angle that the tailpiece sits at.Cameron McCormack (talk) 15:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Loosening these woodscrews is certainly possible, but not adviseable. They'll eventually work loose and pull out of the wood, sooner if they're often adjusted and/or very loose and/or if the trem is regularly used. Andrewa (talk) 15:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Whammy tapping

Removed text:

It may also be used outside its socket for different effects, as in Whammy Tapping.

Two problems here. Most important, the Whammy Tapping article was deleted as dubious and unsourced. I don't actually agree with that deletion, there was a ref to a Guitar Player article, not specific enough but I think it was fixable. But we should be consistent.

Less serious but the reason I removed it, it's oversimplified. You can't for example do this with a Bigsby, because there's no socket, the arm is permanently attached. Andrewa (talk) 19:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Article title

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to Whammy bar. harej 09:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

---

Tremolo arm → ? — Whether it is correct to call this device a tremolo arm or tremolo bar has been discussed at some length, both at Wikipedia and elsewhere.

If you wish to rename the article, WP:RM is the place to go. It's not an uncontroversial move to say the least. Andrewa (talk) 11:22, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The article title should reflect what an apparatus is rather than what it is called. As a second rationale for renaming, consider which of the terms is most commonly used on the web. Please check the number of results for each term in, for example, a Google search:

"vibrato arm" - About 94,200 results

"vibrato bar" - About 37,100 results

Total: About 131,000 results

"tremolo arm" - About 69,700 results

"tremolo bar" - About 49,900 results

Total: About 119,000 results

What are your thoughts?

InternetMeme (talk) 05:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Further to this discussion, it should be noted that the a Google search for the term "whammy bar" produces about 219,000 results. That would suggest that this term is the most popular and well-known term in use on the web.

As a tentative conclusion, I would suggest that if we want to use the most popular term, then the article title should be "Whammy bar". If we want to use the most accurate term, the title should be "Vibrato arm". InternetMeme (talk) 04:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

"Whammy bar" is the least ambiguous term, to my way of thinking, and in all likelihood the most commonly used. Deltabeignet (talk) 04:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

That would seem true. As the term appears to be very popular on the web, and is at least neutral in meaning (as opposed to "tremolo arm" which is misleading), I agree that this is the best term to use.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Synchronised Tremolo "hidden knife edge"

In the article currently - "A bevel on the front underside of a steel top plate formed a wide, sharp edge that rested on the top of the guitar body." "These six screws are often mistakenly assumed to be the pivot point rather than the hidden knife edge."

I don't think this is quite correct. I've never seen any original or copy that was like this. Even looking at Leo's patent drawing next to the paragraph, the bevelled "knife edge" at the front of the base plate doesn't touch the guitar body normally. It will possibly touch the body only if the arm is fully depressed.

If talking about the angle formed between the bevel and the bottom of the base plate, that's about 150-160°, not a knife edge. That edge is usually in contact with the body, but it can come away from the body, depending on the adjustment of the screws and how far down the arm is pressed. There can be a bit of sliding of base plate on screws (as described in current article) and base plate on body.

Almost all the load is on the six screws, that's where most of the pivoting is going on. There's a good section about it in Dan Erlewine's book (don't have it with me). However from his website - http://www.stewmac.com/tsarchive/ts0061.html - "The traditional Strat tremolo, as used by Fender for many years, is a favorite of blues and surf players. It pivots on six mounting screws" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.55.188.183 (talk) 11:54, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Merge Tremstopper into this article, and cleanup

I recently came across the Tremstopper article, which is an orphan. Some references can be found regarding the Hipshot Tremsetter and the Tremol-No as two examples of designs that attempt to mitigate some of the issues related to tremolo bridges, and that could be used in the article. Even with those the Tremstopper article would probably be very small, and it's unclear whether the article would survive a deletion proposal. Instead of working on the Tremstopper article I am wanting to add a section here with explanation of what the issues are and how the designs attempt to conquer them. Given that the Tremsetter was available on some high-end Fender guitars in the nineties (I've got a book reference for that), and is still available from Fender, and that the Tremol-No has gotten some reviews, it should be a section which is relevant to the subject and has a fair number of references.

Looking at the article as it is now, it also appears that most of the content is subsections of the History section. It could perhaps instead be rewritten/rearranged so that it points out that the designs are listed chronologically by time of inventions, and then have sections for each of the main designs with subsections for explanations? Once I've got the Tremstopper article taken care of, I'll see what I can do. Nettrom (talk) 20:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

• Agreed. Merge Tremstopper into this article.--Design (talk) 12:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Can we proceed with the merge now?--Design (talk) 10:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I've scheduled some time on my calendar to get this done over the coming week-end. Thanks for the support, and for reminding me about it! Cheers, Nettrom (talk) 14:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

And the merger has now been done. I took the liberty to remove the "History" section, move all relevant headings up one level, and make a sub-topic for the Fender designs. Having a specific section on history without actually having any content except all the other sections made it very difficult to find a place to add new content. It also seemed that the Fender designs could be grouped together and provide a natural place for the "Other Fender designs" section. Lastly I added a section called "Vibrato system additions" to handle tools/gadgets like the Tremol-No and D-tuna (and perhaps others, those were the two I know about) and added content to it. There was very little useful content in the Tremstopper article, most likely due to its lack of references.

I also noticed that there appears to be some clean-up needed because there's lots of mentions of "tremolo" where "vibrato" or "bridge" could perhaps be more appropriate. I don't have time to look at it right now, though. Cheers, Nettrom (talk) 16:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Fender Synchronised Tremolo and Knife Edge

Fender synchronized tremolo Sketch of Fender synchronized tremolo from 1954 patent application . . . The basis of the synchronized tremolo is a rigid assembly that incorporates both the bridge and tailpiece, which pivots on the guitar belly. In the original design, this was based on the principle of the 'knife edge' balance.

"Knife edge balance" (in the original 'synchronized') as opposed to what? It continues but only talks about the 'knife edge' mechanism with the 'synchronized'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.70.110.169 (talk) 02:44, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Article title again

Egad, they are right. Google [1] [2] [3] now firmly favours whammy bar, a term I have rarely heard in 35 years of owning, playing and even developing them (I built my own tremstopper before tremstopper had built a tremstopper, and possibly before the inventor was born).

When the term whammy bar was first introduced it was a pretentious attempt to rewrite history, but it seems to have been taken up by those of the public who write websites, blogs etc (although still not with the equipment suppliers), so I yield. Andrewa (talk) 20:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Having just come to this article now I would suggest renaming it Vibrato systems for guitar with redirects from "whammy bar", "vibrato bar", "tremelo arm" etc. I understand that the lever is the most visible part of the various vibrato systems, but think that it actually the various whole systems that are relevant and discussed here. The "tremelo" misnomer can be fully explained in its historical and cultural context. The term "vibrato" is the accurate one which is applicable across all musics and most of the world's instruments. Thank you.--Design (talk) 12:35, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Interesting suggestion.

The renaming to whammy bar does have a couple of outstanding problems.

Most notably, the article needs a rewrite to match its current name. You might think those who were so keen on renaming it would also have been keen on the article reflecting the rename, but evidently not.

More subtly, as I look at the usage I'm unconvinced that the term whammy bar is ever used to describe the Fender Floating Tremolo (the Jag trem). It seems to be used mainly for the Strat trem and its derivatives, and occasionally for the 'Stang trem. It's certainly not used to describe the early motorised Vib-rola units, so the current name is not an accurate one for the current article contents.

I think overall I'd strongly support your suggestion of Vibrato systems for guitar as the name. It seems to overcome all the problems associated with other names except the need for a subsequent rewrite, and a rewrite is currently needed anyway. Andrewa (talk) 21:18, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree 100%. This is a pretty good article with a pretty bad title. - DVdm (talk) 11:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

A move to Vibrato systems for guitar could be done without going to WP:RM, but it's probably good form to raise it there in view of past discussions. I'll be offline so far as Wikipedia is concerned for the first week of 2012 so I might leave it until I get back, meantime, further comments of course welcome. Andrewa (talk) 14:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

While "Vibrato systems for guitar" is a fairly long title, it seems to capture the subject well, and as mentioned earlier also allows the article to address various issues regarding variations, names, etc. So I support the move too (hopefully I can get some spare time to merge the tremstopper article then too). Cheers, Nettrom (talk) 20:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

#Requested move raised below. Feel free to add your votes to the #Survey there, some might say it's not strictly necessary as the closing admin should follow the link here and see your views anyway, but speaking from experience it's very helpful to them if your views are explicitly in the RM section, and it also helps those who may later be referring to the discussion once it has been archived. Andrewa (talk) 16:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Thnak you. I have just returned from 2 weeks with no computer access and have found that the change to the article title have been made. The erticel needs some minor re-writes to match the new title. I'll start on that now. Please make your own changes.--Design (talk) 11:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Floating Tremolo on Fender Jazzmaster.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Floating Tremolo on Fender Jazzmaster.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 8 December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

---

Whammy bar → Vibrato systems for guitar — Current article title does not accurately describe the current topic. Andrewa (talk) 16:40, 29 December 2011 (UTC) Andrewa (talk) 16:40, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Support as nominator. WP:AT reads in part The title serves to give an indication of what the article is about...; The current title does this poorly. The proposed descriptive title is more accurate, is recognisable, and avoids controversial issues. Andrewa (talk) 16:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support The proposed title better encapsulates what the article is about, and does it in a way that should be more intuitive to the reader. Terms that are in everyday use is easily handled through redirects. Nettrom (talk) 12:53, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

This is the latest proposal in a long history of discussion, and has been supported so far, see #Article title again above. The proposed move could be performed without use of admin powers, but in the light of previous discussions I thought it best to raise it formally.

The main previous issues have been over whether the term tremolo should appear in the title, those in favour of this citing common usage and those against citing technical accuracy, and whether the term whammy should appear in the title, those in favour of this citing common usage as it currently appears on the web and those against citing historical accuracy. This proposal makes both of these issues irrelevant so far as the article title is concerned.

However the main merit of this proposal is its accurately reflecting the current article scope. Some of the important early designs didn't have a bar or arm at all; The section on these has been greatly expanded since the last rename. Other designs, notably the unit developed for the Fender Jazzmaster and Fender Jaguar, are rarely if ever described as whammy bars, most probably because the heyday of genres such as surf music in which they are still favoured was before the popularity of the term. Andrewa (talk) 16:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.