Talk:Dreadnought (guitar type)

	Music portal 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.Musical InstrumentsWikipedia:WikiProject Musical InstrumentsTemplate:WikiProject Musical Instrumentsmusical instruments articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

OM

How does the D relate to the OM (orchestra model) by the same manufacturer? Thanks, Maikel (talk) 10:09, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was also hoping to find a link to "list comparing guitar body types" or something similar (Along with dreadnought & orchestra there is parlor, I believe Spanish (aka classical)). Librarian1968 (talk) 11:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully the article "C.F. Martin Guitar Sizes", now added to "External Links", covers that question in quite some detail - more than is probably fitting to include in the present article. I have also added some introductory text explaining the position of the dreadnought in Martin's hierarchy of body sizes, ranging from the historic size 5 (smallest) through 0, 00 and 000 (even 0000).

To answer the earlier (2017) question above, the OM was originally the 14-fret 000 size body with a longer scale length (introduced at a time when the 000 was still largely a 12-fret instrument with the longer body shape). Since the 000 moved to the smaller/14-fret body shape, only the scale length differentiates the two in the main, although there may also be some differences in neck/nut width (conventionally, an OM came with a 1-3/4" nut, a 000 with the narrower 1-11/16" nut, but not always...). For reference, the 000 and smaller sizes normally have a short scale (24.9 inches) which produces a bit less volume and a slightly different tone, but is better for string bending and playing ease; the OM and dreadnoughts have a 25.4 inch scale length which - on the same gauge strings - produces more volume, and possibly excites the bass fundamentals a bit more, although sound is of course subjective, while being a bit less easy to play, other factors being equal.Tony 1212 (talk) 19:49, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trademark or no?

Since the dreadnought was introduced by Martin, does that make it a trademark? Even if the trademark were expired, that would make it capitalized, per MOS:TMRULES. Ibadibam (talk) 19:54, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It does not appear to be a trademark, as the name of the guitar is simply the alpha-designation, using the letter D. The guitars are not called, for instance, the "Dreadnought 28." There is no indication that Martin ever copyrighted the term dreadnought, and it is now considered a generic appellation for all similarly shaped/sized guitars. Martin does call its D guitars the "Dreadnought Series" and capitalizes the word in its literature, but does not use any language or marks that present the word as trademarked.108.30.157.64 (talk) 20:50, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Citation not really needed there

"... and more recently^{[according to whom?]} various single-cutaway forms."

I think this "according to whom" can be removed, although maybe the issue is what "recently" means (In 100 years of dreadnoughts, cutaways are 'only' around for the last 35). That all major companies make offer a dreadnought model, and a cutaway version must fall into some type of common knowledge or observable fact category. All acoustic guitar stores everywhere carry both versions by different companies. Librarian1968 (talk) 11:14, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Would a comparison with other types beneficial?

As someone with little knowledge of guitars, I do not feel I learned much from this article. Given that the Dreadnought has "become the most common for acoustic guitars," and the image looks to me like a fairly generic guitar, I'm not really much the wiser on what is particular about this design. I think this article would benefit from comparing this design to other common guitar shapes, with pictures, especially perhaps the shape that was dominant at the time of the dreadnought's creation.149.167.164.122 (talk) 01:09, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See my reply on this topic under the heading "OM", above. I have tried to introduce as much of the information you suggest without altering the slant of this article too much; a comparison of Martin (or other) guitar body shapes would also be nice, but in essence would become a completely different article, it seems to me at any rate... Cheers Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 19:53, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]