Talk:Floyd Rose

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Guitarists  
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.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.

Van Halen[edit]

From what I recall, Van Halen did not yet have a Floyd Rose on his strat-type guitar when he recorded Eruption in 1977 or 78 (the record came out in 78). The FR trem was designed in 77. I do not recall seeing them on production guitars before 80/81.

Hi Mel Etitis, Mgekelly: please see the 1978 VH interviews on and - he does not mention anything even remotely similar to a Floyd Rose (becuase it didn't exist at the time). The first mention is in the 1979 interview ( where he explains that he doesn't use it in the studio. Also, if you look closely at the cover of the first VH album you will see that his strat has a normal tremolo. Thus I have reverted the page to exclude Eruption as a Floyd Rose example.

Please sign your posts on talk pages. Andrewa 00:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Floyd Rose biography[edit]

Who was or is Floyd Rose?

The current website of Floyd Rose implies that he exists and is still designing their stuff, but no bio details.

Google is no more help. A different Google search at least produced someone who had met him, so he exists! There's also some material at this AOL member page.

Ideally, we'd probably move this article to Floyd Rose locking tremolo or similar, and have another two articles, one on the brand and the other on the person. Not sure which should go at Floyd Rose; Perhaps even a disambig. Andrewa 00:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

He's is really Floyd D. Rose and if you want to start an article on his biography, I'd advice to use that name. However, I doubt there's really anything astonishing in his private life. He made one big improvement in guitar construction: Floyd Rose tremolo and all other areas it's more or less just business. Floyd Rose Guitars is a relatively small enterprise. I'm not sure it's a lot worth mentioning in separate article. --GreyCat 21:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
The inventor of a device that every electric guitarist in the world of any note either uses or has evaluated and rejected (I'm in the latter category, even though I'm not of any note) deserves an article IMO. Stub is at Floyd D. Rose. Andrewa 13:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Double locking tremolos before FR[edit]

It should mentioned that there were double-locking tremolos existing before, as soon as in 1956 (guitar Grazioso, later named Futurama, from czech company Resonet). see this for example —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vid512 (talkcontribs) 11:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

The link currently redirects here - - there's no example of a double locking tremolo on that page. RB30DE 02:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Staying in Tune For Weeks at a Time[edit]

In the 'advantages' list, one item states that a properly setup Floyd Rose system will stay in tune for weeks. This is followed by a "citation needed" tag. I did not insert the citation tag, but this statement really needs revising, if not removing, more than it needs citing.

First of all, what constitutes "weeks"? Literally weeks, as in several hundred playing hours? That will absolutely require citing. Or is it "weeks" of playing for twenty minutes or less every few days? And obviously, different flavors of music lend themselves to tremolo and bending more than others - time is simply a bad way to measure an instrument's ability to be consistent.

Assuming all other factors are constant including music genre, player, guitar, etc., I still don't believe that Floyd Rose setups will stay in tune any longer than Fender synchronized tremolo or a Bigsby setup - in my opinion, the only advantage is the wider range of the trem (although with some 2-point Fender setups you can achieve nearly the same range as well).

People simply don't understand where or how you lubricate Strat-style trem suspensions - I do, and here's my experience. My old, falling-apart, abused Samick Strat knock-off with fake 6-point Strat tremolo will stay in tune for hours and hours of me playing Southern Blues and Hendrix. My Indonesian Squier Strat with 2-point trem will do the same. But I have a Mexican Deluxe Player's Strat with vintage 6-point trem, vintage locking tuners, a graphite nut and lots of graphite on the saddles, and it will require few adjustments over the life of the strings... I would pit it against a Floyd Rose setup any day. Gameforge (talk) 02:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

^ I don't think your vintage tremolo can do reverse dive bombs or keep up with a Floyd when doing octave+ dips. There's just no way. Btw I removed Ritchie Blackmore off the "people who popularized the Floyd" list because Ritchie is anti-Floyd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

hey, just someting to add, nobody mentioned that floyd rose original bridges are actually made by schaller in germany and sold by floyd rose in new jersey, and are not att all that different than the schaller floyd rose as sold by stewart mc donald and similar guitar part suppliers. Sure it's mentioned that the schaller is similar quality, but just failed to mention why!!!!!Misetusa (talk) 02:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

We need a citation for this one, and, surely, if it's true, it should be added to the article. --GreyCat (talk) 21:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

sorry, I've looked for a citation, and all I have is a box from a floyd rose original I bought which says "made in Germany", not sure if I can use this photo because of copyright? will continue to look for citation194.46.227.243 (talk) 21:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Steady On, Chaps[edit]

Well, yes, re-tuning a FR guitar to open D on stage in the middle of a set wouldn't be very practical. That's why no-one in the world would do it, no more than they might change the neck on a Telecaster on stage.

For professional players, a second guitar isn't much of an overhead. For FR players, it's pretty much a requirement. (And better if you can afford a guitar tech to get the spare in tune ready for use!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephen G Graham (talkcontribs) 15:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing claims[edit]

To be more in line with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, we ought to source our claims. For instance, do we have a source for Lifeson being the first endorsed Floyd Rose user? I've removed the claim for now. Nettrom (talk) 15:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

List of Players[edit]

So I disagree with having this huge list in the article. Partly because there are no sources for the claims that these people are "Floyd Rose players". I mean, why is Madonna on the list? Is she regarded as a guitarist, let alone someone who's known for playing guitars equipped with a Floyd Rose? Having such a list in an article requires some serious consideration of who ought to belong on the list and who does not. There's already a section in the article describing some players with examples and references. Instead of attempting to create an exhaustive list of people who might have picked up a guitar with a Floyd Rose at some point (once you start looking outside of the U.S. it's probably going to get huge), extend or work on the other section (or work on some of the other problems the article has, like sources). Nettrom (talk) 21:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

People love to read lists, and the number of players who use the Floyd Rose system is unbelievable. Few companies in the guitar parts industry have had such a huge number of famous players using their product. I'm a huge Floyd Rose fan and I can cite a source for every single player on the list - music video, concert photograph, signature guitar model, etc - but it would be a gigantic and unnecessary list. It would be the same as citing a YouTube video or something like that to prove Jimi Hendrix was a Fender player. Regarding Madonna, I think it's incredible and remarkable that even a pop artist like her uses the Floyd Rose system. The section in the article describing players with examples and references doesn't do justice to Floyd Rose's fame in my opinion. But I agree if Wiki users start adding more and more people to the list, we should start condensing it and leaving only the most famous players. I think it's a reasonable list as it is now. Trembaruser (talk) 07:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

What is perhaps the most important part of the discussion here relates to the fact that Wikipedia aims to be an encyclopaedia. This in turn means that the claims that are made in articles need sources, otherwise it is original research. This list is no exception to that rule, I regard it as similar to a list of players who endorse a specific brand where you would have to find a source for said endorsement. I've seen at least one such list being remarkably shorter than the company's own list of players, simply because not all of those players have made public statements that they endorse the brand (and the company's website is not regarded as a reliable source). Arguing that it is "common knowledge" doesn't really make the cut here, most common knowledge is mentioned for instance in a book, and then we cite the book. I also find it funny that you make the "common knowledge" claim regarding the most famous players. One of them is Slash, who's not really known for playing a Floyd Rose equipped Les Paul. And claiming Madonna is commonly known as a Floyd Rose player is just silly (until you cough up a valid source for it). That you find sourcing the list to be "gigantic and unnecessary" doesn't matter, if the article claims these players are "Floyd Rose players" and there are no sources, it is original research and doesn't belong here. Nettrom (talk) 20:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Looks like this discussion has stalled. Since my argument is that the list as it stands is original research, I'll once again remove it from the article. If there's continued disagreement, I recommend participating in the discussion. Nettrom (talk) 14:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Then you'll have to rewrite the entire article because there are several similar source issues on several paragraphs - even on top of the article, Wikipedia indicates several issues with the article. Regarding Slash, watch some Velvet Revolver videos, and you'll see him playing a Mockingbird with a Floyd Rose. Here's one: If you don't believe Madonna uses a Floyd Rose, see this page: (Btw, I never said she commonly uses a Floyd.) The issue here is not that we, rock/metal fans, are proud of seeing Madonna with a Floyd Rose. The distinction here is that you have one of the BIGGEST artists on the entire planet using the product, and this should definitely be mentioned. For every claim you make to prove me wrong, I'll give you a link showing the player using a Floyd Rose. Trembaruser (talk) 12:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the entire article will be rewritten. I've started gathering sources for that, and will hopefully start the process in a couple of days. It should fix the advertisement issue, and potentially also make sure the article is properly sourced (if not, then at least have specific claims tagged). Nettrom (talk) 13:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I still don't see a place for a large list of players in this article, so I have narrowed it down a few of the more prominent examples (and added a citation needed template to remind me and everybody else to look for some sources). Instead of having the list in this article I suggest creating a new article with it (e.g. List of Floyd Rose players), that we can then refer to. Nettrom (talk) 13:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I see that my attempt at finding some middle ground has not been successful. Since I still think that an exhaustive list is outside the scope of a Wiki article about Floyd Rose, that if it is inside the scope of Wikipedia it should have its own article, and that it is poorly sourced, it appears to me that we've reached a standstill. As we're the only two editors who are actively editing the article, I'll go ask for a third opinion and see if some middle ground can be reached. Nettrom (talk) 15:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Third Opinion Response[edit]

Hi, I found this discussion because a user requested a third opinion about this dispute. Nettrom is correct in saying that the "Players throughout the years" section is original research and should not be included in the article. Even if a reliable source could be found for the list, it still would probably not be appropriate for inclusion, since Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; the "Popular use" section is much more appropriate, well-cited, and a good length in proportion to the rest of the article.
In a similar way, the "Advantages and Disadvantages" section could use some significant work; it's also heavily laden with WP:OR, and reads a lot like a user guide. Changing from a list to a paragraph-based approach should help significantly as well.
I will continue following this page for a couple of days, so please leave any additional replies or discussion on this page. Thanks, Mildly MadTC 02:27, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to stop by and have a look at this! One of the reasons for me asking for the third opinion was that I don't yet have a clear picture of what to include or not and what policies and guidelines to refer to, so your reference to Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information is helpful and reminded me that I should have a closer look. I also agree about the "Advantages and disadvantages" section, and after having rewritten much of the history section last Saturday, I started looking for good resources to use for the "A & D" section and quickly found a couple of good articles to use. Rewriting it as paragraphs also sounds like a good idea. Once I have some spare time I'll get to work on this, thanks again for your help! Nettrom (talk) 19:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


I've rewritten the introduction, much of the history, and cleaned up various other sections of the article. There is still quite some work left to do as all claims should be sourced (perhaps particularly applicable to the advantages/disadvantages sections). It could perhaps also be useful to have update the Principles section with an illustration that points out the main design ideas when the system is on the guitar. When I have more time available, I'll stop by and see what additional improvements can be made. Nettrom (talk) 19:13, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Floyd Rose Players[edit]

Wikipedia's note on original research: << "Paris is the capital of France" needs no source because no one is likely to object to it, but we know that sources for that sentence exist. If no source exists for something you want to add to Wikipedia, it is "original research". To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable published sources that are both directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the material as presented. >>

I'm putting the list back because there are a TONS of sources for every Floyd Rose player on the list. Just watch some music videos and/or live performances with these artists on YouTube, and you'll see them with a Floyd Rose. Rather than listing every single source, I thought it would be better to add a more generic sentence in the reference section. Also, I don't think the list is that long to justify a separate page. I just cannot think of any reason why a Floyd Rose player (or potential Floyd Rose player) would dislike seeing this list as part of the article. It's clean, easy to read, based on factual information and focuses on relevant players. But as I mentioned before, if people start adding more and more players to the list, we can edit it to keep it condensed.

As we've already discussed here there are two main issues with this list; as it stands it is original research; Wikipedia does not attempt to do excessive listings. I've already argued that this list attempts to be an exhaustive list, which is not at all appropriate for this article, the main focus should be on the inventor and the design not on the people who happen to play guitars with it. Secondly, I've already argued against at two of the players on the list, so "no one is likely to object to it" is obviously false. Because of these issues I chose to add a sentence mentioning some fairly famous guitarists who use the system, and I welcome additions, it could easily contain a second sentence with more modern players as I'm not too familiar with those. So far I have not had time to look for good sources for these players, and chose instead to add {{Citation needed}}.
For an example of a list of players with proper sources, see Suhr_Guitars#Artists_who_use_Suhr_guitars. If you compare it with the list of artists on the company's homepage, you'll quickly notice that it's considerably shorter, simply because there were no sources. We have the same issue here. Cheers, Nettrom (talk) 14:52, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
As for WP:OR, I don't think this qualifies as "common knowledge"; it requires specialized knowledge to determine from a video that a Floyd Rose is being used by an artist. Wikipedia's policy on using primary sources states that "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source." Using the Slash example from above, I (a person without specialist knowledge) can't tell whether he's using a Floyd Rose over any other type of tremolo. (and, FWIW, the blog that was cited as an additional source probably doesn't qualify as WP:RS) Mildly MadTC 15:28, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Advantages & Disadvantages[edit]

I don't object rewriting the paragraph with sources, but as it is, the information is very poor. The new revision omits several advantages/disadvantages with the system which are much better described in the previous version. Not only that, the bullet format of the previous version makes it a lot easier to read.

Trembaruser (talk) 13:45, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The reason so much was removed is that I could not find any sources to back the claims, so I was left with the three major points that I could source properly. I looked for sources to mentioned the Speedloader version, but couldn't find any. Same thing with how long it takes to change strings compared to other bridge designs. If you have any good sources for those things, feel free to add them to the article. And similarly, I don't expect my first version of this section to be perfect, rephrasing content to make it better is very welcome. Cheers, Nettrom (talk) 14:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
These are not "claims", they are facts. The problem is that there is no scientific research (there might some post-grad thesis in some library, but...) because there doesn't need to be, just pick up a guitar. Tuning stability, time that takes to restring and set up, we know there are true and not merely claims - the fact that we are actually debating reality elsewere on this page based on the lack of citations is hillarious. The only available sources in print and online are opinion pieces from established players and punters anyway, so they are no good either. This information probably needs to be in the article, so why do we have to be draconian here? About 70% of Wikipedia's perfectly good content could be removed this way - citation needed, I know, but read any article and check it yourself ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:08, May 3, 2011 (UTC)
First of all thanks for editing the article, I thought that was a good improvement!
Although some of the advantages/disadvantages might be commonly regarded as "facts", we still need to refer to reliable sources as much as possible (see the five pillars of Wikipedia, specifically "verifiability" and "no original research"). It does not have to be a peer-reviewed research paper, as you probably notice from the references for this article, we use guitar magazines extensively. Another issue that I attempted to address with the rewrite of the article was to move away from bullet lists of benefits & drawbacks in favour of explanatory sentences, and in my experience such writing require good sources.
I welcome contributions to the article, it is not yet at a state where there's nothing left to improve. Thanks again for helping out! Cheers, Nettrom (talk) 15:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
I added info from Floyd Rose's official site regarding the new full titanium assembly, and removed the part about "density" because some aftermarket blocks are made of similar density alloys originals were of steel and brass the new aftermarket blocks are in brass while some others are in titanium which is considerably less dense than steel or brass (check titanium density on wikipedia dedicated page, it's 4.7, while brasses are approx. 8.6 and steel approx. 7.5 ).I added the part about the tungsten alloy blocks (which are by the way undersized compared to the originals, to reduce excessive weight from the instrument due to tungsten's high density, around 19 g/cubic cm). — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The official website is typically not regarded as a credible source of information, Wikipedia prefers sources that are unaffiliated with the topic of an article, so I would much prefer to see sources like magazine articles. To me the language used was also a bit too strong, partly because I'm not interested in what claims the company makes. I have therefore removed the two last sentences in the last paragraph of this particular section of the article.

The point about alloy density is spot on, of course, I rephrased it a bit in attempt to make it a bit clearer but otherwise kept the info. Thanks for helping out with that! Cheers, Nettrom (talk) 13:54, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


Please cite any assertions regarding the "superior hardness, strength and tonal qualities" of titanium vs. steel... Any metallurgist will tell you these myths are totally un-founded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


Updated the variations of ibanez and licensed bridges considerably to reflect expired patents and correct errors. I apologise for the lack of sourcing, I do not know how to correctly source the information, as it comes from informal but reliable sources, primarily Rich Harris of, a major dealer of Ibanez guitars with a reputation for consistently excellent work on guitar setups, and his posts on the Ibanez specific forum Jemsite, where he is regarded as an authority. The information on the graphtech LB63 came in emails from myself to Graphtech, which only exist in a public format as a post on MusicBanter web forums. I can assert the information is reliable, having owned and serviced all of the tremolos for which I made specific claims, but again, apologies for not being able to accurately source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Floyd Rose as a musician: Q5[edit]

In the 80s, Floyd Rose was also a performing musician, most notably as a member of the rock/metal band Q5. They released two albums ("Steel The Light" and "When The Mirror Cracks"). Despite the fact that he was far more well-known as the inventor of the tremolo, I was a little surprised to find that there was not even a passing mention of his career as a musician.

One of their songs ("Ain't No Way To Treat A Lady") was covered on two separate albums by Great White. On one page (Let It Rock (Great White album)), the songwriting credits were correct, and direct to this page. On the other (Recover (Great White album)), the songwriting credits were incorrect (Harriet Schock had a song by the same name, which was later a hit for Helen Reddy in 1975). Same title... completely different music and lyrics. I corrected that and linked here.

Here is a decent blurb on the band's short history: [1]

My updates and corrections here are usually relatively minor details, so I wanted to check in here before making any significant alterations to this page. None of the existing sections seem like a good place to add a couple of sentences on this topic, but I really think it should be noted somewhere since there is no page on the band itself. Can somebody lend me a little guidance on how best to approach making a revision? Is a new (relatively short) section the best way to go here?

ColdGrayLight 9 APR 2012 12:20A EDT —Preceding undated comment added 04:26, 9 April 2012 (UTC).

The article Floyd D. Rose exists, but is currently a redirect to Floyd Rose. One thing to consider is to revert the article about him back to an earlier revision, because I noticed it then had a couple of stub templates, and then add your content there. Note that the article was proposed for deletion back in 2007 [2], so if you decide to work on it you should make sure it claims notability and has sources to back it up (it could simply be something like "Floyd D. Rose is an American engineer and musician who is most famous for inventing the Floyd Rose locking tremolo system in the second half of the 1970s, a guitar bridge design that has been widely regarded as revolutionary", and then re-use the Guitar World and Guitar Player references from the Floyd Rose article to back that claim up). Then it could have a paragraph that summarises the Floyd Rose development and impact, and a section or paragraph (I don't know how much content you have) about his musical career?
Let me know if that sounds like a good solution, and feel free to ask if there's anything. Cheers, Nettrom (talk) 14:51, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Nettrom: I took your advice and did a brief write-up to restore the Floyd D. Rose page and added/corrected the links on several pages to direct to the new page. Please let me know if I made any glaring mistakes. Thanks for all your assistance! ColdGrayLight (talk) 01:24, 10 April 2012 (UTC)