Talk:Acoustic guitar/Archive 1

Archive 1

Removed text

a combination of acoustic and electric...

Not true. Some archtop guitars work both as acoustic and electric instruments, but others have no pickups at all, and are purely acoustic.

Whether semi-acoustic instruments that are quite unplayable as acoustic instruments should be called arch top at all is a bit controversial. The arch top as originally designed was a very successful acoustic instrument. Andrewa 00:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Changed to redirect

I started working on this entry through the WP:DPL and realized that 90% of the links referred to the steel string acoustic guitar. So i copied the page in Acoustic guitar (disambiguation) and added this redirect Anyep 10:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Reverting back to status quo ante (as of April 2007)

I've reverted the article again back to its status quo ante of April 2007. I'm pretty sure that the recent unilateral creation of an article here is wrong; there's certainly no discussion here of such a change. The last discussion here supported the expansion of this article as a list of acoustic guitar types only. +ILike2BeAnonymous 19:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, I see no previous discussion here. Secondly, I don't get what point you are trying to make. Articles are always preferable to lists. Wikipedia style guides strongly and explicitly discourage lists in articles. I can't understand why you won't let a page titled acoustic guitar contain an actual article on acoustic guitar, rather than a list of the various types of acoustic guitars. I believe I gave a completely correct description of what acoustic guitar means and how it produces its sound. Please explain your rationale before reverting. Also, note that what you are referring to as the status quo as of April 2007 is not so. For a whole month, this page was a redirect to Steel-string acoustic guitar. That was the status quo, not your version. Please check your facts. Loom91 06:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, for one thing, your article (I'm calling it yours, as it appears to have been written completely by you) is technically incorrect. For instance, you imply that the sound-amplification mechanism of an acoustic guitar is the sound hole, when in fact it is the soundboard (top) that increases the area of the vibrating surface, allowing the sound to be heard. So even if we were to keep this article, it would need major work.

The subjecs here are well-covered in the "child" articles linked to by this page. There's no need to reinvent the wheel here.

I'd like to get the opinion of other editors here. +ILike2BeAnonymous 18:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course, if you think its technically incorrect then that can be discussed. But if material about acoustic guitars is covered in the child articles but not in the parent article, that's major cause for concern. This is not about reinventing the wheel, this is about putting things in their proper places. Loom91

The way you have written the article, it seems the sound is entirely produced by the soundboard. If this was true, acoustic guitars would have solid bodies like electric guitars. The sound cavity does play its part, both in amplification and controlling the quality of the sound. Do you oppose this? Loom91 17:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

You, on the other hand, seem oddly fixated on the sound hole, as if it has some magical properties that amplify the instrument's sound. It does not; it's just a hole. It does have some function in determining the quality of the sound, but the work of "amplification" is all done by the soundboard. (Regarding that, the article on the steel-string guitar, I think, points out that the sound board doesn't really amplify anything; it merely transfers the string's vibration to a larger surface area, allowing it to create a larger sound wave.) +ILike2BeAnonymous 00:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The article on Classical guitar says the following: "The body of a classical guitar is a resonating chamber which projects the vibrations of the body through a sound hole, allowing the acoustic guitar to be heard without amplification." and "The main purpose of the bridge on a classical guitar is to transfer the vibration from the strings to the soundboard, which vibrates the air inside of the guitar, thereby amplifying the sound produced by the strings." The same thing is said by Guitar.

In Sound box, it says "A sound box or sounding box, (sometimes written soundbox), is an open chamber in the body of a musical instrument which strengthens the resonance of the instrument's tone by amplifying its vibrations.

A sound box is found in most string instruments. The most notable exceptions are some electrically amplified instruments like the solid body electric guitar, and the piano which uses a sound board instead."

Notice that it says except the piano, which uses a sound board instead. This implies that the guitar depends on the sound box, unlike the piano. Try turning off the magnetic pickups on a solid body electric guitar and see how much sound you can here. The sound-hole does play a role in amplification, otherwise luthiers wouldn't put it there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loom91 (talk • contribs) 13:32, 7 September 2007

Please stop reverting! I've shown that other Wikipedia articles do not agree with your POV, after which you have stopped responding. You are now trying to conduct a revert war. Please stop unless you can justify your actions. Loom91 20:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

About Acoustical Guitars

Take a look at Animusic.com and listen to the Digital sound from this Acoustical instrument (?)...Jesmitsr 20:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Digital sound from which instrument? Can you provide a direct link? (By the way, it's "acoustic", not acoustical.) +ILike2BeAnonymous 22:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

This is interesting too: [[1]] MarkAnthonyBoyle 23:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

amplification

I wonder whether the word amplify is a little misleading? An amplifier in the electrical sense requires energy to added to the system. The only energy in an acoustic guitar is the enrgy supplied by the action of plucking the strings. I wonder whether another term, say "magnify" might be better? MarkAnthonyBoyle 00:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The String_instrument#Sound_production page seems to get it right. Perhaps a wording similar to that should be adopted. Dlabtot 00:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, have a go at it, see what you come up with!! MarkAnthonyBoyle 07:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Role of sound box

The dispute is over whether the sound cavity inside an acoustic guitar, called the sound box, plays any role in the sound production of the guitar. For detailed arguments see the previous section. Loom91 10:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm far from an expert, but I think there are four types of sound coming from a guitar: 1) the strings. It isn't much, but it's worth noting. The vibrating strings vibrate the soundboard which provides part of the sound. The soundboard vibrates the air in the chamber, some of which is heard through the hole, and some of which is heard through the air vibrating the soundboard, again (like an echo). [2] has a partial explanation, but a soundboard without an acoustic body would create sound, too. Electric guitars are too dense to do this, though. Banjos are close to this, but the acoustic body adds to the sound. 171.71.37.29 20:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

It's worth noting here that Torres once made a guitar with a standard wood top, but with back and sides made out of cardboard to prove that the rest of the body has very little to do with tone production. +ILike2BeAnonymous 01:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

That would only seem to prove that the sound box doesn't need to be made out of wood, not that it doesn't have to be there. Nailedtooth 02:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

From what I understand, the material and shape of the soundbox has alot to do with the TONE of the sound, not necessarily the actual production of it.

After all, an electric guitar doesn't have a soundbox, and you can still play it acoustically, even though it won't sound that great. Cobratom 21:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, a solid-body guitar has a lower volume than a comparable hollow-body guitar. Secondly, something can not affect the tone of a sound unless it is also taking part in production of that sound. Loom91 13:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

No one was asking about volume, the question is sound production. Can you or can you not produce sound on a solid body guitar (no sound box)? You can. And you most certainly can affect the tone of a sound without affecting the production. Tone can be an after affect of production, as many things (ie air, medium, broadcasting equipment) can affect the tone after the sound has already been produced.Cobratom 18:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Right from the beginning the question has been about the volume. The dispute was over whether the sound box participates in amplification. And something that affects the quality of sound is necessarily re-producing the sound. Quality refers to the relative amplitudes of the various harmonics, changing them meanscreating a completely new wave train. Loom91 11:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not a luthier, but I have been playing guitars and mandolins for almost 30 years. BTW, my acoustic guitar is a 1942 Gibson L-50 archtop, so it neither has a soundhole, nor does it omit the soundhole: it has f-holes. So that is one area where both versions could use more encyclopedic wording.

As for the dispute about sound board and sound box.... in the absence of a reliable source that cites an example of an acoustic guitar that does not have a sound box, I think we can safely include the sound box as an integral part of the construction of an acoustic guitar.

The question of whether it contributes to the amplification of the sound or simply the timbre - although the answer to that question to me seems obvious, I am not a reliable source. It seems that the best way to resolve the conflict would be for those editors involved to find reliable sources that cited their respective viewpoints and then both could be included in the article. Although it seems to me a minor quibble that does not even really deserve mention. Dlabtot 01:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I included that bit about some guitars not having sound holes to accomodate f-holes. On an unrelated note, do round-holes sound better than f-holes? Loom91 11:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• I think you all are missing the fundamental key that the string vibration creates the frequency of the sound of the guitar. The rest of the bits just join in on the chorus to let you hear it loudly. It is the sound cavity vibrating in symphony that makes it loud. Why else does a big guitar have more volume than a small one? 199.125.109.134 08:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

You are missing the point here; the reason a bigger guitar is louder is that it has a larger soundboard, not a larger sound cavity. The cavity doesn't amplify the sound of the string; the soundboard does. That's been the whole point of this discussion all along.

By the way, I'd just like to point out that we still have not had one single expert contributing to this discussion. Mostly just a lot of uninformed speculation. Oh, well. +ILike2BeAnonymous 17:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I certainly don't agree that your assertion here is accurate. If you compared two guitars with similarly sized soundboards, and different sized boxes, I think you'll come to a different conclusion. But that's neither here nor there, as this is not a debate about that question, but a discussion about how to improve the article. What do you think about the suggestion I gave above? Those editors involved to find reliable sources that cited their respective viewpoints and then both could be included in the article. Do you think that might be a good way to resolve the conflict? Dlabtot 18:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

That would be an improvement, yes; but it would be nice if someone who actually knows something about acoustics, instrument construction, etc., could add their 10 cents here (adj. for inflation). You know, this isn't really all that complicated: it's neither rocket science nor voodoo. The mechanics of sound production are pretty well understood, thanks to the likes of Helmholtz, et al. What's needed is for someone to strip away all the pseudo-science, mumbo-jumbo and urban legend from this issue, something that, unfortunately, I'm not qualified to do either. +ILike2BeAnonymous 18:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Citing reliable sources is the way to resolve most factual disputes (unless you are working in a Mathematics article, where the rules are different). However, while the internet and the bookstore contains a multitude of sources on how to play a guitar, there are very few on how to make a guitar or how a guitar actually works. Since you have been associated with the world of guitar for a long time, perhaps you know some luthiers? Loom91 06:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Whoah pardners, as a guitar player of 20 years who has played electric, acoustic, round hole, f-hole, plastic backed, carbon fibre and steel guitars, and as a wood worker who has studied the construction of the guitar extensively I'd like to say that you are ALL right to a degree. It ISN'T rocket science, it's a bit MORE complicated than that! That is why there are so many different shapes and styles of guitar being made.

the sound is initiated (started if you like) with the vibration of the strings. The composition, weight and tension of the strings all have varying degrees of impact on the volume, timbre (harmonic balance) and tone (frequency) of the sound.

the next most important thing is the way the bridge is constructed (how the strings "talk" to the body). The mass and the harmonic qualities of the bridge play a fundamental, but much under-rated role in both the volume and timbre of the sound.

the key role of the soundboard is amplification. But it's not that simple. Luthiers devote their whole lives to playing with the combination of bracing, weight, tone, of the soundboard, it's relation to the hole(s) and the acoustic shape of the sound box. The simplest way of maximising the volume of an acoustic guitar is to make the soundboard as light as possible. Less mass means the strings can move it more (less inertia, more vibration). But the size, shape and position of the sound hole have implications for harmonic reinforcement or cancelling, as does the size, shape, mass and "brightness" of the soundbox. (just try playing one of those plastic backs, and you will see what I mean). And this stuff is not well understood yet, like lots of multi-factorial systems.

So, in short, you are all right. But there is no simple answer here. There is a whole mess of factors that reinforce some tendencies and cancel others. That's why there are so many different styles of guitar about, and why luthiers become reknowned for their skills in balancing all those competing forces! Shutup and play nice, or I'll have to send the drummer in to sort you out!(and he doesn't like pretty boy guitar prima donnas, but he is real good at hitting things!)MarkAnthonyBoyle 16:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

This may be of some use: [[3]] MarkAnthonyBoyle 01:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, you're still overcomplicating this. Let me lay my case out a little more carefully.

There are two general aspects to sound production as it applies to stringed musical instruments:

1. Sound production and the volume of sound produced

2. The timbre of sound produced and the instrument's tone color

For the sake of this discussion, I'm dealing with the first. I agree with you timbre and tone color is a highly complex and as-yet poorly understood matter. However, the aspect of sheer volume of sound production is not.

The sound is produced by the following sequence:

1. The player plucks or bows the string. This is the only energy input to the system. No more energy comes from any other source.
2. The string, through the bridge (guitar) or the bridge and sound post (violin, viola, bass), transfers its vibration to the top (and in a violin or viola, the back).
3. The top, acting as a diaphragm, produces sound waves in the air. It is these sound waves that reach our ears. Therefore, it is the soundboard that is the single most important part in producing an adequate volume of sound. The body cavity and sound hole do not produce sound.

For the sake of simply discussing the volume of sound produced, the body cavity and sound hole have only small roles to play. And keep in mind that there can be no "amplification" produced by the body cavity or sound hole; all the energy comes from the player's excitation of the string.

Again, when it comes to the factors that determine the instrment's timbre and tone color, then yes, the body cavity and sound hole have significant roles to play.

So, does this help? +ILike2BeAnonymous 03:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

You keep making assertions, but you've yet to produce a WP:reliable source to cite. And the pretty authoritative sources that MarkAnthonyBoyle has produced don't seem to agree with you. Your insistence that it's 'all about the top' seems to be pretty far from the consensus view. At least from where I'm standing. I repeat my suggestion: find a WP:reliable source that shares the viewpoint you are pushing, and cite it in the article. Dlabtot 03:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

It's all about the top so far as raw sound production (quantity of sound) is concerned. The sound cavity and sound hole are major players in determining the instrument's quality of sound. Just wanted to clarify that; these two things are getting confused in the discussions here. +ILike2BeAnonymous 04:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

So you've said, more times than are worth counting. Based on everything I've read, you seem to be wrong, a minority of one in your assertions. This source, in particular, seems to contradict you. But the point is, it doesn't even matter whether or not you're right. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." So if you just find one reliable source that says something similar to what you've repeated ad nauseum and add it to the article, no one will be able to justifiably challenge it. Dlabtot 15:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

ILike2BeAnon Yes I think that technically you have a point. I made an edit and a note below on the amplification issue. As you can see I think the word amplify might be a little misleading. If you can think of a better word then that's good. The process is analogous to magnify, I think, but we tend to say amplify when we talk in ordinary speech for something that increases the sound. Technically an amplifier in the electrical sense adds energy, whereas here, as you rightly say, the energy source is the excitation (mechanical plucking or bowing)of the string. 2 In a purely technical sense the sound board is the main factor too. But both of these university studies point to the role of the sound box as being important in the creation of sound, not just timbre. I quote:

'Coupling' simply refers to an interaction between two or more vibrating elements. First of all, on a guitar, the string is excited (plucked or picked) by your fingers, vibrating the bridge, which then goes on to vibrate the soundboard and the internal air cavity, then the back and sides and so on. If these these elements interact well, the whole system is said to be strongly coupled.

The body of the guitar acts so that the high pressure vibrations at the bridge are turned into low pressure vibrations of the surrounding air. This is a form of "impedance matching", in much the same way an electrical transformer raises or lowers a potential difference and is the main principle behind speaker cone design.

The higher frequency (pitch) sounds are produced by string interaction with the bridge and then the sound board, whereas the lower frequencies are essentially driven by the internal air cavity/sound hole and ribs/back coupling effects:

[[4]]

So you can see here that while you are 100% correct about the high frequencies, the bass response is driven by the sound hole. This, of course, is why a guitar has a different sound to violin or cello. It's not just timbre. You can hear this plainly if you play a Gibson semi-acoustic, which is an arch top, f hole guitar. They are very quiet by comparison to a 'normal' guitar, particularly in the bottom end: they sound tinny, unless of course you plug the buggers in, and that of course is a different story. That's what I meant when I said you were both right. You are both right, but it is a combination of the sound board and the sound box. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkAnthonyBoyle (talk • contribs) 06:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you that "magnify" is better than "amplify" here. Can't think of another better word just now, but the point you brought up should be made in the article, that once the string is "excited" by the player, no additional energy enters the system. (Perhaps it could be stated that the guitar is a "passive", as opposed to active, system.) +ILike2BeAnonymous 17:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, my 42 archtop, is not a 'semi-acoustic', but an acoustic guitar and it is quite loud - at the bottom end it is very loud and nothing like 'tinny'. But it has a very large soundbox - probably quite larger than the soundbox on the hollow body electric guitar you are talking about. Dlabtot 16:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a rather nice instrument! But we can be scientific about this. Here's an experiment to test the hypothesis that the sound hole in a flat top guitar has a role to play in the production of sound volume. I did this last night.

Experiment: Lay the guitar on its back. Get an old CD and slide it over the sound hole. This will block any sound generated at or coming from the sound hole. Pluck a string and move the CD over the hole and away from the hole. See if you can hear any difference in the bass response.

Result: In my test my guitar is currently tuned to an open tuning (high to low DCGCGD). I noticed a significant reduction in the volume of sound for the low C and G strings, not so much for the other strings.

Conclusion: This result supports the hypothesis that the sound box on my guitar is resonating certain low frequencies and that this increase in sound is returned to the listener by the sound hole.

I'd be interested to know whether any body else can confirm this result. Cheers MarkAnthonyBoyle 22:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course, any experiment is original research and should only be used to guide us towards verifiable sources for the article. fyi, here's what a 42 Gibson L-50 looks like Dlabtot 22:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, just suggesting it to test whether what these guys say is true or not. BTW nice guitar. I wonder what role the f holes play in sound production? (and you are right, it looks somewhat bigger than the one I was referring to)MarkAnthonyBoyle 00:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The guitar family

This article is now in a respectable state. I think it's time we brought some order to the entire family of guitar articles. We should make sure the articles reflect the hierchy

                                     String instrument
                                            |
                                          Guitar
                                           /  \
                                          /    \
                                         /      \
                                   Acoustic     electric
                                       | \       \
                                       |  \       \
                                       |   \       \
                                       |    \       \
                                       |     \       \
                                       |      \       \
                                       |       \      |
                                       |        \     |
                                       |         \    |
                  classical, steel string etc     slide

According to Wikipedia guidelines, in such a hierchy the articles should treat their subjects in increasing level of specialization. Currently there is a lot of overlap and repetetion. Loom91 19:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The word you're looking for is hierarchy. +ILike2BeAnonymous 19:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the latest edit reads very well and the amplify situation has been dealt with nicely. I did like the ref to inertial mass, but it probably was a bit OTT!!MarkAnthonyBoyle 23:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Ooh ooh ooh, If you are going to branch off to different types of guitar from here do you think it might be a good idea to briefly talk about nylon and steel strings here (just a little explanatory note)?MarkAnthonyBoyle 23:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Problems

There are some technical inaccuracies in this wiki. However, I am not at liberty to correct them at the moment. Please reconsider this section and remove incorrect information. Mic shep (talk) 15:10, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Lap steel

Should lap steel be on the list of acoustic guitars? Aren't these mostly electric? An acoustic one without a resonator would be a Hawaiian guitar, would it not?—Anne Delong (talk) 10:01, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion, merge with classical guitar ?

These articles have severe overlaps... Should they not be merged? - 79.186.14.206 (talk) 22:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, a classical guitar is acoustic, but an acoustic guitar is not necessarily classical. There's quite a bit to say about classical guitars in particular, and I think they deserve their own page, with just a mention on this one. Looking over the classical guitar page, I see little overlap; maybe someone has fixed it! —Anne Delong (talk) 10:07, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Types of guitar

The section of the article about types of guitar is a little bare. Wouldn't it be nice to have a short paragraph about each type of guitar indicating in which genres of music it is most commonly used?—Anne Delong (talk) 10:11, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

2 References...?

There's two reference sections. o_0 123.2.52.214 (talk) 06:15, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Innovations supposedly introduced by Martin

The statement that Martin introduced steel strings and the truss rod is dubious to say the least. For starters, it isn't supported by the source given (Ralph Denyer's Guitar Handbook), which, if anything, states that Orville Gibson was the first to use steel strings in place of gut strings. Denyer only says that Martin began manufacturing steel-string guitars in the early 1920s. Also, according to the truss rod article, both the first actual truss rod patent (1921) and the earliest patent mentioning such a concept (1908) were applied for by the Gibson Mandolin-Guitar Company. 82.58.130.21 (talk) 22:28, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Lead image

diff The way I see it, the shape of the Martin guitar in that image says "acoustic guitar" even from a distance. Anecdotally, I see that shape a lot more in coffee houses and at open mics than any other form. That said, my favorite local duo plays a couple of Ovations. Open for discussion... Just plain Bill (talk) 14:01, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

@Just plain Bill: A review of Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle would be useful. The IP was bold, I reverted, but instead of discussing first, it was reverted. An edit war will produce nothing useful. WP is built on consensus, not one's personal preferences or opinions. The prior image has been in the lead for 2½ years. Until a new consensus is achieved, it should remain. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:18, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree that edit warring is not productive. I am interested in seeing comments regarding the iconic nature of the image in the lead section. It is also common for the lead image to be representative because it provides a visual association for the topic... Just plain Bill (talk) 14:34, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

• Keep Gibson image It meets WP:LEADELEMENTS: 1) It is "relevant and technically well-produced"; 2) It is "representative because it provides a visual association for the topic, and allow readers to quickly assess if they have arrived at the right page" – It is unambiguously a rather typical-looking acoustic guitar and no one would mistake it for something else. Being the most common or "iconic" is not an image requirement. The image for mandolin is of an interesting, particular style, but still conveys "mandolin"; saxophone uses an alto sax, rather than a tenor; harmonica also includes the less common 16-hole chromatic; etc. This is really just a case of personal preference – the guitar case in the Martin image is distracting and unneeded. Meanwhile, the stable, pre-discussion image has been restored pending the outcome of this discussion. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:05, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

• Change to Martin image 1.) How long the prior image was up for is irrelevant, it just shows that no one thought of changing it, not that it's the "right" image. 2.) I agree with User: Just plain Bill, the Martin shape is far more representative of an acoustic guitar than a Gibson guitar. 3.) While being the most common or the most iconic is not, in fact, an image requirement, you wouldn't put Lil Wayne as the lead image on a page about Guitarists, would you? The lead image is supposed to represent the page it is on and Martin is indisputably a favorite among acoustic guitar players. In addition to this, the two lists that I have referenced show that Martin is clearly a favorite and therefore I confer that the Martin guitar should be kept as the lead image.[5][6]KingNJB (talk) 14:57, 14 June 2017 (UTC)— KingNJB (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

+1 for Martin Image.... Sorry I changed it but forgot to put description.... Martin is a more famous brand than gibson and sold more products thus more representative of an acoustic guitar so i vote to put Martin image.. 116.72.225.211 (talk) 11:21, 15 June 2017 (UTC)— 116.72.225.211 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Comment One vote by a single purpose IP and a second by a very new editor with few other edits does not constitute a consensus. What's the hurry? This should have a request for comments. —Ojorojo (talk) 13:43, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
• Use Martin image There should be no doubt that a body outline along the lines of a dreadnought or a classical guitar is more prevalent than that of the Gibson SJ200. With its circular lower bout and decorated pick guard, it is nowhere near being a "rather typical-looking acoustic guitar." The Martin case is not nearly as "distracting" as the mossy fence pickets and dried leaves in the cluttered background of the Gibson image, which obscures the neck and headstock in a thumbnail view. It is a reasonably high-definition image, but it is not a well-composed photograph for the purposes of an encyclopedic lead image. Just plain Bill (talk) 14:35, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
• Comment What is the connection between 60.254.16.244 (talk · contribs) (who added the image), KingNJB (talk · contribs) (both also edited KJ Apa), and 116.72.225.211 (talk · contribs)? Again, the choice of image is a matter of personal preference and, with the SPA issue, should have a broader audience. I don't see this being resolved without an RfC. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:30, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

RfC for the lead image of the article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the lead image be changed to the Martin guitar? 17:33, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• Support, The Martin guitar shape is more representative of an acoustic guitar and should be the lead image.
  • for reasons stated above: it is more representative, and a less cluttered image. Just plain Bill (talk) 18:30, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
  • 1.) How long the prior image was up for is irrelevant, it just shows that no one thought of changing it, not that it's the "right" image. 2.) The Martin shape is far more representative of an acoustic guitar than a Gibson guitar. 3.) While being the most common or the most iconic is not, in fact, an image requirement, you wouldn't put Lil Wayne as the lead image on a page about Guitarists, would you? The lead image is supposed to represent the page it is on and Martin is indisputably a favorite among acoustic guitar players. In addition to this, the two lists that I have referenced show that Martin is clearly a favorite and therefore I confer that the Martin guitar should be kept as the lead image.[7][8] KingNJB (talk) 06:04, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose, There is no need to change the lead image. 17:33, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep Gibson image As noted above, the WP guideline for images in the lead includes "the image used should be relevant and technically well-produced. It is also common for the lead image to be representative because it provides a visual association for the topic, and allow readers to quickly assess if they have arrived at the right page." (see WP:LEADELEMENTS) The Gibson image meets these criteria: it is unmistakably an acoustic guitar. Whether it is the "favorite" is not a criteria. The links provided above are not WP:RELIABLESOURCES, but appear to be blog-type informal opinion forums. Additionally, they only list Martin (the brand), not a particular model or style. Several of the comments mention D-35, D-28, D-45, D-18, etc. The D- or Dreadnought-style Martin has a different shape than the 000-28 model being proposed for the lead image – in deed, the dreadnought Martin is probably the far more popular and "iconic" Martin. Guitar players choose the guitar best suited to music they are performing. While the dreadnought may be well-suited for certain settings, its big, booming sound is often not preferred for ensemble playing, where it may not blend in well with the other instruments. Visually, the Gibson image provides a better contrast between the body and the background; the inclusion of a guitar case detracts from the Martin image. —Ojorojo (talk) 13:56, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
• Comment This RfC has been initiated by a Wikipedia:Single-purpose account IP editor 116.72.225.211 (talk · contribs), whose only edits are this article and talk page. Two other discussion participants have very limited contributions (with an overlap). —Ojorojo (talk) 17:57, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I've been reading more than posting here, waiting to see what others have to say. If User:116.72... hadn't started the RfC, I would have eventually done so myself, since a little while ago you seemed to think it was a good idea. Please comment on content (i.e. the merits of the images) rather than contributors. Just plain Bill (talk) 18:30, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
  • @Ojorojo, there are 7 billion people in the world. Surely you don't believe that just because three of those 7 billion share a common belief that is not in favor of your own that something nefarious is going on? This RfC was initiated to discuss the merits of changing the image and not for discussing those of the contributors. KingNJB (talk) 05:56, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Nefarious? The fact that the editor who started this RfC has no other edits (and didn't sign it) and that both KingNJB and 60.254.16.244 have another common article among their very few edits is being pointed out, nothing more. This is consistent with WP:SPA: "The SPA tag may be used to visually highlight that a participant in a multi-user discussion has made few or no other types of contribution. However a user who edits appropriately and makes good points that align with Wikipedia's communal norms, policies and guidelines should have their comment given full weight regardless of any tag." —Ojorojo (talk) 13:33, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea who 116.72.225.211 (talk · contribs) is, but 60.254.16.244 (talk · contribs) vandalized KJ Apa and I was the one who reverted his edit.[9] Ever since I reverted his edit, I have been watching him, which was what led me to this page in the first place; him switching the Gibson and Martin images. KingNJB (talk) 09:54, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

• Support Coming from the RfC page. I support the change of lead image to the Martin guitar, as it more typical and representative of most acoustic guitars. Just as the page on bicycles has the boring mass-produced Chinese Flying Pigeon as the lead, rather than a carbon fiber racing bicycle, this page should show a more typical acoustic guitar. LK (talk) 03:18, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
• Note that IP 116.72.225.21 who has participated in this RfC, as well as the section "Lead image" above, has been blocked for block evasion.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

@Ponyo: WP:BLOCKEVASION includes "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a block, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule." Since a blocked editor initiated this RfC and there are other SPA concerns, this whole discussion in doubt. Should the RfC be withdrawn? —Ojorojo (talk) 13:25, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Ojorojo If the participants agree to it then you can shut it down. It's up to ya'll.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:14, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

So far Ojorojo is the only one in favor of the Gibson image. I remain to be convinced that KingNJB should be denied a voice here, SPA or not. Filing a SPI on that editor would carry an aroma of desperation, IMO. As mentioned above, if user:116... had not started the RfC, I would have done, at Ojorojo's suggestion. With that in mind, it seems specious to call for closure on the grounds that the originator is now blocked. Just plain Bill (talk) 19:57, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

More like the aroma associated with footwear. Specious? (sounds nefarious) Closing a discussion is a normal part of the RfC process (a review of WP:Closing discussions may be beneficial). Let's see: started by a block user, participated in by single purpose account editors – no wonder other editors are avoiding this. Maybe there's an image of Eric Clapton playing a Martin somewhere.[10] —Ojorojo (talk) 12:58, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

if you think an editor is a sock, then start an investigation of it or let their voice be heard. You still haven't addressed the fact that you are the only one in favor of the Gibson image, with three registered accounts favoring the Martin. Speculating about possible reasons for skimpy participation does not move the discussion along, nor do snarky off-topic remarks about Clapton. The overwhelming majority of acoustic guitars are not in the hands of rock stars. Just plain Bill (talk) 15:32, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

There is too much emphasis on rock in WP music-releated articles. Clapton plays a Martin 000-28,[11] which is probably why it was chosen (KingNJB tried to change the image in the Clapton article). As discussed above, the dreadnought-style Martin is probably the far more popular and "iconic" Martin. The pro arguments are based on the faulty assumption that the image of a 000-28 is "representative" and "indisputably a favorite among acoustic guitar players". Besides Clapton, who is known for playing this model? A review in Vintage Guitar magazine notes the Gibson SJ-200's popularity among earlier country artists, Eddie Arnold, the Everly Brothers, Elvis, Dylan, and Emmylou Harris and "it remains a badge of identification for country artists."[12] —Ojorojo (talk) 14:27, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

This article is not about the instruments favored by star performers, whatever the genre, be it blues, folk, country, rock, gospel, shoe-gaze, jazz, or psychobilly. It is about an instrument played by ordinary people numbering in the hundreds of thousands or millions. Some of them only play at home. Others play in coffee houses, church basements, and porch jams. Some of them even have a modest following of fans who reliably show up at whatever venue they happen to play.

It so happens that the dreadnought has a strong family resemblance to other acoustic guitars such as the classical guitar mentioned above. The Gibson's body outline is quite a departure from that, and its decorated pick guard is far from typical. As I've said before, the background of that particular image is cluttered, and obscures the proportion of the neck. Just plain Bill (talk) 15:39, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Ordinary people do not pay $3,599 (Martin 000-28[13]) or $4,349 (Gibson SJ-200[14]) for a guitar (although retailers often sell these at up to ~30% discount). A more representative brand would be Yamaha or Epiphone (or Stella or Harmony pre-1965). However, as noted by LK, this may be "boring". The more contemporary Ovation might have more visual appeal. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:38, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

• Neither image should be used. (summoned by bot) This discussion is little more than a debate as to which commercial product should receive the most-prominent location. If an image is needed here, something generic (such as File:Old_guitar_(photo_by_Anita_Hart).jpg) will be better. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:20, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

With respect, I don't care if the lead image is a Martin, Yamaha, Takamine, or whatever, as long as it shows something that looks like the general run of modern acoustic guitars. I would disagree strongly with using the Anita Hart image, with its atypical tailpiece. Similarly, while an Ovation has a more or less typical body outline, its distinctive headstock makes it less suitable in this context.

Ojorojo makes a fair point about expensive instruments not representing what the majority of players use. Consider the violin article, whose lead shows a straightforward mug shot of an Eastman VL100, a working instrument at the lower end of what are called "trade violins," as close to a fungible commodity as one will find in the fiddle business. For this article, something like File:C.F. Martin GRH 160 or 000-16RGT (by Jim Hutcheson).jpg, File:Yamaha FG-180 Red Label (by Jim Hutcheson).jpg, or File:Morris W-25 acoustic guitar.jpg might serve the purpose. Just plain Bill (talk) 18:10, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

For the lead, a clear, quality image without props or background is preferred. Of the three, the first image is the best. However, the stool, extra space, and shadows make it less than ideal. Perhaps it could be cleaned up. —Ojorojo (talk) 13:55, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Cleaned up image now in the lead section. Hope you like it... Just plain Bill (talk) 23:39, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Works for me. If there are no objections, I'll close this RfC. —Ojorojo (talk) 13:14, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Martin overhype

I realize that this has been brought up previously, but it bears repeating: C.F. Martin DID NOT invent the guitar.

One example of short-sightedness: an early big-bodied guitar was the "Lakeside Jumbo," introduced by Lyon & Healy under their Washburn brand… in 1912. The first Dreadnought didn't appear until 1916.

I will likely be blanking the claims of Martin supremacy made in Amplification (section 3). They certainly do not belong there. (And it now strikes me as amusing that I have a 1965 Harmony Rocket (electric) but no truss rod, and it seems to "amplify" just fine.) The discussion leaps directly from how "gut strings are too quiet" to transducer electrification, skipping entirely past the build innovations necessitated by steel strings. When THAT discussion appears, THEN the Martin fans will have a place for their case… or maybe THEY could take charge of the overhaul.

(Irony perhaps: Lyon and Healy had moved to Chicago as agents for Oliver Ditson, the music publisher that later prodded Martin to create the original crappy Dreadnought.)
Weeb Dingle (talk) 09:03, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

The paragraph has two "disputed" tags (since 7/15) and the Denyer source isn't readily accessible.[15] As with many instrument articles, there are few inline citations and it is largely original research. Older tagged sentences should be removed or replaced with reliably sourced material. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:43, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Maybe useful image

Came across this image on Commons. Description is "I snapped a close up shot of my acoustic guitar at the precise moment I strummed the strings. This photograph visually demonstrates the distinctive frequencies each guitar string oscillates at, from a low E note to a high E note." I'm not certain of whether or not it would be useful for the article, so dropping it here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:12, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Becerraw.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:20, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): RTengUMD.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)