Talk:Guitar/Archives/2007

Where You Can Get These
I think telling people or future musicians where these instuments can be bought would help them get off on a better start. Don't you??? That is why I added the link to MusiciansFriend.


 * Any random music store will likely have dozens of guitars in stock. I believe it's one of the most common instruments in the western world. There is no need for a link to an online guitar store. And besides, it's still advertising. Phædrus 20:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposed new article: Guitar Chops
I think it would be really useful to have an article about the idea of "chops" with guitar. It would, of course, have to include examples of good chops and questionable chops, which would make it really really tough to maintain NPOV in such an article. Even so, I think the article should be there. It could address the distinctions between traditional blues chops vs classical guitar chops, acoustic chops vs electric chops, pick chops vs fingerpicking chops, conventions of chops such as timing, bending, vibrato, etc...

Anyone else think wikipedia could use such an article?

It sounds frivolous to me. (Strictly speaking, by the way, the discussion would have to be limited to guitarists like Jimi Hendrix, who is reputed to have played occasionally with his teeth.) TheScotch 09:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Steel guitar?
What about steel guitar used in country music?

I assume you mean a resonator, which is in the list of types of guitar/

I'm pretty sure he/she means a slide guitar

User:Bogus sig to force archiging 00:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Major manufacturers?
What about major guitar manufacturers?

User:Bogus sig to force archiging 00:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Classical guitars

 * A note about classical guitars, before someone could add the article some "flameable" topics: since best instruments are usually personally made by single artisans (liutai), or by small firms, I would avoid mentioning japanese manufacturers, though market leaders (= majors?), whose products effectively have an average good quality but (usually) far from what you would need for an important concert (yes, I know, some are used, but still there are some players that can go on without sponsors' money). Classical guitarists usually show a religious devotion for their hand-made instruments and there still are some little... Stradivari of guitars. So, if someone has the patience to list all those single liutai he knows, we could also add japanese firms; in the opposite case it would only start an endless flame, so perhaps better to give up.
 * About other guitars, which production has different schemes, respective manufacturers could deserve their own articles (and in this case japanese would fairly be included).


 * Another note about classical guitars: ok, acoustic have a louder tone, but not necessarily a "brighter" one. Also, Flamenco guitars do not necessarily have a "sharper sound". Reading the article, it could seem as if classical guitar had no other quality than being a base for further developments (which it can also be, but not only).
 * The timbro of classical guitar (of a good one, at least) varies form the natural prosecution of higher Contrabbasso to the lowest Mandolino and consents sharp and bright tones as well as smooth harmonies, all together from the same cassa armonica. Chords (always less considered than deserved) and skill (no comment...) can help in extracting from the instrument what might seem (sharpness, brightness) as a principal quality at a first sight. Classical timbro has to cover a repertoire that comes from chamber music, is true, but don't stop here, just try toimagine Aranjuez played with another kind of guitar, and you'll have your answer.
 * Classical repertoire is less known, is quite limited (in comparison with other instruments) and mainly thanks to Segovia and Tarrega has been increased of several translations (pieces originally meant for piano or other instruments where adapted for guitar); there is now plenty of available samples of versatility of classical guitar in sharp and bright timbro too (but not only). I hope that this can be rendered in the article if someone has to add something more about technical differences.
 * Final: why bass guitar, apart from name, should be included in this family while it is the technical evolution of Contrabbasso in the handful shape of an electric guitar? We don't usually consider a horgan as just a variety of pianoforte, I suppose, even if it has a similar keyboard.


 * I don't understand your comment about japanese manufacturers at all -- if they are a major manufacturer, then lets mention -- if not then don't. There are quality japanese instruments as well and to suggest that everyone who uses one is doing so because of sponsorship is POV.

User:Bogus sig to force archiging 00:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Resonator Guitars
I did not edit or remove any material. I ADDED material about 1) The number of resonators found on these guitars (one or three) and the type of bridge used (biscuit or spider) Ned 08:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Adolf Rickenbacker
I believe Adolf Rickenbacker should get some credit in inventing the electric guitar - His 'frying pan' lap steel predated either fender's or Les Paul's.

Actually, neither Fender nor Les Paul invented the electric guitar. They both developed solid-body guitars that led to the popularization of such guitars.

User:Bogus sig to force archiging 00:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Alleged descendance from lute
The assertion that the guitar is descended from the lute is contradicted by the French version of this subject, which says they're of distinct families of different descent. Anybody have more on this? And where does the oud fit in to the guitar's development?
 * I am an amateur lutenist and I have always heard from my teachers that the relation between the lute and guitar, if any, is unknown. B.Bryant 23:30, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * Then why are guitar builders called "luthiers"? They also build and repair banjos, mandolins, violins, dulcimers, etc etc..., any one of which can be traced back to the lute. It boils down to a box with strings and a neck for selecting notes. Different than a piano or a wind powered instrument. They are similar enough in concept and execution. It wouldn't take much to teach an old lute maker (transported via time travel) how to make an acoustic guitar.--Xj14y 20:44, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * The french version is correct.Richard 01:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: "Then why are guitar builders called 'luthiers'?" Because a lot of people seem to think the term sounds impressive. TheScotch 09:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Tres guitar used in Salsa (music)
Does anyone know something to write about this type of Guitar?

User:Bogus sig to force archiging 00:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Slang
from "Guitar culture":
 * The guitar has come to be called many different colloquial names over time such as: box, axe, shredder, teeth flosser, and box-o-strings.

I have played guitar for over 40 years and know many guitarists and have never heard a guit-fiddle called teeth flosser or box-o-strings. Is this regional, original research, patent nonsense, or stealth vandalism? -- WCFrancis 14:40, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * All Google hits are from Wiki, some mirrors, some GNU uses of article. -- WCFrancis 14:55, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * No response; I am removing the questionable terms. -- WCFrancis 01:06, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There are more doubtful terms right now. Bread-winner just means anything that makes money and doesn't belong here. I don't know if that section is a running joke or what. I'm going to remove some and I'd like to see citations for any new ones that are posted. --Howdybob 11:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Guitar parts
Guitar article surely came to a really large size. One of its major components is "Guitar parts" listing with a description of each one. I'd like to pull each such guitar part into separate article - it deserves it. There are much more to say about each guitar component. It would be nice to have an image of every guitar part. It would enrich Wikipedia a lot and ease up the burden of large guitar article.

What do you think? -- GreyCat 12:56, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I think not: it presumes the world comprised entirely of guitar buffs (I could choose a less innocuous term). It might be helpful, however, to put the nylon-string guitar, the steel-string "acoustic" guitar, and the electric guitar in separate articles. TheScotch 09:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

bridge
I made a small but significant deletion in this section.

(start delete) The bridge is commonly adjusted after replacing strings since small discrepancies in the diameters of the strings can greatly affect the intonation of the guitar. (end delete)

I removed this material because it is not true. The bridge is NOT commonly readjusted after string changes. Small "discrepancies" in string diameter do NOT greatly affect intonation. Changing the GAUGE or thickness of a set of strings (going from a lighter set to a heavier set, or vice versa) CAN affect intonation, but it is not common or usual, and would only occur if a significant change was made. Ned 08:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

neck joint
I added a phrase here to indicate that dovetail joints are (also) used on acoustic guitars, exemplified by CF Martin's D28 model and similar Martins. Ned 08:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Neck
I made a significant deletion in this section. The text said that bending the neck forcefully, to change the pitch of a note, was a fairly common technique -- especially in Blues and Rock and Roll music. This is not true.

Bending a note to change pitch is very common, but this is done by pressing the fretting finger sideways against the string as the string is pressed against the fret -- while plucking the string with the other hand. This raises the pitch of the string incrementally. Another pitch technique is vibrato, accomplished by skillfully "wagging" the fretting hand as a string is being fretted -- again while also plucking the string with the other hand.

Forcefully bending the neck CAN change the pitch of the string. However it is very rare for a guitarist to do this intentionally, as the results are difficult to achieve and there is real danger that the neck will break or be damaged. Ned 08:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

This actually is a relatively common technique. Many modern acoustic players bend the neck to achieve that whammy bar-trem sound. It is not used for serious bending though, just slight, wavering tones. I agree that it is horrible in the long run for the instrument, but it still is common. If the instrument is properly taken care of, this techinique can pose little to no threat to the life of the instrument. Mouthofacowboy 22:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Fretboard
I made a small deletion and addition. The previous text said that some fretboards are made of graphite. (Graphite would not be an acceptable material) This is not true. I changed the text to say that some fretboards are made of manufactured or composite materials such as HPL or resin. materials incorporating carbon fiber or graphite may be used, but these materials are composites containing limited amounts of fiber or graphite. Ned 08:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Nut
I made a small edit and addition. I REMOVED a phrase that said that some nuts are made of graphite, because that is untrue. Some nuts are made with a material that is impregnated with graphite. (Graphtech brand) Pure graphite would not be a suitable nut material. I added a line saying that some nuts are made with material impregnated with graphite. Ned 08:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Electric Guitar Pickups
In the article, lectric guitar pickups are called "transducers." Transducers are found in microphones, and speaker coils are also technically transducers. But I've always thought of transducers as devices that transmit sound vibrations to electrical impulses, as a microphone does.

Now, it may seem that this is what an electric guitar pickup does, but MOST electric guitar pickups are MAGNETIC. The pickup senses (or picks up) the vibrations of the guitar string DIRECTLY, because the string is ferrous and the magnet creates a field in which the string's vibrations are translated into electrical energy. But the pickup does not sense the SOUND vibrations of the string but, rather, the actual movement of the string.

I always understood that a transducer sensed vibrations of SOUND, in the air or in a sound-conducting material, and translated (or transduced) the vibration to electrical energy.

Perhaps I'm wrong. Or perhaps this is not a difference that makes a difference. I'm raising the question, hoping that a more technically trained person can adjust the text if needed. Ned 07:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Transducer is a scientific term for a thing that changes one form of energy to another, in this sense a pick up is a transducer. However, whether guitar pickups are referred to in this way by those skilled in the art, i'm not sure.

It's true that the mechanical vibration of an electric guitar string is said to be transduced into a fluctuating voltage by a pick-up, whether or not the pick-up is said to be a transducer. TheScotch 09:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

tuning
I made a small deletion in this section. Here is the original sentence, showing my deletion:

(start paste) Many guitarists use a long established (centuries old) tuning variation where the lowest string is 'dropped' two semi-tones down. Known as Drop-D tuning it is, from low to high, DAdgbe'. (end paste)

The statement that drop D tuning is long established and centuries old is not true. Ned 09:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, the drop D tuning is quite old. Both Fernando Sor and Matteo Carcassi wrote pieces using this tuning. I don't know exactly when these pieces were published but considering the composers' life spans, it would be in the late 18th or early 19th centuries. There may be earlier pieces using this tuning as well that I'm not familiar with, but even if these were the earliest, the statement you removed seems reasonable to include. If someone could find more detailed information (like when the first piece using this tuning was published) then we could have a more useful statement than the previous one. --Amazzing5 20:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject/Wikiportal Guitar
Anyone have any thoughts about creating a WikiProject or Wikiportal for the guitar? The guitar article itself is very long and has a multitude of information- this seems like it would be better suited in a project and/or portal rather than just linked off of the article. This would also give us more flexibility in how we organize the information (say rather than removing "Guitar Culture" perhaps we could find a better way to make it fit in Wikipedia). I would like to hear if that sounds reasonable. --Chevan 11:48, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

---


 * Project Classical guitar


 * Classical guitar Portal

--Greyclair 01:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Body
In the Parts of the guitar section, should Body (acoustic guitar) be merged with Body (electric guitar). I don't mean an actual merge but have it so that in the TOC it is


 * 2.9 Body
 * 2.9.1 Body (acoustic guitar)
 * 2.9.2 Body (electric guitar)

instead of


 * 2.9 Body (acoustic guitar)
 * 2.10 Body (electric guitar)

What do you all think? Thelb 4 11:19, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Semi-acoustic guitars
If somebody can elaborate about Semi-acoustic Guitar, it would be interesting and appreciated... thanks in advance ! Rama 10:38, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

about sources
My guess is that this article was written by musicians. Finding references would be nice, but many parts of this article are "common" knowledge among musicians (the request for sources, looks like a request for verifiability to me, and I had to leave the above comment). +MATIA &#9742; 13:43, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Bad top image
The first image of the article is not iconic, representative, ... Cigsandalcohol 02:58, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree, a simple classical (i.e. wooden, nylon string, eight shape) guitar would be more appropriate. -Green Gecko

guitar strings
Is there a specific article (apart from String instrument and Vibrating string) about guitar strings? Should we add something more about these in the tuning section? +MATIA &#9742; 18:12, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Tuning is wrong, middle A is 442 Hz and Middle C used here is actually c2, one octave above it. So, guitar strings are tuned higher than written there. B-string is one full step higher than middle A.


 * Correct, the guitar is a transposing instrument it sounds one octave lower than written. Richard 02:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

There really needs to be more information about guitar strings. I'm trying to find out the exact tension in foot-pounds of 0.10 gauge strings in standard tuning and on top of Wikipedia's lacking this pretty important piece of information I can't find it anywhere else on the internet either. Anybody? 26 September 2006

The comment above that middle A = 442 Hz must be from a continental European user. While ISO concert pitch is in fact A=440 (which is the most common standard in the US and UK), manyh European orchestras use 442 or higher, presumably to acheive a brighter sound. See Pitch (music)Wschart 19:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't sure where I should add this comment, but this seemed to be the most appropriate section. In the Electric Guitar section of this article, it lists guitarist who play 8 string guitarists saying that they add two lower strings. I don't know about the other guitarists, but Rusty Cooley's Conklin guitars have one string lower and one string higher. I just thought somebody should know about that. Mouthofacowboy 22:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Highly regarded reference for development of the guitar if interested
"The Guitar from the Renaissance to the Present Day" by Harvey Turnbull (ISBN 0 7134 3251 9) has been recommended to me personally time over by my teacher as one of the most well researched and reliable sources for the subject ever. It was written in 1974 and has had excellent praise from John Williams (the player), The Musical Times, The Economist and the Music Journal to quote just the blurb.

If anyone can get hold of it then it has some valuable info if they're up for beefing up the instrument's very unclear history according to most sources and institutions. I have observed that much information I have picked up from this book is not present in the article (although the book is very comprehensive, perhaps unnecessarily so). I would do so myself but to be honest I am intimidated by condensing the vast amount of information and pleasing the existing quality of the article.

Nonetheless worth the read for guitar lovers and for educational research.

-Green Gecko

User:Bogus sig to force archiving 00:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

real history
The earliest extant six string guitar was built in 1779 by Gaetano Vinaccia (1759 - after 1831) [1] [2] in Naples, Italy. The Vinaccia family of luthiers is known for developing the mandolin. This guitar has been examined and does not show tell-tale signs of modifications from a double-course guitar. [3]

What does the author of above mean by "double-course" guitar? That it has only two (double) strings? I suspect the writer doesn't realise the term course refers to twin strings. Please clarify Richard 12:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Capatosto or capodastra?
THat is the question. What is the answer? 8-?--Light current 17:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Well ... according to the wikipedia article on capos it is capotasto. According to Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians it is two words capo tasto comming from the Italian for head (capo) and tie (tasto). Webster, under capo, also mentions that it comes from the Italian capotasto (one word this time). So it would appear that capodastra is bunk. --Amazzing5 19:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Aha! Thats very interesting. I always thought that 'capodastra' was the word. Looks like Im wrong again! 8-)--Light current 00:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Since I didn't actually answer your question, it would be neither (neither capatosto or capodastra that is). Rather, it would be capotasto. Although now I'm starting to question myself. Looking around with Google, it looks like every reference to capodastra is from a UK site. Possibly this is considered standard for British spelling, but I can't find any use of this word except for a few isolated online stores. Every other place I look uses capotasto. --Amazzing5 16:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Ahh. Curioser and curioser!--Light current 23:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * or Capodastro

--Greyclair 01:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Where do you get capodastro from?--Light current 23:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Volume Nylon vs Steel
Please provide solid evidence for claiming steel strings are louder than nylon. Any classical player will attest that performing finger-style on a steel string guitar results in a significantly quieter volume compared to that produced by a nylon classical guitar. Given the same level of excitation steel-string guitars are (in my professional experience) much quieter than nylon. The reason a steel string guitar can sometimes sound louder is that it is very robust, allowing it be played with far greater force if required. A subtle difference I know, but I would prefer the ref be ammended to stating the constuction allows the steel string to be played much harder.Richard 02:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Dont steel strings have a greater harmonic content, thus making them sound louder?. Also are not steel strings at  higher tension than nylon strings, thus giving them more energy for the same initial displacement?--Light current 23:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The first point is certainly new to me, have you a citation? The second is valid and is consistent with my argument, excepting I'm talking excitation energy and you are talking displacement. For the same amount of effort the nylon string is louder, but if you play with significantly more force you can get the steel to speak louder. The question is - does that make the steel string a louder instrument or, to put another way, a more efficient mechanical system? I can see valid arguments both ways. Richard 09:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I dont have a citation. If I had, I would have put this info on the page -- its just obvious to me (and most people) that steel strings sound brighter than nylon.
 * As to your second point, you dont make sense. Is not force proportional to displacement?. see vibrating string 8-)--Light current 11:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

First point: brighter = a proportionally higher amount of upper harmonics, I've never read that higher harmonics (frequencies) effects SPL as much as the lower harmonics (think about which carries further, bass guitar or sound of a cymbal) It could be argued that one should expect the instrument with more lower-order harmonics to be the loudest. Point 2: That's right! except that I'd prefer it written as energy released is dependant on force req to displace the string which is determined by the string tension, now read what I wrote carefully. Richard 09:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Look up Fletcher-Munson_curves to see why higher harms are going to appear louder--Light current 09:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

the article on equal loudness curves is better but neither clarify the issue greatly for me. Before your last response I was about to venture that the differing uses made of the two instruments may be of more relevance. Steel strings are designed to be used in combination with other instruments and it may be that their different harmonic spectrum allows them to be differentiated more easily within the mix. This compared with the nylon which developed as primarily as solo instrument. The ability of steel string to be heard against others in such group contexts (and its 'brighter' sound) has been confused with volume. To me as a musician there is no question that as a solo instrument the nylon sting is louder and carries further than the steel string. However I'm prepared to admit that perhaps I've subjective ears if a reader has citable figures that prove otherwise. Richard 10:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Two articles:


 * What is a decibel?
 * Loudness and spectra


 * But it doesn’t mean that a steel string guitar is always perceived louder than a nylon sting guitar, it also depends with the body. A Smallman type nylon guitar is I think perceived louder than a Martin type steel string guitar witch is maybe perceived louder than a Torres type nylon sting guitar. (I write “perceived louder”, it doesn’t mean that it’s louder in db.)


 * “Are not steel strings at higher tension than nylon strings, thus giving them more energy for the same initial displacement?” / “Is not force proportional to displacement?”


 * The thing is that guitars with higher tension strings also have more rigid soundboard. At the end I am not sure that the displacement of the soundbord is larger, but anyway with higher tension strings and more rigid soundboard the sustain is longer.


 * The attack transient is also important in the perceived loudness.


 * We could say that, at the same distance, the three factor of the perceived loudness are the db, the attack transient, and the spectrum.


 * Sorry for my English… --Greyclair 16:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The (limited) discussion to date would indicate that the claim "louder" is subjective and subjective judgments shouldn't be presesnted as fact in Wiki. Richard 11:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * We could put in the fact that steel strings are subejectively louder than nylon if they are. Of course a lot depends on the guitar to which they are attached doesnt it?--Light current 17:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The steel-string guitar's entire raison d'etre has to do with its greater loudness. Classical guitars simply couldn't be heard in the dance bands of the twenties. TheScotch 09:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * In that case, it sounds brighter, but loudness is a different matter, especially in a mix of instruments. Ariedartin JECJY Talk 15:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposal: Break out Guitar-dedicated articles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Distortion#Proposed_Article_Titles_and_Changes

The refactoring is in-progress. It will have negligible effect on the present article. MichaelSHoffman 03:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

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

Guitar Intonation
I was hoping to find some information of the problem of designing a guitar that intonates correctly up and down the neck. This subject was brought to mind by reading about both the Buzz Feiten (http://www.buzzfeiten.com) and Fretwave (http://www.fretwave.com) systems. Is there anyone capable of writing about this problem? Hi There 00:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Why shouldnt they intonate correctly if the frets nut and bridge are in the right places?--Light current See just intonation.--Light current 16:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Warning: a can of worms lurks. Equal temperament is a compromise yet performers still try to 'beat' or tweak the tempered system (e.g. by tuning such that thirds are sweetened in certain positions when playing works in chosen keys that utilise certain fingerings/positions). The guitar isn't tuned to just intonation; if it was it wouldn't work across the strings. RichardJ Christie 09:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Materials: woods used
How about some information on the various woods used for guitar making, and their various acoustic properties? That's a must for a guitar article. Alexnye 06:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Notation of tuning
I noticed that someone changed the standard tuning from (EADGBe) to (EADGBE). Does anyone have an opinion on what format should be used? (EADGBe) is fairly common, but it should technically be (EAdgbe1) or (E2 A2 D3 G3 B3 E4) depending on what naming standard you ascribe to for pitches. --Amazzing5 13:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the best notation for tunning would be as you stated: E2,A2,D3,G3,B3,E4. I think this because all instruments can related and understand to this, meaning it has more information, and is more 'universal' if I might say :)

--Lethaljellybean 03:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Removed External Link
Removed http://learn-how-to-play-acoustic-guitar.blogspot.com for two reasons. One is because it is a blog and any Wikipedia article has to adhere to WP:V and WP:RS, it also has to meet the various aspects of WP:NPOV. The main reason it was removed is because it does not offer any lessons as of right now, it only looks as if someone was trying to promote and advertize their site, which is also not allowed. silic0nsilence 23:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

wheres the section on guitars that shoot lightning? Hellionzod 04:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Health Issues
Maybe you can discuss about allergies that Nickel strings cause, and as it is a better idea to buy stainless steel strings to encounter this. (Just an idea, discuss at will)

Some Further Research: I was doing some research in the internet, and within wikipedia, and I've found some more facts about allergies that stringed instruments may cause because of the presence of nickel. Some people are aware about their allergies of nickel because they wear cheap jewellery (like a necklace which the metallic part is in contact with the skin, and causes irritations ect...), and get little bumps, which some fluid inside, that may be popped under pressure, but this is not recomended, as many doctors will say, and as we know that when there is holes in skin tissue, it is easier to catch bacteria within, and get an infection... From my research, I found out that this allergy is called Allergic Contact Dermatitis (thanks to Wikipedia), and it really matches the condition I am currently going through, so maybe some more stuff can be added from some research on the interaction of the skin, and nickel...

''I've done some more research, and I'll be coming up with a list of different strings which are made out of Stainless Steel (with no traces of nickel). Maybe this will help!''

Anyway, I hope I can help out here!

--Lethaljellybean 18:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Well I bought these strings of pure stainless steel, and my allergies seem to have disapeared, my hands are feeling better too, but there is still a hint on them. This though is probably because of the frets of the guitar which may have traces of nickel. I'm going to probably refret my guitar when I have the chance and money, and I'll let you all know if this makes if better!--Lethaljellybean 00:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Why not wear latex gloves?--Light current 02:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Haha, That's what I'm currently doing with cutting the fingers off, of the glove (as my palms seem to be affected more with palm muting. mmmm I still think it be good to rid the guitar from all that nickel if possible, but I don't know how feasible it is... Thank you though :) --Lethaljellybean 23:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Specialized Guitar Types
I have heard about some specialized guitar types.
 * Twisted fretboards -- These are intended to reduce the stresses on the wrist by allowing you to hold the fretboard in an ergonomically correct manner and avoid Carpal Tunnel Syndrome.
 * Left-Handed versions -- These allow a left-handed person to play the guitar and pick or strum with their left hand.

Not sure if you can get both in one guitar. Will (Talk - contribs) 04:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Synthesizer that you hold like a guitar?
I have a DeGarmo & Key album where in a photo one of them is holding something in the same manner as a guitar, but it has a keyboard. It does appear to have something resemabling a fretboard. What is it? Will (Talk - contribs) 04:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a keytar-Crunchy Numbers 18:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

FA?
I think that this article looks really good, maybe even Featured article class good. What do you guys think?--18:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Bogus sig to force archiving 00:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

saddle
There appears to be a mistake on the diagram of the parts of the guitar. It shows the saddle as being the bridge and vice-versa. The saddle on a steel string acoustic is the hard piece of bone or plastic that sits in a slot in the bridge. On some electrics there are multiple saddles that are seperatly adjustable.-Crunchy Numbers 18:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and fixed it.-Crunchy Numbers 18:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Proposal to semi-protect this article
Many anomymous users are vandalizing this article. As such, I think it should be semi-protected. Will (Talk - contribs) 06:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Idea for new article (unsure if it's suitable)
I love this article and wish I had something to contribute to it. One thing I'd like to approach (which would really need a seperate article) is some sort of information regarding the process of actually teaching and learning guitar. Of course I know this is an encyclopedia and "some sort of information" just doesn't cut it. Has anyone considered (and does anyone have the requisite knowledge to start) an article on "guitar teaching methods" or something of the sort? Or is that not a specific enough subject?

FretBored 07:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

edits by Will Pittenger
user:Will Pittenger in his last two edits ( 05:44, 17 November 2006 ) and ( 03:05, 17 November 2006 ) has reverted without explanation to vandalized versions. Both were edits by 141.150.109.100. Does this qualify as vandalism? If so which template do I put on his user page?-Crunchy Numbers 17:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I looked at the diffs and the edit (Revision as of 03:05, 17 November 2006) was actually blatant vandalism where multiple numbers and things were changed. The edit summary says that he was reverting but he was actually adding more vandalism. Unfortunately I didn't look at the diffs when I reverted subsequent vandalism and reverted back to Will's version. This is getting really complicated to keep up with this kind of tricky vandalism.


 * From here it looks like the easiest way to get rid of the damage he did is to revert back a ways. This will wipe out two small good edits, sorry folks.-Crunchy Numbers 17:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I was wrong again. I was looking at the wrong dif. He reverted to a vandalized version by 141.150.109.100. I already put a warning on his user page but I think reverting to vandalism counts as vandalism.

Another thing I've noticed is that sometimes someone will blank this page after vandalism so AntivandalBot will revert back to the vandalized version. Then people seem to trust AntivandalBot and don't check the diffs.-Crunchy Numbers 18:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I did not vandalize pages and am tired of seeing unfounded accusations for that. If there is a revert problem, it is with WP:POPUPS.  That is how I always revert.  If it got the wrong version, please don't blame me just for the heck of it. Will (Talk - contribs) 05:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Do the external links belong?
Please examine the external links and see if they belong. I figure commercial sites don't. Unfortunately, I don't play the guitar and can't help evaluate the sites. Sorry. Will (Talk - contribs) 04:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Should we revert this edit?
I think that the 2006-11-28 18:25:58 edit by 74.224.43.141 (talk -- contrib) is a step backwords in readability. However, since I don't know much about guitars, I didn't want to revert the changes myself. Please check those changes out and tell me what you think. Will (Talk - contribs) 04:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Fixed it, thanks. Justinmeister 05:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Citing Sources
Shouldn't the little whatchamagig about the article not citing it's sources be moved to the top, where more people (and possibly editors) can see it? Nineteenninetyfour 02:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Good point. Justinmeister 07:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Infobox Requested
For the decent treatment of one of the most important instruments in music and musical history (yes, I'm being a bigot :D), I request an infobox similar to other instruments' ones; cf. the pages on a lot of the brass instruments, and especially the harp. Something like this: (Note: The guitar, as of yet, does not have a musical range image. (Check Image:Range_harp.png).

DÉSOLÉ, SORRY! you know what i'll make it myself; please ignore this comment.

User:Bogus sig to force archiving 00:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge from Gallotone guitar
This stub Gallotone guitar doesn't have much content, it's basically a record of a cheap guitar. I propose we include it hear. Alan.ca 10:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Number of Strings
Should the introduction be changed to mention that that guitar has six strings, but many variations exists? The way it is now looks silly, I mean, should we add the Picasso guitar too?Nj78 01:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Strap locks
Strap locks redirects to this page, yet there's nothing on here about them 203.206.92.154 07:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Too many external links
I noticed the list of external links in this article's EL section has grown. Someone attempted to solve the bulk problem with that long list by dividing the section up into subsections. However, I have to question that we need all those links. Please look into dropping a few.

If a link is clearly commercial in nature, I think that link should be dropped ASAP. If the link is non-commercial, but the site is operated by the same person that added the link, please consider moving the link to the talk page so we can discuss whether it should be kept or not. Will (Talk - contribs) 02:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Silent guitar / nylon electric
I think this article needs to be expanded on these subjects, they're the most beautiful guitars in the world yet they are not discussed here. 201.23.32.2 21:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Citations?
I don't see any factual errors, and find it interesting that there are absolutely no sources for the French "featured" article.DMCer (talk • contribs) 19:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

six strings
"...sources for various names of musical instruments that guitar could be derived from appear to be a combination of two Indo-European roots: guit-, similar to Sanskrit sangeet meaning "music", and -tar a widely attested root meaning "chord" or "string"...."

--gui-tara- comes froms sah or sas (6) + tara (string). See also: centaur (santur or santar): 100 strings: ektar: 1 string dotar: 2 strings, etc.

User:Bogus sig to force archiving 00:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Lets get the ball rolling
Let's make this a featured article, guys! Remember, be bold when updating. The guitar components/parts section needs way less bloated-ness (the summations are overkill, why don't we have a Definition List with links and a quick few lines of summary?). I've created a guitar components page where the full summaries can go. I think this is a good way to start building this page into a prime example of Wikipedia cleanliness. Zachblume 20:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Ergo and left-handed guitars
I have heard of guitars with ergonomic features (the fretboard is twisted to allow a more natural position for the wrist) and left-handed guitars (the entire guitar is reversed). I think if more information and photos can be found, this should be added to the article. Will (Talk - contribs) 06:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Merge proposal
I'm not the one who proposed the merge, but in my opinion, this article is just too long. I'd suggest that rather than merging "Parts of the Guitar" here, that the stuff here mostly be merged into "Parts of the Guitar".

I'd suggest keeping the diagrams with part listings, and a link to Parts of the guitar.

-- TimNelson 11:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The content of both the parts of the guitar article and the parts of the guitar section seems to be identical. I suggest leaving the parts of the guitar article alone, and merely deleting the duplicated content from the main guitar article, which is far too long. SGGH 21:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Panormo
The maker Louis Panormo is named here as Louise!. The Panormo family and their guitars are discussed in "The Guitar in England 1800-1924" by Stewart Button, Garland Publishing, Inc., New York & London 1989. While Louis was almost certainly the prime mover in the family's guitar production, the enhancements to the Spanish style of guitar design probably derive from the work of his brother Joeseph, who worked with the guitarist Fernando Sor. While the Panormos were makers of good quality guitars, I doubt that Louis belongs alongside Torres in importance in improvements to the concert classical guitar. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 125.255.28.254 (talk) 11:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC).


 * Spelling fixed. L Panormo is only credited with a role in demonstrating role of fan strutting, if the above reference credits that development to Joeseph please add the citation and change 'Louis Panormo' to 'Panormo brothers'. [I understand Louis later emigrated to New Zealand where he dabbled in building keyboards]. RichardJ Christie 04:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The 'Jem'
I happened to come across the section where it said Steve Vai worked with Ibanez to develop the seven-string electric guitar the 'Jem'. Well, it is infact not the Jem, but is the 'Universe' model. The Jem is Steve Vai's 6 string, and the Universe is the 7 string. 138.130.173.138 11:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC) AJ IS THE BEST VAI IS GOD

shit guitars
why are the guitars pictured in every guitar page always really shit guitars? epiphone, mexican fenders etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.143.218.240 (talk) 10:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

Danelectro
"However, it was Danelectro that first produced electric guitars for the wider public." danelectro first started making electric guitars for the wider public in 1954... fender started making electric guitars for the wider public in 1950, gibson's first solid body electric was 1952... how does danelectro beat gibson and fender by starting after them? am i mising something here? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.143.218.240 (talk) 10:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

Billy Gibbons
I'm not sure about the Dime being so important for Billy Gibbons' unique sound, After all he does co-design his own custom guitars and also picks the string at harmonic points! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.22.9.171 (talk) 23:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

Etymology
Moved sentence referring to Iranian tar from 3rd paragraph (Spanish vihuela) to 2nd paragraph (etymology of "guitar"). Not sure how to integrate it properly into that paragraph, though. Any ideas? Nisada 05:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Air guitar
A link should be added in the See also section to the Air guitar article. 189.136.157.102 07:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

portal help!!!
i'm not completely an elite in wiki code, so can someone help me organize the external portals at the bottom of the page? Thanks.--Camelcast 11:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Guitars and OTHER stringed instruments.
Hey oh

I was looking over the article and realized that there isn't a clean link list of:

1. Types of guitars

2. Other stringed instruments

In the See also section I would like to suggest that it be restructured to three sections, one with linkings to the Types of guitars on wiki (cigar box, resonator, electric etc) and also making the removal of the short list and descriptions possible too in the

Types of Guitar

Guitars can be divided into two broad categories, acoustic and electric:

Acoustic guitars

section.

The second to Other Stringed Instruments (lute, lyre, etc and even violins etc) I know for myself in reading this article I was interested by that point to know a listing of such of each to further read on.

The third section would be what the rest of the current links of the See also section represent, the mechanics and styles that cut across all the types of guitar (for instance, any guitar can be fretless, It doesn't have to be a specific type of guitar, fretlessness is more a mechanical feature than a type)

I would also suggest that linkings Types of guitars will help separate out some of the guitar type descriptions, linking into sub-article links could help remove some of the current information on this page for better treated independent detailed pages and thus reduce the overall article size too. Use a shorter and more concise description of the Acoustic Guitar and let the sub articles flesh them out.

I hope this all made sense, its my first talk contribution!

KeeperOfTheGood 22:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear KeeperOfTheGood:
 * So start editing! By the way, if you type 4 tildes (~) at the end of your Talk posts, they will be automatically be signed and date-and-time stammped. Finell (Talk) 23:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Jumbo Guitar
Not sure what these are - jumbo guitars, but they seem to have some popularity24.175.73.132 12:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Large body -> bassier sound. Probably noteworthy enough to go in the article. All about compromises in instrument design as smaller guitars may be louder. (Happy to be corrected on this BTW) Spenny 13:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

material removed 14 July 2007
Removed the following, pending discussion. It had been removed earlier by another editor but reinstated by its author. Reasons for removal: 1)Material contains original research. e.g. "Many luthiers today apply this model in their work" 2)The material is not significant enough to merit inclusion. If article included all that was written about the instrument it would run to hundreds of volumes. This material is clearly information pushed by an interested party.

Yorgos Kertsopoulos, a Greek - Canadian luthier, guitarist and researcher found "The mathematic model of the Guitar" and his work was published in English and German by DAS MUSIKINSTRUMENT of Frankfurt in 1984, and in the Greek magazine Sound and Hi Fi in 1982. In this work he reveals in a scientific approach all the mathematic aspects and interrelations existing between all dimensions of the guitar connecting the tradition with science and revealing the genius of Antonio de Torres, as well as the fact that the Spanish Ramirez family of luthiers and the German luthier Hauser, were the only luthiers that had the knowledge of the mathematic model and used it with considerable success. These claims by the founder were verified by at the MUSIK MESSE held in Frankfurt in 1983, at the press conference given by Y.Kertsopoulos to the media. Many luthiers today apply this model in their work, since the founder gave it for free usage to be used by any luthier to make his work better for the sake of knowledge communication and artistic collaboration for the refinement of the guitar's sound. RichardJ Christie 11:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The word "guitar"
In the History secttion, there seem to be two paragraphs, back to back, the directly contradict one another. They read as follows:
 * The modern word, guitar, was adopted into English from Spanish guitarra, derived from earlier Greek word kithara. Prospective sources for various names of musical instruments that guitar could be derived from appear to be a combination of two Indo-European roots: guit-, similar to Sanskrit sangeet meaning "music", and -tar a widely attested root meaning "chord" or "string".
 * The word guitar is a Persian loanword to Iberian Arabic. The word qitara is an Arabic name for various members of the lute family that preceded the Western guitar. The name guitarra was introduced into Spanish when such instruments were brought into Iberia by the Moors after the 10th century.

Surely, they can't both be right? – ClockworkSoul 20:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but if you ever wanna put the greek word here, I'll write it for you: Κιθάρα Sorry not mutch of help, but there's the greek word if you want to put it in the definition! --Lethaljellybean 23:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That's very cool, but most people can't read Greek, so any examples of the language are probably best left in Latin characters. It's not "pure", I know, but it's more useful that way. That's another discussion all together, however. – ClockworkSoul 13:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The history section is a mess full of nationalistic claptrap. The Sitar for example is late medieval invention. The guitar is derived from the Lute, from Barbat via the Oud. The name is Greek Kithara possibly from the persian setar. The Indian and Roman strings may be patriotic humbug. Guitar in its present form is a Spanish invention and has to be acknowledged as such. The oldest guitar like instrument is older than 1400 BC. Here is one from the National Museum of Iran http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Elam-tar.jpg.


 * The Spanish contribution is certainly acknowledged already, your photo reference can't seem to make its mind up as to whether the figurine is 2nd or 3rd millenium BC. RichardJ Christie 02:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I guess you have written most of this rubbish that is why you are cut. I repeat: the oldest guitar like instrument is older than 1400 BC. Here is another reference:

"The tanbur is probably the oldest string instrument of Iran. Pictures of it are found on Susa bas-reliefs and fragments from Teppe Banu-Yunes attest to its being some five thousand years old." from Iranian Kurdistan, THE RITUAL MAQAM OF THE YARSAN, Ali Akbar Moradi, chanting and tanbur. 2002 Maison des Cultures du Monde. page 28. Can find a copy at http://mcm.bois.free.fr/booklet260110.pdf.


 * You really ought to grow up and stop throwing insults around. No, I didn't supply that text but I did bother to check out your last dodgy reference. If you are sure of your facts, be brave enough to make the changes yourself, moaning here in the manner you have been so far won't encourage others to do it for you. RichardJ Christie 23:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC).

Hey don't be snooty. Too many people are already stuffing around here. Note my 'dodgy' reference seems to be one of the only ones here. There are plenty more. Btw my dodgy reference is from one of the most respected ethnomusicology organisations in the world. Here is their site: http://www.mcm.asso.fr/site02/accueil.htm. If by 'dodgy' you mean non-anglo-saxon then I guess you are right. Ok I did a quick edit, I don't know how to put links for references so I have left them in the body of the text, and I give it two days before it is vandalized. Anyway I will leave you all alone as I do not give a hoot about the guitar, I stumbled onto this page looking for the history of tanbur which is what I have studied.
 * No-one here is making nationalistic claims or playing the "race card" except you anonymous dude. Both Richard's edits and myself show no bias towards any country. Both Richard and myself have quoted sources to back our statements in the article. It is you who continue to engage in personal attacks and nationalist rhetoric. Whatever claims you want to make about yourself, it is almost impossible to verify considering you continue to edit anonymously, therefore it should be taken with a grain of salt. MegX 08:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I am hardly anonymous as I have a static IP. Pay attention, it's easy.
 * Learn etiquette and sign you posts. MegX 08:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh please as someone who denies the very existence of my culture, you are hardly in a position to speak of etiquette.
 * I am more interested in facts. I don't find anonymous cowards interesting at all quite frankly. Susa was the capital of Elam. MegX 22:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is a medal for you. Again strictly speaking, with a mediocum of literacy you could have read the Iranica reference. But hey why look up things when your prejudice can lead your opinion.

Ziryab
Removed following text from 'History':


 * "Guitar is invented by an iranian, Ziryab, and then brought to Spain."

The statement is not even supported by the wiki article cited. Ziryab is credited as making changes to the Oud, an instrument which evidence suggests have had strong influence on development of the guitar, but this doesn't justify the statement above. RichardJ Christie 04:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's historically incorrect that he came from Iran, considering Iran did not exist as a state at that time, and secondly I've seen other academic sources claiming he was born in Baghdad. See this Library of Congress article for example http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9615/morocco.html MegX 06:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Megan: the article acknowledges that Ziryab was Persian, and whether he was born in Baghdad or more correctly, from Perso-Arabic sources, in Zarafshan in Fars is immaterial. He certainly did not "invent" the guitar though he was influential in the creation of the Andalusian musical culture as evidence from the etymology of guitar, and also pavan (parvaneh) and Saraband (sarband). But then to go and make an incredible claim that Iran did not exist is rediculous and smacks of racism to be honest. The first documented use of the word Iran to refer to the country of iranians happened in the second millenium BC in the Gathas of Zoroaster, a copy of which is available on www.avesta.org. Again Iran crops up in Darius's Bihistun inscription in the fourth century BC. By the times of the Sassanids in late antiquity, there was an extensive patriotic literature, written in Middle Persian, that used the appellation Iran Shahr or "the country of Iran". In early Islamic time, the Persian language's most celebrated poet Firdausi writes: " Cho Iran nabashad tan e man mabad- Bedin boom o bar zendeh yek tan mabad". Meaning: if there is no Iran, may I not live and may there be no living thing on this earth. IRanians never called their country Persia, and Iran was never colonised or become part of any mandate. Iran was part of the Islamic Empire but has always been culturally and longuistically distinct. So before you get too clever for your own knowledge, and try to deny a whole nation, read a bit Ok?
 * Ziryab was Persian born in Baghdad. He was not Iranian as the state of Iran did not exist during his lifetime. He did not invent the guitar, he added a fifth course to a forerunner instrument but he did not invent the guitar. Please sign your responses in future and stop engaging in personal attacks and innuendo. MegX 07:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

As I said my IP is static, it is no more anonymous than "MegX". You deny there was Iran in the past, my guess is that you would not be game saying the same thing about Greece or India which were also politically divided in the past. I don't care about Ziryab, if you had managed to read the post. TO say Iran did not exist is extreeemely offensive to all Iranians. Please do not do it again.
 * Iran as a state did not exist during the time of Ziryab. If you are offended by historical fact you should quite wikipedia. Please sign your posts thanks. MegX 08:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Did India exist as a state? Are you going to go and change all references to Indian culture as well. Iran as a culture did exist at the time of Ziryab. A historical fact is something you can verify. I can bring ample references from Firdausi, Rudaki and the like that show that Iranians were a culture. You on the other hand need to have some reasonable reference for your intolerant views.
 * Engaging in name calling while all the while hiding behind an anonymous IP address. Such courage on your part, not. Please sign your posts. MegX 09:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

So you have nothing to say other than talking about my purported anonymity or otherwise. Sad.
 * So you have nothing to say other than waving your Iranian flag from an Australian IP address and accusing other editors of being racist even though Susa was the capital of Elam and nothing can change that. Get off your high horse. MegX 22:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

See pedantic feigning of ignorance will not fool anyone. Your views of Iran are well known.

History
The history section is full of omissions. How can you write on the history of the guitar without mentioning de Torez, Martin, Gibson, Fender, or Paul? I'll try to update this section once I get some sources together.

The early history of the guitar is much more coherent in the French version of the Wikipedia. It says that there is evidence for guitar like instruments in and around Persia. And that the word is an Aryan one, as in the people of Iran and Northern India, and consists of two words: Guit properly from a cognate of sangheet in modern Sanskrit, and tar meaning string, as in modern Persian. The oud and the terminology surrounding it was taken to spain in the tenth century, where modern guitars had their start. THis kicks arse over the pathetique and confusing bit in the English version. Can someone translate that part and replace the English bit. The French one is by far more mainstream than the English before I wasted my time fixing up. I have no doubt that the likes of you are going to return th emphasis onto the Graeco-Roman world.
 * You mean the French article originally translated the English one, which was subsequently updated to an neutral one replacing the nationalistic biases. MegX 08:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Wait a minute, you just said, and I quote "the word is an Aryan one, as in the people of Iran and Northern India". You just lost your argument because the Elamites existed prior to the arrival of the Aryans, therefore they are not Aryan and by default not ethnically or culturally "Iranian" by your very own definition. Therefore using the term Elam and Elamite is not culturally insensitive as you claim. MegX 01:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * See you don't even read the post. Guitar is not an Elamite word.  So what the hell are you on about?
 * Since my edits involved adding Roman, Moorish, and Spanish entries backed up with sources from reliable guitar references, your accusation holds no merit. MegX 09:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Which references are those? I think the most telling thing about this entry is the almost complete lack of references. Actually from the history you have done very little on this site. Which edits which references. Spare us your self-importance. As far as I can see the only edits you have done are deleting references to Iran. BTW The edit today was my only edit and I am surprised you have not got around deleting it. Frankly the only reason I even bothered was some bloke called Richard, standing up for you for reasons better known to himself, handled the issue disarmingly maturely. You however...
 * And making personal attacks from behind unsigned anonymous posts is a sign of maturity? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. MegX 22:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Where are your references. What is the reason why you reverted the article? You are an ignorant vandal. You treat this page your personal fief.

Do you actually even going to bother to give a reason for your reversions, or give references for your Sitara entry, or reference against the lute or tanbur history. I guess not.

Electric guitar Section
I'd like to propose rewriting this section a bit. IMHO it would make better sense stylistically to have the Electric Guitar section echo the Acoustic Guitar section in layout. Something like A brief discusion of what makes a guitar "electric" and then "types" to include Solid Body, Semi hollow, Hollow body, Seven String, Bass etc. I'm prepared to do the edit but did not want to step on anyones toes. Does anyone else think it's a good idea?

The whole article is very long. A bit of distilation and redirecting to other articles would help. For example, in the electric guitar section. The 2 paragraphs devoted to the JEM is probably overkill. Better to send folks to the seven string article.Darrell Wheeler 00:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Despite the length of overall article I think it is a reasonable proposal.
 * RichardJ Christie 06:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I will put this page back on my watch list. Albion moonlight 10:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Having been flicking through, one of the misleading elements is the implicit suggestion in the construction section that electric are solid body, whereas we know that many classic electric guitars are hollow and semi-hollow. It would also be useful to draw in the three main methods of amplifying acoustic guitars (mikes, bridge pickups and whatever the word is for those pickups that go across the sound hole. There is no discussion as far as I can see of the issues of resonance and feedback for electric (hollow) guitars.


 * On another matter, I am not convinced that larger guitars are for volume, larger does not mean louder, though it usually does mean bassier. However, I am concious of talking off the top of my head here without a good reference. Spenny 15:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

earlier history and etymology questionable
The early history of the guitar, as cited, is incorrect and quite confused. Etymology of the word "guitar" and the history of the instrument are not one and the same. (Animus-Ex-Carmen)

--


 * I've corrected this section. The history has been expanded upon and the questionable etymology downgraded.  Tanburs and Ouds are not guitars as implied by a previous author.  Nor was Susa an Iranian capital.  The state of Iran did not exist in 1500 BC, Elam did.  Citharas existed in Spain prior to the invasion of the Moors.  To claim that the Moors introduced the guitar is misleading when previous stringed instruments existed there before them.  MegX 06:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

--

OMG here you go again. Now again here is where a little knowledge is worse than no knowledge. How racist and ignorant can you get? Firstly, if you want to be pedantic, Susa was not a capital of Elam but rather Susiana, which was distinct (although the distinction is rarely made). There was no "State of Greece" during the time of the age of Pericles, are you going to deny the existence of ancient Greece? Susiana had become a part of the empire of Anshan, and it is Cyrus II of Anshan, who forms the Achaemenian Empire. Susa from antiquity until the coming of Alexander had competed with Ecbatana as the capital of Iran. Where do you get your ideas for Pete's sake? (123.243.65.185)

--


 * Oh dear me, unsigned above had best rush off now and rewrite all the Wiki articles on Susa, Elam, etc. Might be helpful if he/she also took the self-aggrandizing insults with them.  RichardJ Christie 02:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

--

Here are the references, smart arse: http://www.iranica.com/newsite/articles/v8f3/v8f340.html http://www.iranica.com/newsite/articles/v6f5/v6f5a026.html (123.243.65.185)

--


 * Just where have I mentioned Greece? That reference to Greek was written by someone else.  You know if you're going to use references for an article on the guitar, you could at least use academic ones that reference the guitar, not a nationalistic Iranian e-zine.  So stop name-calling when you have no basis for it.  MegX 07:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Addendum: You state - "There was no "State of Greece" during the time of the age of Pericles, are you going to deny the existence of ancient Greece." During the age of Pericle, ancient Greece was not a single entity/country/empire/state.  Pericles referred to himself as an Athenian.  Athens was the capital of Attica.  Poor choice of argument anonymous dude.  As I said before, I made no addition of Greek/Greece in the article.  MegX 08:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

--

Encyclopedia Iranica is not an e-zine but a collaborative effort run by University of Cornell, in America. Cornell University Iranian Studies Centre is the foremost outside of Iran, and given that you clearly cannot read Persian, my references are most appropriate. The references, which you did not even look at obviously, do not relate to the Guitar, but rather to your comments about Susa. Given that this is an Iranian Study issue then Iranica is and will be the most authoritative source.

You missed the point of the post altogether. People speak of Ancient Greek Philosophy or History, not Athenian Philosophy or Helicarnessian Historians. Similarly, the rubric under which Susian, Elamite, Median, Persian, Parthian etc culture is spoken about is Iranian, Iranshahr, and Aryan (when speaking about Indo-Iranians). To make bald claims about Iran, you need to know something about it, you clearly do not. (123.243.65.185)

--


 * You stated "State of Greece". My answer still stands.  There was no state of ancient Greece.  In an English language encyclopedia, you play by English language standards.  Encyclopedia Iranica is not an encyclopedia on the guitar.  Please sign your posts.  MegX 09:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

--

Ok let me make it easy for you: the idea of a state is not a prerequisite for speaking about a culture. You deny the existence of Iranians because there was not a polity, with the formal functions of state, then there were no such people as Iranians. Applying the same logic to Greeks and Indians would show the fallacy of your argument.

You want me to defend the existence of Susa as an Iranian capital by looking at a guitar encyclopedia? That is simply silly. Are you telling me that your ideas about Iran and Elam, which is the point of contention here, come from a guitar encyclopedia? Then I am not surprise at the fallacy of your claims. (123.243.65.185)

--


 * Elam existed as a state between 2700 BC to 539 BC. Stating Susa was the capital of Elam state is hardly false, given the historical context in which that statement was made.  MegX 09:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

--

Elam or Anshan evolved into the Achaemenian Empire whose Aryan Kshathra is an archaic form of Iranshahr. Again, if you have read the references rather than rubbish them as third world and unworthy of attention then you would know that to be the case. (123.243.65.185)

--


 * I've never called any reference "third world". They are your words not mine.  I stated a fact by saying Encyclopedia Iranica is not a guitar encyclopedia.  In fact using it's search engine with the keyword "guitar" turned up no results.  I then did an article search and there is no article specifically on "guitar".  Encyclopedia Iranica is thus not a reliable source.  MegX 09:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

--

And your parochial attitude towards non-English references is symptomatic. (123.243.65.185)

--


 * Not non-English reference ... it's a reference found in Wikipedia, see the entry on Elam. You really have a chip on your shoulder don't you.  MegX 09:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

See my statement above. What I should be supine when you are being culturally insensitive? To say that Susa was the capital of Elam is not contentious, nor does it conflict with the idea that the Elamite (Susian rather than Anshanite) city was Iranian. But that is not the disagreement. The point is that you say that one cannot talk of an Iranian city, since there was no such state. Again, was Athens an ancient Greek city? (123.243.65.185)

--


 * Good, you agree that Susa was capital of Elam state. That has been my position all along.  The correct plural form for Elam is Elamite.  MegX 09:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

--

No, you said "Nor was Susa an Iranian capital". Firstly, Elamite is the adjectival form of Elam. It is a Semitic (Akkadian and Hebrew)term for the kingdom of Anshan and later also Susiana especially during the neo-Elamite period. But the Anshanites, Susuians and the Persians of the house of Teispes were Iranian. TO say that for example that Memphis was not an Egyptian capital or that Athens was not a Greek city is to deny the history of the region. This is not a subtle point for most. Now you say that Susa was not an Iranian capital. That either means hat you think the Elamites were not Iranian, which is false, or some other magical thinking. It is clear that you do not know much about Iranian history, but for some reason you have opinions about it. Elam was a civilization that for much of its history did not include Susa. Nor was it 'a state'. The creation of nation states are relatively modern. The "Elamites" included several Kingdoms including Anshan in Persis, Jiroft in Carmania, and Susiana in Southwestern Iran. The "Elamites" called themselves the Khuz or Uj, from which the terms Ahvaz and Khuzistan are derived. I don't know why you are even commenting about Iranian history when you clearly have no interest or knowledge on the subject. Even your own reference from Wikipedia contradicts what you say. Also, find some references for your assertions. So far, you have had none. If you have "English" standards as you self-satisfyingly claimed, let us see some rigour in trying to deny the existence of Ancient Iran. Don't use meaningless words like "Elam state". What does that mean? Your position has been that nothing can be attributed to Iranians because there was no state of Iran. Now that is ignorant and racist. Iran has been as much an entity as Greece, India, Ancient Israel, Egypt, or China, and just you wishing it away for personal reasons does not make it so. Anyway, I see that you are not to be persuaded, as prejudiced ignorance seems a very strong factor for intellectual inertia. Someone who studies Iranian history out of guitar books and then assumes herself an expert is clearly not a scholar. (123.243.65.185)

--


 * Sophistry. You can argue indefinitely but it still doesn't change the fact the main thrust of your argument engages in personal attacks behind unsigned anonymous posts.  Nor does it change the fact that Susa was the capital of Elam state during that period, therefore my position is still historically correct despite your very biased view on this article.  MegX 22:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

--

Elam 'state'? What is that? Another word you just made up. Sophistry is a big word for someone whose argument does not include a single reference. (123.243.65.185)

--


 * I don't really object to using the word Iran or Iranian if it can be shown to exist for such use in antiquity. Surely, it's a matter of the most accepted practice, which, in my limited experience, seems to be such that Persia is most often used to describe a succession of ancient regimes and kingdoms that existed in the geographical area centered on the Tigris and Euphrates.  Iran in modern usage has a specific Nationalistic connotation.  Both of you please calm down edit wars are unproductive.  RichardJ Christie 02:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

--

Here is the issue: she reverted my edits without reference, rhyme or reason. My edits are well referenced. Hers are not. Even her link to Sitara contradicts her "Ancient Sitara" post: "Its name most probably came from the Persian instrument called "Setar"" I don't doubt that there were veenas in India and I have included that in my edit. That is the only part of the information that I have removed, because it is not documented or referenced. My edit is referenced and she has simply reverted it, and now locked the article. As for the nomenclature of Iran vs. Persia, I do not think that is her issue because the word "Iran" is not used in the edit.

As for the use of Persia: I myself do use it in day-to-day conversation (to distance myself from the current regime). But most scholarly text with regards to Iran/Persia use the term Iran, e.g.:

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/center-for-iranian-studies/aboutus/main/index/index.html http://www.iranian-studies.com/about.shtml http://taylorandfrancis.co.uk/journals/authors/cistauth.asp

Whereas the phrase "Persian studies" refers to the language:

http://www.languages.umd.edu/persian/persianlanguage4.php

There is a series of very good articles on Iran in encyclopedia Iranica: http://www.iranica.com/ And thanks for including Mesopotamians (Tigris and Euphrates) under the rubric of Persian, but sadly, we cannot take credit for their amazing earlier achievements.

But as I said that is not my issue, her vandalism is. (203.214.145.120)

This is my post:

Before the development of the electric guitar and the use of synthetic materials, a guitar was defined as being an instrument having "a long, fretted neck, flat wooden soundboard, ribs, and a flat back, most often with incurved sides".

The earliest examples of long necked plectrums, from which the Guitar ultimately derives, is from Susiana in the lowlands of Khuzestan and adjacent areas, and may date back five thousand years. This is evidenced by the depiction of musicians in Susa bas-reliefs and from fragments found from Teppe Banu-Yunes. (http://mcm.bois.free.fr/booklet260110.pdf). By the second millennium BC the widespread use of this instrument, which in its early form is called the tanbur, is documented as far north as the Hittite Empire in Anatolia. One of the oldest known iconographic representation of an instrument displaying all the essential features of a guitar being played is a 3300 year old stone carving of a Hittite bard.

By late antiquity, the lute had largely replaced the primitive tanbur in courtly and polite societies in the Middle and the Near East. The lute was probably invented in Central Asia, in Bactria or adjacent areas (http://www.iranica.com/newsite/articles/v3f7/v3f7a069.html), and was transmitted to the Arabs and the Moors, under the Persian name of Rud. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lute). During the Ummayad Caliphate in Andalusia, the lute, and the musical culture surrounding it, was introduced into Iberia by the Moorish invaders. The culture of the lute found one of its golden ages during the tenure of the musician Ziryab in the Umayyad Court.

Modern guitar makers are referred to as luthiers and the lute is commonly credited with being the ancestor of the guitar, though this view is by no means universal. According to Maurice Summerfield, The modern guitar is descended from the Roman cithara brought by the Romans to Hispania around 40 AD, and further adapted and developed with the arrival of the four-string oud, brought by the Moors after their invasion of the Iberian peninsular during the 8th century AD. Plucked Zithers are to found amongst most ancient cultures including India, who invented the Veena, and the Greeks, whose Kithara is sometimes sited as a possible etymology for the word guitar.

The etymology of the word Guitar, like most of the details of its early history, has not been ell established. The English word derives from Spanish guitarra, but beyond that, the origins of the word are less certain. One possible cited etymology is from the Greek word Kithara, possibly from the Persian Sitar (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=guitar%20face). The later has also given its name also to a Veena instrument invented by Amir Khosro.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sitar) Another sometime cited etymology is a general Indo-European one from a combination of two Indo-European roots: guit-, similar to Sanskrit sangeet meaning "music", and -tar a widely attested root meaning "chord" or "string". Regardless of the early antecedents, and the etymology of the word, the guitar is the Spanish instrument par excellence. In the 1200 Iberia, the four string instrument had evolved into two types: the guitarra morisca (Moorish guitar) which had a rounded back, wide fingerboard and several sound holes, and the guitarra latina (Latin guitar) which resembled the modern guitar with one sound hole and a narrower neck.

The Spanish vihuela or "viola da mano", a guitar-like instrument of the 16th century, appears to be an aberration in the transition from the renaissance instrument to the modern guitar. It had lute-style tuning and a guitar-like body. Its construction had as much in common with the modern guitar as with its contemporary four-course renaissance guitar. The vihuela enjoyed only a short period of popularity; the last surviving publication of music for the instrument appeared in 1576. It is not clear whether it represented a transitional form or was simply a design that combined features of the Arabic oud and the European lute. In favor of the latter view, the reshaping of the vihuela into a guitar-like form can be seen as a strategy of differentiating the European lute visually from the Moorish oud.

The Vinaccia family of luthiers is known for developing the mandolin, and may have built the earliest extant six-string guitar. Gaetano Vinaccia (1759 - after 1831) has his signature on the label of a guitar built in Naples, Italy for six strings with the date of 1779. This guitar has been examined and does not show tall-tale signs of modifications from a double-course guitar although fakes are known to exist of guitars and identifying labels from that period.

Modern dimensions of the classical instrument were established by Antonio Torres Jurado (1817-1892), working in Seville in the 1850s. Torres and Louis Panormo of London (active 1820s-1840s) were both responsible for demonstrating the superiority of fan strutting over transverse table bracing.

The electric guitar was patented by George Beauchamp in 1936. Beauchamp co-founded Rickenbacher, which used the horseshoe-magnet pickup. However, it was Danelectro that first produced electric guitars for the wider public.

Which was reverted to the inferior current version. ( 203.214.145.120)

--


 * I am not an expert in this area. However, and subject to that caveat, upon first reading I saw nothing that I would object to in above version.  I hope that when the block expires we have an explanation from MegX of what exactly she objects to.  She may have provided that already but I'm not interested in sorting through the polemic from both parties.  A word all the same, your initial comments in here were very aggressive and it may well be that the resulting spat wouldn't have happened if you had taken a different approach.  The only way forward is through consensus.  So lets just wait for the block to expire.  RichardJ Christie 08:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

--


 * Peter Blaise says:
 * Earlier, "...we cannot take credit for their amazing earlier achievements..." Ahhh, THIS seems to be the problem:
 * re-baptizing the dead to associate them with the living.
 * I understand that desire. For example, I'm told that I'm of Irish-Italian extraction.  Hungry for connection with some great past, I researched their histories - hoping to make them my histories.  I see that Celts swept across what is now Europe, and later, Romans swept across the same areas, so perhaps all modern European peoples can be considered Celtic or Roman in some way (or survivors of)?!?
 * This is connecting modern peoples with what might be their ancestors. The fallacy lies in trying to connect ancient peoples with what is not their future, but is merely our present.  Neither the Celts nor the Romans swept across "France", for instance, and none of them have anything to say to me about my presence in what is now Washington, DC.
 * For me to say, "they would be proud of me" is pure speculation. For me to include myself in "them" and say "we" would be inaccurate.
 * They swept across a geographical area "that is now France", or "became France in the ___th century". I had nothing to do with it, and they have nothing to do with me.  The "descendants of those people are now considered French (or survivors)".  Yes, this takes more words to write clearly and unambiguously, but it's worth the effort, I believe.


 * Above, we see many words, but scant little attempt to reword the Guitar article accurately. So, how about this: if you're gonna mention Susa, fog it a bit to recognize the speculation it deserves, "... from Susa, an ancient city and peoples in an area now part of modern day Iran ..." or something to that effect.  If the concepts of city, state, capital, Iran, and such, all happened after Susa happened, then it's inaccurate to call Susa by any of those descriptions.  If the descendants of Susan(!) peoples (or survivors) still live in the area, and that is important to the story, then say so.  Otherwise ...


 * PS - Wasn't Les Paul born somewhere between Eulaeus and Choaspes Rivers? ;-)


 * PPS - See references like "http : // www . cais-soas . com/CAIS/History/prehistory/prehistory . htm" from "The Circle of Ancient Iranian Studies" and LexOrient.com for some other people's history of what is now a geographical and political modern day Iran. Sadly, few historians even try to identify the precise moment when what is know as the modern day Iran actually began, and when previous incarnations under other names expired.  I imagine that any number of peoples in present day Iran can trace their ancestry back to the same land, and any number of peoples in present day Iran can trace their ancestors back to land that is not in present day Iran.
 * It's the same all over the world. We all came from someplace else, if we care go back far enough.
 * Regardless, to say "... to say Iran did not exist is extremely offensive to all Iranians ..." is, in and of itself, offensive to all Iranians - why would anyone be offended by accuracy? Why would an Iranian be proud of inaccuracy?  Should a United States citizen say "we" when referring to 10,000 year old native American artifacts and culture?  Maybe yes, maybe no - depends on the individual.  To say "America, or the US, didn't exist" is merely accurate, even though the land itself did exist, and still does exist, and the peoples did exist, and some of their progeny probably still do exist.  I imagine it might be nice and empowering to claim that I exist and am made more important because of the great people's of the past, but regardless, I exist right now anyway.  I speculate that the desire to claim association with great ancestors is akin to claiming superiority to someone around me who cannot be associated with great ancestors of their own.  I'll have to revisit my definitions of racism, but I think we have a case of the pot calling the kettle black here.  May I suggest that we refrain from such ethnocentric superiorism, to coin a phrase, and just let evidence and testimony speak for itself.


 * PPPS - Finally (and I do go final on some things, eventually), the call for signing our posts is not to prevent anonymity, which is anyone's right, but also to help demarcate our threads as readable so we can follow each person's voice. I've done some restructuring of the above dialogue to help at least myself read it clearly.  Please forgive me of I've treaded on anyone's pride in their unaltered presentation.  I trust I have not diminished anyone's contributions, rather, I hope I have made each person's contributions all the more accessible to the total audience.


 * And remember:
 * Please sign and date our posts by typing four tildes ( ~ ).Signatures
 * Be polite Civility
 * Assume good faith Assume_good_faith
 * No personal attacks No_personal_attacks
 * Be welcoming Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers


 * Love and hugs, -- Peter Blaise 151.207.244.4 13:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

--

Peter your position is inconsistent. USA is one that was colonized by another. Your position is not mainstream and is just an interesting contrarian view. Are you going to similarly change all the entries under China, India and Greece? Iran has had a continuity of history since the Kavis and Anshanites in the ancient times. This is hardly the same thing as being an Irish-Italian ancestry in America. It is not even the same as being an Egyptian, the traditional histories of Iran include the kings of ancient bactria-margiana such as kavis. So with all due respect, there is nothing ethnocentric about acknowledging the achievement an ancient civilisation whether China, India, Jewish or Greek. To say Iranians deserves less seems ethnophobic. 68.164.206.122 —The preceding  signed but undated.

PS- the descendants of the Susans, the Khuz, do exist. The Persian empire was formed by an anshinite king, whose capital was Susa. It is also fair to say that Persians do exists.

PPS - Whereas the word France was not used in ancient time, the earliest reference to Iran is in the older Avesta, composed sometime before 1400 BC. If the word Iran confuses you, think Persia, a word never used in the Persian language, but it seems that English-speaking people have less problem with it. 68.164.206.122

--


 * Peter Blaise says:


 * I'm just sayin' ... if the identity/origin of historical peoples is important to the article, then a clear delineation of who they were versus modern residents of the area may also be important.


 * I'm not trying to convince you of anything regarding your sense of pride. I'm trying to assist everyone in deciding what's important (and not) to any article here.  I'm just asking what relevance any particular reference has to the topic at hand.  In the examples I explored, I was wondering, given the CURRENT state of Iran, what any word "Iran" means if NOT the current state.  If the current state of "Iran" declared itself a political enterprise AFTER the referenced guitar information, then the word "Iran" probably is inappropriate to identify that historical record.


 * I mentioned US and America only to show how things evolve. For example, saying, "... 20,000 years ago, the occupants of the US ..." would be inaccurate.  Rewording to "... 20,000 years ago, the occupants of what is now the the US ..." would be better.  "America" is two continents - North and South - as appeared on maps attributed to the descriptions of explorer Amerigo Vespucci.  However, we nowadays tend to think of "America = US" and that's wrong, but what can we do about it?  What historical self-naming did the ancient peoples in what is now called Iran call themselves?


 * My point about "France" versus Celts and Romans sweeping across the area in antiquity is to suggest that anyone in what is now called "France" could attribute historical information to peoples they could call "French" (probably inaccurate) or Celts, or Romans and so on. In other words, ANYBODY!  Just because, so-many-thousand years ago they lived in and area that is now called France does it connect the dead with the living, considering the generations in between and the constant sweeping of peoples across areas.


 * "So what?" the reader is compelled to ask. "Tell us more. Of what relevance is the information you are sharing?  How accurate is it - is it verifiable?"  If it's irrelevant, then who cares about the accuracy?  Strike it out.  If it is relevant only if it's accurate, then by all means, explore the various resources claiming authenticity in support of the statement.  A debate is sure to ensue, and that is what these discussion/talk pages are for.


 * You say: "... to say "Iranians deserves less" seems ethnophobic ..." I'm not afraid of any ethnicity.  I'm just trying to associate (and disassociate) accurately.  What I'm asking is: how exactly are ancient peoples who lived in what is now the modern political territory of Iran related to current residents of the current political state of Iran, and what did they have to do with the origins of the guitar as noted in the article?


 * So there are two criteria remaining to be proffered to everyone's satisfaction:


 * Did ancient peoples in the current Iranian area contribute to the historical sourcing and development of the guitar ("guitar" as described in the article)?


 * If they did, then what did they call themselves, and what to call them now?


 * If not, then who they were doesn't matter, and if their musical instrument is unrelated, then it doesn't matter (to the article) who they were, since that information would be struck out and would be better contributed to another article.


 * This all may be a big to-do over nothing; we're merely arguing over wording. If the peoples who are cited as contributing to the genesis of the modern day guitar in the article were from an area in antiquity that is now modern day Iran, than is that wording acceptable?  If the area or peoples were considered part of Aryānām or other evolution of what came before modern Iran, then say so. No one is trying to denigrate Iranians past, present of future.  Actually, this discussion as nothing to do with living Iranians.  We're talking about peoples in antiquity and trying to guess how most accurately to identify them, or guess as to how they might have identified themselves.  Would they, if they were alive today, say they were "Iranians" as you call yourself "Iranian"?  I don' care, because is impossible to resolve such speculation (they are dead, after all!), and it is irrelevant regardless.


 * Thank you one and all for hanging in there and bearing with this discussion. I hope it helps enhance our sense of responsibility to accuracy as we read and edit each other's contributions to Wikipedia.  I'm sorry this is so long - I didn't have time to shorten it.


 * Love and hugs, -- Peter Blaise 151.207.244.4 19:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

--

I think you are mixing me up with an earlier entry, I am Persian but not Iranian (as in the nationality), but the word Iranian is older than Persian. As far as I can see the version by the Iranian or Australian or whatever guy seems to be more complete than the version that exists now. He is right in saying that the Sitara entry is unreferenced and that the long necked lutes originated in the region. I pride myself on many things, racial origins is not one of them. I was not attacking you dude, I was just saying that the correct term for "Ancient Persia" in historical literature, especially in the anglophone literature, is Iran, from which the modern state derives its name. But hey whatever, if you think that Megan's version is better than the Aus/Iranian then power to you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.132.208.28 (talk) 21:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

--


 * Peter Blaise says:


 * Oh yes, at this end of the discussion, I agree that it's hard to ferret out what the real issue was. Nothing personal - we don't know each other, after all.  I was just calling for referenced accuracy, and since we each have different references, "accuracy" as such is probably an impossible thing to find, after all.  We'll just have to agree to a compromise.  Perhaps you've identified the sticky wicket - since "Iran" is also the name of a a modern state, using the unqualified term "Iran" to refer to antiquity is probably always going to engender a request for qualifiers.


 * I'll add two things:


 * 1 - I learned a lot here about guitars and Iran and people and Wikipedia.


 * 2 - I'm glad we discussed this out to a peaceful resolution of sorts. I keep remembering the movie, "Twelve Angry Men" and what it would look like after editing by overzealous Wikipedia admins who think argument is a bad thing.  They'd take out the middle 90 minutes of the movie - the turmoil and disagreement and fighting and anger and angst and development - and leave a mere opening where 12 jurors enter the room, then skip to the ending when they come out all in agreement.  The middle 90 minutes is what I'm here for.  That's growth, that's important to me.


 * So, why not keep improving the article rather than fight back and forth over over merely reverting it?


 * Love and hugs, -- Peter Blaise Peterblaise 11:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Well can not revert it now because people have made contributions since, but the version whose copy is in the discussion is well referenced and makes more sense. The version up now is not so. I never reverted, you can check the history, but I really think the extended version pasted in the discussion is better, and I really don't care enough to get into a revert war with anyone, but the version on now does not do the rest of the article justice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.132.208.28 (talk) 14:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The above opinion is the type of POV the guitar article can do without. I have already made a statement on this issue at User:MegX/Statement. The only difference in sources between the previous version and now is the absence of www.iranica.com - a site that doesn't even have a guitar article. MegX 03:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Where is the reference for sitara? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.164.206.122 (talk) 16:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Contrary to your statement Iranica is an American encyclopedia edited at the cornell univesity that contains numerous music articles including ones on ancient long necked lutes. I am still waiting for the sitara reference. Also Kithara a lyre although etymologically a forerunner of guitar can not in good faith be thought of as the origin of a long necked lute-like instrument. The Australian edit does not even mention the word "Iran", which you seem to havea particular problem with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.164.206.122 (talk) 16:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You keep going on with this "sitara" reference. I was not responsible for adding the word sitara to the article. Secondly, a guitar is not a lute. Thirdly, for someone who has publicly admitted they dont know about guitars or musical history your reasons for being here in the first place is questionable. You've done nothing constructive to the article except promoting your own nationalist agenda. The only source you've ever added was www.iranica.com, so stop criticising editors who are guitarists and have studied music history. MegX 01:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

GUITAR WAS INVENTED BY IRANIAN WHO WAS ARYAN. HE ALSO SPLIT ATOM AND WALKED ON WATER YOU INFIDEL CAVEMEN. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.235.154 (talk) 02:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I have neither added any references nor have I admitted to not knowing about music history. I agree with the Australian edit, and instead of attacking me as a person, you need to clarify what part of the Australian edit you disagree with rather than accusing everyone who disagrees with you of having questionable motives and being a nationalist. The Australian edit reads better, has at least three more references than your version, and is more comprehensive. Your version has a made up word "Sitara", which I guess is something between a sitar and a kithara. Do not attack me and my knowledge again, play the ball, not the man. Now the fact that the person who wrote the Australian edit, you don't like, is neither here or there. THis is not a forum for settling personal scores. 130.132.208.28 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.132.208.28 (talk) 20:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is the reference for the guitar being a lute from Encyclopedia Britannica:

Lute: in music, any plucked or bowed chordophone whose strings are parallel to its belly, or soundboard, and run along a distinct neck or pole. In this sense, instruments such as the Indian sitar are classified as lutes. The violin and the Indonesian rebab are bowed lutes, and the Japanese samisen and the Western guitar are plucked lutes.

Also you may look up lutiers.

I am still waiting to see your objection to the Australian edit. Respectfully I also have to question whether you have formally studied music history. You vandalised his edit a number of times by reverting without any justification.130.132.208.28 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.132.208.28 (talk) 20:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Do I have to continually repeat myself to an anonymous user who has made personal attacks against me and twists what has already been said? I don't think so. MegX 06:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I have read all of the above. The argument is all about the history of the name "iran" which has nothing to do with the Australian edit or the history of guitar. You two have said very little about guitars in the discussion page, it is all about Susa etc. I suspect the Australian editor has done some work on pre-Achemenid Iran, and that is why he keeps taking the discussion that way, which has nothing to do with guitars. His edit though is pretty good. I can see how he was playing the race card against you, and how that was unfair, but his version of the edit seems better than yours, that is a fact and I am sorry if you do not like it. I can also see how anonymous editors piss you off, so I will use a random name from now on, Cyrus. We can call the Australian editor steve (after steve irvine). Dude if you have any objection to the name, drop me a line130.132.208.28 Cyrus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.132.208.28 (talk) 15:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Tricking people into believing that you're another person, even if your orignating ISP is identical to previous ones? That would have to be one of the most lamest attempts at sockpuppeting seen so far. Keep this up and I will request a formal ban on 130.132.208.28. Wikipedia does not look lightly upon sockpuppets. MegX 02:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

You paranoid bully. I have written a few post up there, are you suggesting I am the same person as the Australian editor. I am nowhere near Australia. Stop bullying people. I need to get you banned from this site. You are a very nasty individual. How dare you insult me? I am writing from the US, check it for yourself. Who the hell are you to tell me what I can write or not write? Your effort is the lamest I have seen of trying to discredit a point of view. You are a certified bully and will not be tolerated on Wikipedia. 130.132.208.28Cyrus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.132.208.28 (talk) 19:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

NPOV
Neutral point of view 08:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Could you clarify what thing you consider POV that you want comments on? -- Rei 16:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

In the absence of any discussion or clarification as to why the tag was added, I have removed it. Dlabtot 02:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Article length
I note that this comment has been in place for some time. The one bit that strikes me is that the construction section is very detailed and would be a good candidate for spinning off into another article, e.g. Guitar (construction). I would then put in place a brief summary description of the parts of a guitar.

Any objections? Spenny 13:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

It is a long article, but I believe that a discussion of parts of a guitar is appropriate to retain in an overview article about the guitar. The only thing that would be appropriate to spin off is a detailed discussion of the luthier's craft, but that's not included in the current article. My advice is to leave the construction section as it is now. VisitorTalk 00:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that a summary of construction is very important to the article, my concern is that it is overly detailed as a summary. My thinking was to get this article to have a couple of lines per part. As it stands, the guitar construction element seems disproportionately dominant. However, as a detailed summary of construction, I wouldn't want to throw away the text, hence spinning off the "detailed summary". The guitar terminology is a bit confused as well, as it is a bit of construction (whammy bar) and accessory (pick and capo). I would move the whammy bar into construction and retitle the terminology into accessories - we could then introduce footstools and the like. Spenny 09:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree, a one paragraph description of main features (Body, frets, neck, headstock) followed by a direction to separate article would be sufficient. This is an electronic forum full use should be made of links etc . The length issue would be thus addressed.


 * The section "guitar terminology " seems to be inappropriately headed. It contains a rag bag of terms, all quite unrelated, especially to the description "terminology" - what does that mean exactly? RichardJ Christie 09:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I fully agree with such proposal, just one paragraph of main features + directions to separate articles; such paragraph should also include the section currently mis-labeled as "Guitar terminology". --Doktor Who 10:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Anyone wanna toke a guitar? 204.52.215.107 21:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Guitar Hero
I'm sure this has been mentioned before, but, do you think a Guitar Hero Guitar section would fit in well...just a thought. moggie man...i rule 23:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Range
I don't know that much about notation but two things trouble me with the range image 1) I have never seen someone use an octave lower treble clef when noting the open strings and 2) the highest note is what? different guitars have different number of frets and then there is artifictial harmonics, it seems to be refering to a 22 fret guitar without harmonics. P.S. I also can't find anything about "loco" could someone explain? --AresAndEnyo 11:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Please consider adding an external link
Hello,

I'd like the request that the current active editors please consider adding an external link to the website:

http://www.power-chord.com/gaff/

I own this website and therefore, per Wikipedia policy, I am making the request here.

GAFF has been on the web for over 9 years. It allows users to map scales, chords, and modes onto fretboards (up to 7 stings) in any tuning. Several different file formats are supported, including PDF which allows for easy printing.

Over the years, 1000's of guitarists have found the site useful. As you can see here, it is the best rated website in it's section of guitarnotes.com (based on 46 reviews):

http://www.guitarnotes.com/links/instruction/chords_scalesR1.shtml

I sincerely believe that many of the readers of the Wikipedia Guitar page would find GAFF to be an interesting and useful site.

Thank you for your consideration.

Cryptoplex 17:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)