Talk:Archtop guitar

message: Deleted bias tag, this article needs cleanup/expansion more than being labeled as biased.  Hopefully I'll get around to it soon . . . . . Soundguy99 21:37, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

message: Moveable bridges (aka. "rollerbridge") and tailpieces are found on almost all archtops.
This is AFAIK just plain false. It may be true that in some areas of the world, all the guitars in the local music shops have roller bridges, but both of the archtops currently pictured in the article have fixed tailpieces and conventional bridges. Dave Unger's home page doesn't currently have a rollerbridge in sight, nor do the top three models listed at the Epiphone archtop index.
Many commercial archtops have Bigsby units either as standard or option. I'm skeptical it's even most. It's certainly not all, and of those that don't have Bigsbys, the vast majority have fixed tailpieces (either trapeze or stop). There are also a few with Gibson Vibrola units rather than the Bigsby (which has been available both as a licensed Vibrola and as a third-party add-on). 
Some, not all, of these tremolo arm equipped archtops have rollerbridges in addition. Few if any fixed tailpiece guitars have roller bridges, and many archtops do have trems but lack roller bridges. Movable bridges other than the roller bridge do exist, notably the Fender floating bridge, but again are only on trem-equipped guitars (and I've never heard of one on an archtop).
Sorry to carry on, but the removed text has too many confused or wrong ideas to list. Andrewa 14:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed text

message: John Zeidler had nothing to do with Benedetto and most certainly did not copy any of his designs. I was a very close friend of John Zeidler. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.115.43.14 (talk • contribs) 
:Can we source this somewhere? Or, would you consider yourself contributing to the Oral History Wiki, so your recollections can be preserved? Andrewa 15:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: John Zeidler

message: In several books it stated that the Archtop is sometimes called the "cello guitar". Should we put this on the article? 24.13.76.176 00:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think we should. Now that you come to mention is, that's what several of my musical associates call my trusty Maton Freshman archtop. Andrewa 15:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cello Guitar??? 

message: The article mentions Yamaha and Epiphone as a ffordable, quality Archtop makers, but leaves out Ibanez. Are they not as well known? Another article mentions Ibanez as a "famous maker" of Hollowbodies and Semi-Hollowbodies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.239.177.198 (talk • contribs) 
:Has Ibanez produced true archtops, or only thin-bodied semi-acoustic guitars? There is some variation in terminology here, but I think the majority view (and that taken by Wikipedia so far) is that archtop and semi-acoustic are overlapping but neither is a subset of the other. The Gibson ES-335 (and many similar which have followed) and Magnetone TB36 are both semi-acoustic, but neither is an archtop. On the other hand, the Gibson L-7C has no pickups, so although it's an archtop it's not semi-acoustic, and none of the earliest archtops had pickups... partly because pickups hadn't yet been invented back in the 1890s! And the legendary Gibson L5 was introduced in 1922, but wasn't available with pickups until 1951. Andrewa 16:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done some looking around, and all the current Ibanez semi-acoustics seem to be thinlines. Several of them are described by the makers as arch-top, but then so are the carved-top Gibson Les Paul solid body guitars. This isn't the normal or primary meaning of archtop IMO. Andrewa 16:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ibanez 

message: I've performed a fairly complete but gentle refactor of the article. When I say gentle, I haven't changed the text much at all, just reorganised it, and expanded a little. So any errors of fact that were there before probably still are.
One thing I haven't incorporated yet is the fact that there were semi-acoustic guitars before 1951... Notably the Gibson ES-175, since 1949. This probably isn't clear from the current article. 1951 was when Gibson's first semi-acoustic archtop was introduced. Andrewa 16:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Refactor

message: Removed text:
Some rock players refer disparagingly to an archtop guitar as a "jazz box", reflecting this.
This had been tagged fact|date=August 2007 template, but in view of this, I think the article is better off without the claim, so I've removed it (again). It was added (several times) by someone who appeared to dislike both the style of guitar, and the sort of music it's good for. (Without wanting to enter into WP:ATTACK, I think we need to note that there are a few such people around. One described my 1969 Maton Freshman as a skiffle reject on another talk page a while back. And anyone who has battled acoustic feedback trying to use one of these in a high-gain high-distortion live situation is likely to be turned of all semi-acoustic guitars for life...! Been there, done that...) 
On the other hand, Google does provide some evidence for the currency of the term. I especially liked this article, titled Fat Jazz Box On The Cheap: Washburn’s J3 Hollowbody. Andrewa 21:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Jazz box

message: While the article sports several fine photos of archtop and semi-hollowbody guitars there is not a single one of the classic jazzbox style with or without the floating neck pickup normally attached to the pickguard. The focus here seems quite heavily tilted to the electric models with big holes dug into the "resonating" soundboard top which is then burdened with massively heavy hardware. There are many purely acoustic models. While generally speaking a distinction is usually made between semi-hollowbody guitars and true archtop guitars, this may not be necessary to address at this time. Wouldn't the archtop subgenre: carvedtop guitar deserve a unique subsection? It is after all the standard term used to distinguish these instruments within the archtop family. BellwetherToday (talk) 08:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archtops and Carvedtops 

message: Is this edit based on WP:MOS somewhere I've missed? The reason for the bold was that it's the target of a redirect. Andrewa 06:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Style

message: This article states that Gibson himself invented archtop guitars, and that Gibson had been making archtop mandolins for a while, whereas the article on Lloyd Loar states that Loar invented at least the archtop mandolin, and possibly the archtop guitar: "Loar worked for Gibson from 1919 to 1924. His contributions include building the instrument top with F-shaped holes, like a violin."  69.129.39.230 (talk) 21:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The f-holes aren't what make an archtop and archtop, it's really the construction of the top. 1Z (talk) 10:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Inventor

message: A Rick 330 maybe a hollowbody but it's not an archtop. its top is completely flat. There's a lot of confusion in this article between archtops, hollowbodies and semi-hollowbodies. A hollowbody or a semi-hollowbody describes the internal make-up of the body, archtop describes whether the top is arched or not. Simple, surely? There shouldn't be a picture of a Rick 330 here.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdul tom (talk • contribs) 03:20, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rickenbacker 330 photo? 

message: For instance, ..."whose sound is particularly popular with jazz, Rockabilly, psychobilly, and blues guitarists." No attempt to support this assertion. Better still might be an authoritatve source to suggest a WHY behind this. Weeb Dingle (talk) 17:38, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: huge lack of references