Talk:Fender Telecaster

message: By excluding all mention of non-Fender T-style guitars, this article implies that the most important thing about an instrument is the brand name on the headstock — which musicians know is not the case. I think clones deserve at *least* a paragraph, but really the article should be rewritten to be less brand-centric. The article on dreadnoughts, in contrast, mentions C.F. Martin, but appropriately acknowledges that the style is widely copied. What do folks think? Fivetonsflax (talk)  — Preceding undated comment added 22:19, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I see BTW that the Les Paul article (for the instrument, not the man) similarly seems to place trademark considerations above musical ones. Fivetonsflax (talk) Fivetonsflax (talk) 18:34, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Clones?

message: I am considering making some kind of table listing the different variations and their specifications.  Would this be overkill?  I would be happy to make a first pass but would want others to review and edit.  Branny76 05:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me.  I say go to it! Rohirok 21:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Table of variants

message: Although I agree that it's a great guitar, I don't think this article meets wiki standards for NPOV, for example the comment in the intro that it was the 'right guitar at the right time' and that it was a 'great idea...' I won't go so far as to tag it for NPOV (at the moment) and for the sake of not having starting a revert war I won't wipe out (needless) lines that I currently can't replace with anything of worth, but I believe it should be looked at. 71.52.241.53 03:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: I noticed today Auto movil's reversion of my edit of the first paragraph, made due to the contentions that my edit was less simple and introduced an inaccuracy.  I will admit that my clarification of the term "Spanish" guitar made the intro paragraph more complex.  I do think that such clarification needs to be made in some way, as most readers will not understand what this means.  Perhaps not in the intro paragraph, but somewhere.
As for the inaccuracy that I supposedly introduced, I am unaware of any such inaccuracy, and Auto movil did not point out what it was.  That would be an important thing to explain if reverting.
I will again edit the first paragraph, as it contains the gratuitous and inaccurate statement that the Telecaster is "for all practical purposes, the 'first electric guitar.'"  As counter-examples, I offer three: The electrified acoustic played by Charlie Christian, the solid-body electric Spanish Travis-Bigsby guitar, and the electrified Rickenbacker "Frying Pan" lap guitar.  All of these are electric guitars, and all of them predate the Telecaster.  Contrary to the final clause of the intro paragraph, the Telecaster is not the first electric guitar, for "practical" or any other purposes.  I will delete that clause. Rohirok 07:24, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I also deleted "wooden" from the intro paragraph, as that is redundant.  The Telecaster is the first mass-produced solid-body electric Spanish guitar made of any</I> material. Rohirok 07:30, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that the "for all practical purposes" clause has been put back into the intro, and my objections to this phrase remain.  It is indistinct and wishy-washy, not at all encyclopedia-like.  It seems to be claiming one thing (the Telecaster is the first...), but then totally negates that with the "for all practical purposes" qualification.  I understand there is some controversy concerning the one-pickup Esquire vs. the two-pickup Broadcaster/Nocaster/Telecaster, and whether you can really claim that the Tele is the first mass-produced wooden solidbody electro-Spanish guitar if the one-pickup model preceded it.  That controversy needs to be sorted out for the intro paragraph to be clear and accurate.  I am of the opinion that the Esquire is simply one version of the Telecaster, and that it is thus accurate to claim that the Tele is the first mass-produced wooden solidbody electro-Spanish guitar without any further qualification or equivocation.  I say this because the Esquire is even more similar to the classic Tele than later models that bear the "Telecaster" model name (such as those with two humbuckers, a Bigsby, or neck-through-body construction).  It is also significant that the Esquire was originally intended to be a two-pickup guitar--that is, it was supposed to be precisely the guitar we now call the Telecaster, and can (in my opinion) be seen as simply a Telecaster that lacks the neck pickup.  If the Strat had begun as a two-pickup guitar, and a model came out later that preserved all the original details, except with an additional pickup, would we not be correct in saying that the line began with the two-pickup version? Rohirok 12:45, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  re: intro 

message: The original name for the Telecaster was the Broadcaster, not the Esquire. An Esquire is a variation on the Telecaster style, having only a single pickup (the bridge position, "lead" pickup) whereas the Telecaster has two pickups. In addition to the bridge pickup, it has one in the neck position, the "rhythm" pickup.
:I know this. However, the Esquire predates the Broadcaster/Telecaster, and this makes me ponder the accuracy of the parent article stating that the Telecaster was the first mass-produced solid-body spanish steel guitar. Brother Dysk 02:43, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
^^No, i think its ovious on wikipedia.220.236.219.153 04:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Telecaster, Broadcaster and Esquire 

message: the difference is that the esquire, while only having one pickup, still has a 3 way selector switch. in the bridge position, it is disconnected from the tone circuit. in the middle position it is connected to the tone circuit. in the neck position it has a capacitor in it that changes the sound to a darker, thicker tone. my info was obtained from this url: http://www.musiciansfriend.com/product/Guitar/Electric?sku=511313
:Please sign your posts on talk pages. Fender Esquire currently redirects to this article, but the article doesn't mention the Esquire at all. Either we need a new article on the Esquire (replacing the redirect) or we need some of this information added to the Telecaster article. Andrewa 09:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See the new stub at Fender Esquire. Fender guitars are of course determined to regard the Esquire as a Telecaster, as that gives their supporting star model (second only to the strat) an extra two years of history. But the Esquire is a very significant part of that history, and deserves an article of its own IMO. Andrewa 17:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  tele/esquire 

message: Dylan has "used" (can't ever remember him "playing") a Tele about 3 times in 40 odd years to bash out 4 or 5 passing chords. He bashed out his passing chords on a Strat in 1965 at Newport etc, "used" a Tele in 1966, had another bash when he toured with The Band in the 70's and when he bashed another for the Pope.
The point of all this? Albert Lee who ranks alongside James Burton, is relegated to: "See list of Telecaster players". I've tried to laugh, but it just isn't funny. I sincerely hope that one of your number addressess this very serious error. Sincerely, Andy, England.
I was going to make the same point but I've been beaten to it! So as I'm here I'll ask why is that 3 chord idiot Presley on the list?
Oh and by the way Andy, Bob Dylan also used a Fender Jag in 1965 because he was given a whole bunch of Fenders for "allowing" Fender to use pictures of him using them (one of him pretending to play a Precision bass  mainly) and I agree with you all the way!
::I agree wholeheartedly with the above coments. To describe Dylan as a Signature Tele player is preposterous, he should be removed forthwith. Lion King 16:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bob Dylan in no way shape, or form can be termed a signature Tele player - he has used just about every electric guitar in the book, (even a Les Paul Custom -God knows why!) I have therefore removed him.Lion King 11:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With all due respect to the man, Dylan isn't much of a guitar player, let alone a "Signature Tele Player." I removed him from this article once, but I see that he's back in all his glory, out ranking Tele players of the caliber of Vince Gill and Albert Lee. It really is silly to keep describing him thus, he "played" any guitar he could lay his mits on!  Cheers! Lion King 11:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh and by the way, Dylan didn't go "electric in 1966" with a Tele, it was 1965, when he used a Jag, then a Strat. Lion King 17:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bob Dylan, Signature Tele Player??

message: I just changed the sentence in the article that stated that Bruce Springsteen plays an Esquire modified with a second pickup.  
This is false.  Springsteen states in the Wings for Wheels documentary that came with the 30th aniversary Born to Run 
boxset that he plays a Telecaster modified with an Esquire neck.  I just wanted to get that straight.
--71.248.211.227 15:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Springsteen Guitar Correction 

message: I think it should be included how the telecasters and stratocasters never have a Bigsby vibrato as a standard. E.g. that Leo Fender launched both two designs after borrowing one of the Bigsby designed guitars (the one made for Merle Travis) and just about copied every single special feature, including shape and headstock of that guitar. After that Leo Fender and mr. Bigsby weren't on good terms. Gumdropster 16:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with your argument is that it isn't true. There is a Telecaster model with a Bigsby, and Bigsby makes a special vibrato for Fender.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.3.192.204 (talk) 13:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've heard that story, and I think its kind of a well-known one . The guitar's body shape was more like Gibson's and headstock was like Strat's. Bigsby as a company having done something to Fender doesn't make it Mr. Paul Bigsby was in good terms with Mr. Leo Fender. Now, I dont know much about country nor 40s/50s stuff (I'm a heavy metal guy), but I'm interested in this. Anybody else care to ref me some more legit sources?  --Yk49 (talk) 17:18, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rip-off 

message: I have proposed a Wikiproject for articles relating to Fender. If you are interested, please add you name here. Izzy007 Talk 21:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fender Wikiproject Proposal  

message: Has anyone wondered why this article has not moved out of the Start Class stage for the past 2 years? The "Signature Telecaster players" section is a good place to start to find out why. It's horribly non-NPOV. I can't believe all the players listed as Signature Telecaster players are covered by those reference books listed. Players need to cited with specific cites to either periodicals or books. And the tone of the section is so biased, it sounds as if it was written by the president of the Telecaster Fan Club of America. - Buster 06:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Signature Telecaster players, non-NPOV

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: The picture at the start of the "talk" section looks more typical; maple fretboard, sunburst finish and 3-piece bridge.  Why is the one on the "main Telecaster page" a custom; white body, rosewood fretboard, with a six piece goldish saddle, and that pimpish pearlescent pickguard?--W8IMP (talk) 21:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 2 things to note. A) The picture in the talkpage template is actually a copyvio image that has been stolen from an online vendor(typical white background pic) and then pasted over the ugly colour background to try and hide that it's been stolen someone needs to PUI that image soon ... and B) The article is about a Telecaster and the stolen image at the top of this page is an Esquire... not a tele. 156.34.208.51 (talk) 21:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The true source of the image has now been found and the copyvio has been reported to an administrator. 156.34.208.51 (talk) 22:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The copyvio has been deleted. 156.34.208.51 (talk) 09:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can't we get a better picture? 

message: This article has been nominated for GA Review. However, I'm afraid I'm going to go ahead and fail it, as it does not meet the criteria for GA, and the problems present within the article cannot be easily and quickly fixed. The biggest issues for this article are:
*There are very few inline citations, and even the list of general reference is very small.
*There is an obviously still valid  template present.
If anyone feels that this judgment is incorrect, please feel free to fix the problems present and re-submit the article for GA review. Very sorry - I.M.S. (talk) 04:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Nomination 

message: Regarding the Custom Telecaster section, Keith Richards plays original Teles from 1952 and 1953.  In the 80s, he had Fender make him about 20 Custom Shop Teles that were just like the originals, so maybe that is where the confusion comes from.  The bottom line, however, is that Keith did not play custom models in the 70s, he was playing the originals, which he continues to play to this day.  Wikipediarules2221 03:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Custom Telecaster Section 

message: Hi, I uploded on Wikimedia Commons a photo of a Fender Telecaster American Vintage 1952 with transparente background, that I think is better than the one we actually have on the page....
The picture is this one: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Fender_Telecaster_American_Vintage_1952_transparent.png 
--Massimo Barbieri (talk) 13:25, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Better Fender Telecaster photo 

message: Fender owns Squier, Squier makes a series of guitars called the "Squier Tele" with the Telecaster look and, according to their ad copy, "the classic Telecaster sound."
Now, I don't kid myself for a minute that these Chinese-made guitars are in the same league as a true Telecaster, 
BUT -- if you go to the Squier website, they are using Stratocaster®, Telecaster®, Jaguar®, and Jazzmaster® [complete with the 'registered' symbol] as trade-names on their Chinese knockoffs.
Isn't it important that this article explain all of this to the easily gulled? And, hopefully, include some expert opinion on the proximity of a "Tele" to a true Telecaster?  67.236.25.243 (talk) 05:32, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Squier 

message: Birthday segment happened today on all things considered.  Not sure how they came up with the exact date, but might warrant inclusion. - 74.32.170.102 (talk) 02:29, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPR 60th 

message: When I initially read through the article on the Telecaster guitar there were several positive things that I noticed. The first thing that I saw was that The article was broken into several sections that made the article fairly accessible to someone who was trying to find out some general information about the guitar. The first major section about the history of the guitar has a variety of facts and information delivered in an accessible and fairly easy-to-follow manner. After that, the section about the construction of the guitar is quite in depth and explains the guitar in enough technical detail for anyone who is serious about the mechanics and make-up of guitars to leave the article satisfied. In addition to this there are enough credible sources from the guitar world to back up what is written in the article. Also, the article is fairly well written, so the information provided is easily understood and acceptable.
While there are some good parts to this wikipedia article, it is not anywhere near where it could potentially be. To begin with, there is a lack of diagrams in the construction section, diagrams, models, and pictures could help those of us who are not technically-savvy to have a better grip on the ins and outs of how the guitar is made and manufactured. Another thing that struck me as off, was the inclusion of the fender telecaster bass model. The few sentences pertaining to the bass model are not really necessary to include in the history of the guitar and would probably be better in the section about models. In addition to the other critiques, I felt that the section on variants was a little out of place and really should not take priority over the models section since that would be more popular general information rather that variant information which is really a specialized history and not necessarily that first thing that would be highlighted when concentrating on the Telecaster model. The model section is also incomplete and could use a reworking to include newer models. Again, pictures of the guitars would also benefit this section. Finally I felt it was vital to point out the disjointed nature of the Signature Players section. This part of the article attempts to show a history of telecaster usage through various famous artists who have used the guitar. However, I noticed that Pearl Jam is mentioned somewhere in the middle of the 60's section and evidently should be in the modern part of the section. One final suggestion would be to include a diagram or list of sales figures to help gauge the popularity of the guitar across time.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cchick12 (talk • contribs) 22:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critique of The Telecaster Article 

message: Below of the main photo of the article is written a production period from 1948 to present, but the Fender offcial website explain that the first prototipe of the Telecaster was made in 1951. I think that Broadcaster was made in 1950, but the Telecaster series start from 1951. --Massimo Barbieri (talk) 15:25, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of production 

message: I don't see why Squier Telecaster is a separate article. IMO the article should be called Telecaster and describe both "brands", as both are basically the same design, both are made/owned by the same company, and there is arguably as much variability within the brands as there is between them, when it comes to price and quality. (One consequence of the status quo is that Telecaster redirects to Fender Telecaster, which is technically wrong, because Telecaster can just as well refer to the Squier Telecaster.) - Soulkeeper (talk) 23:18, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article name 

message: Some time ago I proposed merging Nocaster with the Telecaster article, in the same spirit as the Squier merge above.   Any objections to me beginning the merge process on the two articles?   As I said on the Nocaster talk page, the Telecaster is an important part of guitar history; the Nocaster is simply part of Telecaster history and I am not sure it warrants its own page. Frank Mottley (talk) 17:45, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Merge them. It's a Telecaster except in name only. BellwetherToday (talk) 04:53, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nocaster merge 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Fender Telecaster. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120118010146/http://www.cheapguitarists.com:80/famous-cheap-guitarists.html to http://www.cheapguitarists.com/famous-cheap-guitarists.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:06, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello, 
I have made some notes about how this article could be improved for my English class assignment on Wikipedia.
* There should be more references to reliable websites, or books/ educational material
* The talk page is not very active and more people should be participating
* There is a lot of focus on the company history which could be better of use on the Fender company Wikipedia page
* Some of the article sounds like it is lightly biased, favoring this specific guitar 
* Wikimedia Commons also has information that may be valuable to the page
Ahd3100 (talk) 17:13, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Valid observations.  Bias and few sources are actually common for topics like this.  Major news sources generally don't cover models of guitars, only trade mags and primary sources, so it is always a challenge.  Getting the talk page more active?  Hard to do.  The article is pretty stable, not much to talk about, the main thing it needs are better sources and polishing up the prose, as you've noted.  Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:16, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

text: Thanks for your evaluation.  This sounds like a great start to a class project!  Now that you've made your evaluation of the article, I think it would be really great if you could help fix some of these problems!  We're always looking for help at Wikipedia.  Regarding sources, there's actually likely to be lots of good sources for some guitar models.  Especially ones as famous and well known as a Telecaster.  I have a large coffee-table style book on the history of the electric guitar myself buried somewhere in my house.  I may dig it out to see what it has on the Telecaster in there.  There are loads of possible sources out there, if you have access to a well-stocked library or can access inter-library loan, you can likely get them.  I found this book that looks promising, and This one looks even better.  There's also a shop in California that does daily videos on guitars and guitar history, called "Norman's Rare Guitars" .  The host there (Mark Agnesi) is very knowledgeable and informative, I'm not sure it's a strictly reliable source, but would be useful for deep background and to send you in the right direction.  AFAIK, he's also fairly responsive to fans on his videos, if you contact him or the store, he may be able to direct you to good sources.  Beyond that, a light copyedit for tone and the like is useful!  Thanks for your comments, and I look forward to seeing your further work!  --Jayron32 17:38, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Evaluation