288:
be factual, that this claim does not meet the criteria for prior art. A similar claim has been made on behalf of Bill Wilson from the
University of North Carolina, it too fails to be backed up by scholarship and remains as fondly embraced folklore. In either case, beyond a small group of enthusiasts, there is no recognized body of scholarship that examines the scant documentation. Even among the enthusiasts, there is much contention about the facts and the interpretation of them contained in the narratives now being repeated. All that we can be certain of here is that this material, at this time, constitutes
224:
462:
redirect editors down a more fruitful path for their contributions? After all, unless I'm mistaken, your initial page was fundamentally a disambiguation page in the style of an article. If memory serves don't some disambiguation pages feature a defining scope at the beginning? I am not stuck on the idea one way or the other. These simply seem like logical questions to ask from a newbie perspective. Engineers, physicists, et al can surely take care of themselves should the need become manifest.
74:
53:
22:
84:
378:. I appreciate that you think it should be, and from the point of view of semantics I agree completely, but it isn't, and it's not Knowledge's mission to correct this, just the opposite in fact. It's a technical term, not so much used these days but very well established historically. Obviously we need some refs to back this up.
240:, you certainly have got that right! One might only hope that all Knowledge editors would recognize the difference between the enthusiastic fluff that decorates popular media magazine reporting and solid information based on reliable research. This is as true today as it was 6 years ago when you made your observation.
327:
oriented) and electric amplifiers. None of this is covered seriously in this article so lacking in substance and clarity of conception. It appears to be an obscure place to put random information about guitars and bass guitars, most of which has from the beginning existed in the instrument-specific articles.
326:
Left out are obvious things like pianos, flutes and other winds, drums, etc which is to say that the notion that it is somehow related to strings is patently false, and many instruments eliminate the so-called sound box, i.e. acoustic amplification, in favor of transducers (aka pickups to the guitar
419:
Thank you! I believe you are correct. Solid body is descriptively applied to guitars, bass guitars, and mandolins. Perhaps violin family instruments may be referred to this way, although I don't recall encountering it. I do appreciate there are broad differences in both custom and experience around
287:
While the early history of the the development of the the electric guitar is one that lay in muddy waters, there has been considerable and solid scholarship devoted to research of the topic. Not so in the case of Mr
Airoldi. Further, it is clear from the story told about him, even were it proven to
279:
In regard to this article, I notice that relatively recently here and elsewhere on the web a claim has been floated about that one
Valentino Airoldi of Galliate, Novara, Italy invented the first sold body electric guitar in 1937. That would be wonderful and enlightening news except for this: there
461:
Will not all WikiProject
Musical Instruments articles linked via disambiguation contain identical pertinent information to the current "Solid body", as well as benefit from broader, more frequently updated discussion? Won't it expedite readers in satisfying their query? Will disambiguation not
330:
Is it any wonder this article has remained the pathetic stub that it is for over eight years? If it remains another eight what kind of an article would it be? Please tell me if I am mistaken. Otherwise, I'll propose it be gotten rid of as soon as I get a bit of time to accomplish it.
295:
A key element not to be overlooked is history. What specific influence did either of these individuals have on the subsequent development of the instrument? An encyclopedia article is not a mere collection of anecdotal remarks. As editors, we must respect the importance of
401:. I'm sure that the term is also used by physicists, and perhaps by engineers and people in other fields. But until and unless we get an article in one of these fields that's not urgent. The current lede seems to make the topic clear.
264:
are the sort of thing that is bound to happen and the reasons for its abuse are legion. The
Knowledge article on the subject does a passable job in presenting a working description. A few requirements for claiming prior art:
391:
for example. But its historical use is very much restricted to stringed instruments. I have many primary sources to back this up, vintage catalogs and the like. I'll see what I can find in the way of secondary
600:
For example, it's relatively easy to take an acoustic guitar and wire it up, but a slab of wood requires all sorts of routing and drilling to install the pickup(s) and the wiring and the controls and whatever
168:
Aug. 12, 2002 -- Until about 70 years ago, musical instruments remained pretty much the same as they were for centuries. Then a new invention changed modern music and popular culture as well -- the electric
543:
140:
201:
that was in anything like its current form in 1920 was the drumsticks - and even these now have optional nylon tips, some drummers don't ever use wood tips nowadays.
319:
Somebody at one time thought this article was a good idea. For the life of me I have not been able to unravel that thought. If anything this should be a redirect to
269:
it is generally expected to provide a description sufficient to inform an average worker in the field that the invention is within the scope of what is claimed
658:
130:
653:
106:
208:. But I hope we can do a bit better than the (shallow IMO) insight shown by this writer (or perhaps their editor(s)). This is a job for...
420:
the globe. That coupled with my general inexperience should explain why I ask the question as I did rather than directly post a proposal.
505:
471:
410:
249:
97:
58:
340:
632:
560:
618:
It is that sort of info that would possibly justify this article's survival. Then again, that would clearly be redundant with
542:. In ALL cases, the solid-bodiness is more than adequately addressed IN CONTEXT. It'd make MUCH more sense to have an article
314:
360:
a terrible article. I'm afraid I wasn't very good at citing my sources in those days, and so I set a very bad example.
397:
Another consideration is that perhaps the topic needs to be disambiguated. This is about the musical use of the term
309:
534:
is generally assumed to be solid-bodied, and exceptions unusual). There are rare outliers such as the solid-body
493:
436:
446:. It's the standard term, I've done PA for several bands that use a solid-body electric violin. Sydney group
442:
for someone testing what they describe (both in the abstract text and in the introduction on the video) as a
33:
522:
Really, it's NOT "a topic," important or otherwise. A "solid-body" instrument almost always refers to the
370:
I'm afraid I think some of your statements above are mistaken, to the point of wild speculation. The term
289:
281:
467:
336:
305:
245:
161:
387:
has more recently been applied to flutes and other instruments without soundboards, or even to all
255:
105:
on
Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
21:
484:
Not sure I understand any of these questions. No, this was never a disambiguation page, and no,
619:
320:
628:
556:
39:
231:
216:
463:
332:
301:
297:
241:
209:
8:
358:
523:
351:
102:
539:
501:
406:
624:
583:
of the solid-wood body. This would solidify the article around its purported topic.
552:
535:
527:
432:
174:
439:
647:
531:
485:
365:
But the topic is encyclopedic and even important IMO, and the title correct.
275:
it must be publicly knowable, i.e. it cannot be kept for merely personal use
497:
402:
237:
228:
213:
190:
89:
547:
388:
261:
186:
450:
currently use three! (But we don't seem to have an article on them.)
579:
Suggestion: more info as to the design considerations that go into
198:
73:
52:
194:
162:
http://www.npr.org/programs/morning/features/patc/electricguitar/
546:; until such exists with encyclopedic quality, I'd contend that
181:
as significant as this says, that first statement is just plain
376:
obvious things like pianos, flutes and other winds, drums, etc.
272:
it must be available in some way to the public in a fixed form
447:
189:
didn't even exist before the 19th century. Neither did the
157:
My, my, my, but there's a lot of misinformation out there!
323:and/or to disambiguation for specific instruments.
101:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
79:
645:
435:article, which I've just wikified to link here,
526:family, and at that almost exclusively to the
659:Mid-importance musical instruments articles
383:I could be wrong in this, perhaps the term
19:
440:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJlb7z8CCGI
115:Knowledge:WikiProject Musical Instruments
654:Start-Class musical instruments articles
118:Template:WikiProject Musical Instruments
204:I guess it depends on what you mean by
646:
95:This article is within the scope of
15:
38:It is of interest to the following
13:
193:for brass instruments such as the
14:
670:
284:of information for this claim.
197:. And the only component of the
82:
72:
51:
20:
490:defining scope at the beginning
135:This article has been rated as
98:WikiProject Musical Instruments
227:looks particularly promising.
1:
622:(which certainly needs help).
315:Why is Solid body an article?
109:and see a list of open tasks.
544:Non-wood fretted instruments
121:musical instruments articles
7:
173:While I'm not doubting the
10:
675:
633:23:22, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
561:19:37, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
374:is AFAIK never applied to
232:19:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
217:18:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
141:project's importance scale
506:01:07, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
472:02:42, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
411:22:15, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
341:17:49, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
310:17:18, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
250:15:24, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
134:
67:
46:
221:Lots of good stuff too.
160:My favourite so far is
620:Electric guitar design
321:electronic instruments
28:This article is rated
494:broad concept article
185:. For example, the
112:Musical Instruments
103:musical instruments
59:Musical Instruments
524:fretted instrument
492:. That would be a
34:content assessment
540:electric mandolin
444:solid body violin
290:original research
155:
154:
151:
150:
147:
146:
666:
530:(apparently the
488:don't feature a
282:reliable sources
280:appear to be no
256:First Solid Body
123:
122:
119:
116:
113:
92:
87:
86:
85:
76:
69:
68:
63:
55:
48:
47:
31:
25:
24:
16:
674:
673:
669:
668:
667:
665:
664:
663:
644:
643:
550:should go away.
538:and solid-body
536:electric violin
528:electric guitar
464:BellwetherToday
433:electric violin
357:Agree it's now
333:BellwetherToday
317:
302:BellwetherToday
258:
242:BellwetherToday
225:The Smithsonian
175:electric guitar
120:
117:
114:
111:
110:
88:
83:
81:
61:
32:on Knowledge's
29:
12:
11:
5:
672:
662:
661:
656:
642:
641:
640:
639:
638:
637:
636:
635:
623:
609:
608:
607:
606:
605:
604:
603:
602:
591:
590:
589:
588:
587:
586:
585:
584:
570:
569:
568:
567:
566:
565:
564:
563:
551:
513:
512:
511:
510:
509:
508:
477:
476:
475:
474:
456:
455:
454:
453:
452:
451:
424:
423:
422:
421:
414:
413:
394:
393:
380:
379:
367:
366:
362:
361:
354:
353:
316:
313:
277:
276:
273:
270:
257:
254:
253:
252:
153:
152:
149:
148:
145:
144:
137:Mid-importance
133:
127:
126:
124:
107:the discussion
94:
93:
77:
65:
64:
62:Mid‑importance
56:
44:
43:
37:
26:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
671:
660:
657:
655:
652:
651:
649:
634:
630:
626:
621:
617:
616:
615:
614:
613:
612:
611:
610:
599:
598:
597:
596:
595:
594:
593:
592:
582:
578:
577:
576:
575:
574:
573:
572:
571:
562:
558:
554:
549:
545:
541:
537:
533:
532:electric bass
529:
525:
521:
520:
519:
518:
517:
516:
515:
514:
507:
503:
499:
495:
491:
487:
483:
482:
481:
480:
479:
478:
473:
469:
465:
460:
459:
458:
457:
449:
445:
441:
437:
434:
430:
429:
428:
427:
426:
425:
418:
417:
416:
415:
412:
408:
404:
400:
396:
395:
390:
386:
382:
381:
377:
373:
369:
368:
364:
363:
359:
356:
355:
352:
349:
345:
344:
343:
342:
338:
334:
328:
324:
322:
312:
311:
307:
303:
299:
293:
291:
285:
283:
274:
271:
268:
267:
266:
263:
251:
247:
243:
239:
236:
235:
234:
233:
230:
226:
222:
219:
218:
215:
211:
207:
202:
200:
196:
192:
188:
184:
180:
176:
171:
170:
165:
164:and I quote:
163:
158:
142:
138:
132:
129:
128:
125:
108:
104:
100:
99:
91:
80:
78:
75:
71:
70:
66:
60:
57:
54:
50:
49:
45:
41:
35:
27:
23:
18:
17:
601:electronics.
580:
489:
443:
398:
384:
375:
371:
347:
329:
325:
318:
294:
286:
278:
259:
223:
220:
205:
203:
191:piston valve
182:
178:
172:
167:
166:
159:
156:
136:
96:
90:Music portal
40:WikiProjects
625:Weeb Dingle
553:Weeb Dingle
206:pretty much
30:Start-class
648:Categories
548:Solid body
399:solid body
389:idiophones
385:solid body
372:solid body
298:notability
260:Claims of
262:prior art
187:saxophone
179:every bit
581:creation
431:See our
392:sources.
350:was me!
348:somebody
199:drum kit
498:Andrewa
403:Andrewa
238:Andrewa
229:Andrewa
214:Andrewa
210:wikiman
195:trumpet
169:guitar.
139:on the
36:scale.
346:That
183:false
629:talk
557:talk
502:talk
486:DABs
468:talk
448:Vamp
407:talk
337:talk
306:talk
246:talk
438:or
177:is
131:Mid
650::
631:)
559:)
504:)
496:.
470:)
409:)
339:)
308:)
300:.
292:.
248:)
212:!
627:(
555:(
500:(
466:(
405:(
335:(
304:(
244:(
143:.
42::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
