Talk:Classical guitar with additional strings

Requested move

Ok, this is ridiculous. I've heard the term "multi-string" used to mean "extended range" many times before, but it has always been totally stupid. All guitars have multiple strings (well, I know that there are 1-string guitars), so every non-1-string guitar, from tenors to Strats to harp guitars, is a multi-string guitar. Why not "extended range guitar"?Conical Johnson (talk) 04:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I really think this page title should be changed. Am I the only one who feels this way? "Multi-string guitar" is totally ridiculous. Conical Johnson (talk) 01:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Wanted to add the precedent that exists at Extended-range bass. Conical Johnson (talk) 02:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to support this, but have a look at Wikipedia:naming conventions. We need to make a case in terms of this policy. I hope and believe we can, but to argue that this type of guitar should be called something is promotion of this way of speaking and not relevant under current policy. (This particular policy takes many people by surprise, but there are good reasons for it and this is not the place to argue them.)

Worse, attempts to argue that a particular name should be used can even count as (weak) evidence that it's not the current usage, and so count (weakly) against such proposals. Caution advised. Andrewa (talk) 16:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there is no indication as to what the current usage is, since the prefix "multi" doesn't seem to appear in any of the article's sources. When I read "multi-string guitar" I honestly was expecting to find a contrast with some obscure one-string guitar. Alternately, I would assume that it meant a guitar where each "traditional" guitar string was replaced by two strings close together, fretted as one (as for a 12-string guitar, but not a 7-string guitar). Ultimately the best title might be 'Classical guitars with more than six strings, cumbersome as that may be -- or perhaps it should simply be merged into classical guitar.

Finally the definition in the first sentence seems incomplete; some musical instruments have move than six strings but are not "multi-string classical guitars," e.g., electrics, acoustics, sitars, harps, etc. Blackworm (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

A quick Google brought up about the same number of results for "extended-range guitar" as "multi-string guitar", and many of the results for the latter refer to a "multi-string guitar pick" - a plectrum that plucks multiple strings at a time, which has nothing to do with guitars with more than 6 strings.

Further, there is a website that purports to be a localized source for many-stringed guitars, located at http://www.extendedrangeguitar.com/. There is no website at the URL http://multistringguitar.com/. I tried to find the relevent naming conventions for this sort of article, but couldn't really find anything that seemed to apply. Although guitars with more than 6 strings are not new, the concept of such guitars as a group, like an entire class of their own, is relatively new, and as such, I don't believe either term is overwhelmingly more popular. Since there doesn't seem to be a popular name to go by, I think the most accurate and concise name should be used. I'm not sure why none of the editors of this article have any thoughts on this. Conical Johnson (talk) 01:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I've requested further input on this from WT:WikiProject Guitarists. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 00:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the the previous statement pointing out the "obvious" that any guitar with more than one string is 'multi-stringed'... and that the title was misleading. The first picture that popped into my head when I read the words "extended-range" were of a guitar with a longer scale. But, I guess, that would be 'extended scale' and not 'extended range' and just my own 'slow' imagination painting the wrong picture. Halo Guitars advertises their "Octavia" 8 string electric model as an extended range. The new title suggestion has no negatives from me. Libs (talk) 00:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

i concur that "multi-string guitar" applies to all guitars with more than one string and is therefore inappropriate/misleading for this article. i'd propose "extended-range classical guitar" and/or merging the article with classical guitar. Sssoul (talk) 08:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It appears this situation has been remedied, however, I made a mistake in my Requested Move, and someone went ahead and titled the page "Extended-range guitar", rather than "Extended-range classical guitar". I have updated it to be accurate.Conical Johnson (talk) 02:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

"multi-string" guitar is, like it or not, a term that has become standardised amongst classical guitarists who use instruments with more than the standard 6 strings. If you want to nitpick, we will also have to rename "twelve string guitar" to the more correct six-course guitar, etc. I suggest other moderators look into harp-guitar websites by people like Greg Miner, or earlyromanticguitar.com, or cathedralguitar.com or tenstringguitar.com (not that everything on all these sites is reliable) but at least you can see that the term "multi-string" is standard usage. That doesn't mean it is correct, however. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.11.14.156 (talk) 07:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll add my vote for changing the title to "extended-range guitar", which is the more formally correct organological term for these instruments. I know many guitarists, and I've never heard any of them use the term "multi-string" guitar; "extended-range guitar" is frequently used, however.

Formal precedent for this may be found in various sources ranging from the New Grove, to Gardner Reed's Contemporary Instrumental Techniques, to experts in this category of guitar such as Matanya Ophee, Len Verrett, and Gregg Miner. In addition to expert usage, multiple guitar blogs regularly discuss "extended range guitars".

Finally, a Google search on "multi-string guitar" returns 5010 hits; "guitar with additional strings" returns 18,300 hits; "extended range guitar" returns 771,000 hits.

I'd say it's pretty clear what that both the prefered term, and the most common term in current use is "extended range guitar". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.206.183.46 (talk) 06:37, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Is this article really needed?

There doesn't seem to be a great deal of information in any of this article's sections beyond, "there are guitars with this many strings; we think this guy invented this one; these three people wrote for it..." It seems like this entire article could be incorporated into a single section, and merged with the general "Classical Guitar" article.

Really, a guitar can be made with any number of strings that one wants, and there is nothing "magic" about a particular number. Through most of the 20th century, and to some degree currently, 6-courses/strings is considered the "standard", but for centuries, and in some regions, five was once considered standard, and in others four was standard; in Russia and some surrounding countries seven is standard. It might well change again.

This is sort of like having an article on "dimensioned lumber", and then haveing separate articles on "2 by 4's"; "4 by 4's"; "2 by 6's"; etc. There's literally no limit to the possible variations, and standards change over time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.249 (talk) 23:58, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

why only classical guitar? and why keep the article at all?

The article is fundamentally flawed. As it stands, it's an unnecessary extension to classical guitar. Let me count the ways…

George Van Eps played a seven-string jazz electric guitar. I got the impression he borrowed this from Russian guitars.

I question whether the primary author knows anything about luthiery. Here's a glaring example. How many strings does a mandolin have? That'd be eight. How many on a twelve-string guitar? Well, twelve. But in each case the strings are doubled, so "twelve-string guitar" is actually a misnomer, or at least misleading,because the strings are doubled into six courses... a word not used ANYWHERE in this article. One result is inclusion of the Godin Glissentar (a.k.a. A11) for being "another type of eleven-string guitar"... meaning five doubled courses, a "twelve string" guitar with one less string. (I've therefore scrubbed all Godin references.)

FWIW, it's not difficult to find commercial electric guitars with up to TEN courses (e.g., RondoMusic.com), and of course "tap" guitars like the Warr or Chapman.

How is it that the article begins with

These are also known as extended-range guitars, and should not be confused with harp guitars

only to conclude with a section entitled Harp guitars? which in any case does NOT do a credible job of differentiating them?

Only glancing mention is made of the lute, which looks like the ancestor to the "wide" guitar. A lute not uncommonly has eleven (!!) courses, and they've been known to reach 14.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 18:29, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I think the entire content of this article could be put into a single section, in the Classical guitar article, without loss of information. There really seems to be no compelling reason for this to be a separate article.

74.95.43.253 (talk) 23:31, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I removed the final Harp guitars section as clearly irrelevant. And I tagged the article Refimprove because the two references are terrible: the first has little relevance except to a particular point (specifically the lyre-guitar), and the second nothing but a surname and date, apparently some obscure book. This rather points up the general ineptitude of the article.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 05:48, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree.

74.95.43.253 (talk) 23:31, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Classical guitar with additional strings. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091113122341/http://thamesclassicalguitars.com/the-dresden/ to http://thamesclassicalguitars.com/the-dresden/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928051814/http://www.melbay.com/guitarsessions/jul06/cover.asp to http://www.melbay.com/guitarsessions/jul06/cover.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060207182045/http://decava.com/multi%20article.htm to http://www.decava.com/multi%20article.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060717213830/http://www.guitarweb.ch/guitarweb/mthema/thema04-05.asp to http://www.guitarweb.ch/guitarweb/mthema/thema04-05.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071015055328/http://guitarra.artelinkado.com/guitarra/laud1.htm to http://guitarra.artelinkado.com/guitarra/laud1.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:35, 9 August 2017 (UTC)