Talk:Superstrat

Postulations by original author, removed from main article

Who coined the term super-strat (Grover Jackson, maybe)? Which Casio? Beautiful, all-black thing
These aren't awfully useful in the main body of the article (particularly the second) hence moving them here.Brother Dysk 11:10, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

Fender

Similar to the fender showmaster the fender HM strat should also be included here as well.

It is already mentioned at the bottom --GreyCat 21:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With no discussion regarding the proposed merger of Super Strat and Fender Showmaster, I'll remove the tag. Both articles are distinct enough. Ariedartin JECJY ^Talk 15:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV of Comparison

The whole disadvantage of superstrats part seems to be somewhat pro-strat; there are more disadvantages listed than advantages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.9.251.63 (talk) 20:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

artificial harmonics

In general, a neck with 24 frets instead of 21 frets does not actually make artificial harmonics harder. What can make it more difficult is having neck through construction as opposed to bolt on construction. I own real strats, superstrats that are bolt on and a super strat that is neck through. Every neck through I have played has difficulty with artificial harmonics. This is because in a neck through the primary tone is more powerful (this is why they have better sustain as others have noted here).

When plucking and individual string on a stringed instrument you are in a sense producing an entire "chord" of harmonics. The single note that "hear" is the primary tone. Harmonic are produced by removing more dominant tones from that "chord" by muting them at certain locations on the string.

A more detailed explanation of the physics of this belongs in another article; I will simply update this article to correctly reflect this fact.

Well, 21 vs 24 fret fact is also really simple to explain. Guitars with 21-22 fret necks have pickups' polepieces specifically aligned so that they match positions of artificial harmonics. Guitarists with 24 fret necks don't have this luxury, so they have to more or less guess proper locations => it's some sort of inconvenience => somewhat harder to get AHs.

Basically, both these facts require to be verifiable in terms of Wikipedia, so we need to add them both with links to good sources that state so (not only from our own personal experience). --GreyCat 23:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier Superstrats than Jackson's?

Could the Fender Lead I (made 1979-1982) be considered an early superstrat? If not, maybe at least it might be worth mentioning in the article as a predecessor to superstrats. --Mispeled 01:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fat Strat?

According to the descriptions and examples, it seems that fat Strat, such as Yamaha Pacfica, is included. So may I ask for clarification?George Leung 10:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

This opening paragraph is a poor summary of the Superstrat and far too vague. The Superstrat is an easily understood archetype that caters to a specific genre. Those characteristics should be front and center in the first paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.116.170.201 (talk) 08:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Highway One?

Should the Fender Highway One be included? It seems to meet the specs (H-S-S, etc.) J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 19:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trouble archiving links on the article

Hello. I am finding myself repeatedly archiving links on this page. This usually happens when the archive doesn't recognize the archive to be good.

This could be because the link is either a redirect, or I am unknowingly archiving a dead link.Please check the following links to see if it's redirecting, or in anyway bad, and fix them, if possible.

http://www.hamerguitars.com/?fa=series&sid=190

In any event this will be the only notification in regards to these links, and I will discontinue my attempts to archive the page.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:21, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Superstrat. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 23:04, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

overdue for overhaul

From the final section, I removed the statement about Guild that they're producing nothing but semihollows. A visit to the site makes clear such an assertion is addled. As well, the Hamer mention is "as of 2008," which is soooo 2008.

These lead me to question what else has slipped past.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 03:53, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh; having reread just the opening paragraphs, after this I'm giving up for the night!

There is no formal definition of a superstrat Really. Then maybe... someone should assemble the thoughts from some credible authorities and attempt to untangle this?

the categorisation ... depends greatly on the artist(s) associated with a particular model and how it is marketed. Merely because nonsense is "common wisdom" does NOTHING to make it less nonsensical. Hiding behind such statements is intellectually lazy at best.

Yet suddenly this undefinable quantity becomes concrete and clear-cut enough to make the grand pronouncement Superstrats are generally suited for heavy metal music played with high-gain distortion. This might come as a surprise to those metalers playing Les Pauls and other Gibson-type designs (e.g., Ted Nugent's Byrdland), not to mention the wide variety of music played on modified Stratocasters that would apparently be "superstrats."

Is a 24-fret PRS a superstrat? If so, why is a near-identical 22-fret PRS not?

And the "thinner necks are faster" superstition really needs to be at least questioned, especially as C-profile necks are coming into vogue, even being marketed as "fatter is faster."
Weeb Dingle (talk) 05:04, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, wtf, since I'm here...

While EVH may have accidentally caused the "superstrat" concept to take root in popular consciousness, he was NOT the first to... well, to do anything. Humbuckers in Strats? Check out Wayne Kramer, Alan Holdsworth, David Gilmour, Robbie Robertson... on and ever on.

Univox had an h-h-h Strat clone (the Ripper model) on market in the early 1970s: http://www.vintageunivox.com/pics/catalogs/ripper_cat.jpg

One bridge humbucker? The first Van Halen album was released February 1978. Fender put out their Lead I in 1979, with one split pickup at the bridge, and considering the leadtime Fender needed to get a new model to market I doubt it was to capitalize on Eddie.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 07:34, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "Is a 24-fret PRS a superstrat?"
No. In my book a "superstrat" has to have a body shape somewhat related to a Stratocaster. Also the PRS vibrato unit is a lot different from the Floyd-Rose-style vibratos most often found on the guitars which defined the superstrat genre.
Re: "as of 2008"
Be thankful someone added a meaningful timestamp to a piece of information, and leave that in for Vai's sake! I hate it when I come across a "today" in articles which get one edit every two years.
--BjKa (talk) 13:38, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"suited for heavy metal music"

The article's lead currently says: "Superstrats are generally suited for heavy metal music played with high-gain distortion."
While this may be true, so's almost any other guitar. Most notably the PRS Custom 24 or the Fender Telecaster. I'm taking the sentence out as it adds no value to the article as it stands. (Also: no source given)
One could argue, that superstrats generally came to be associated with heavy metal music played with high-gain distortion, as this genre of music really gained focus at the time where the superstrat type guitar was the pinnacle of the technical development of electric guitars. That would be some helpful info. But that's my original opinion, so you can't write that into the article unless you can prove it. (Maybe the article NWOBHM has some more info in that direction.)
Anyways. in my mind the superstrat is much more closely associated with shredding, as more and more virtuose guitar solos were just as well becoming part of pop and rock music in the 1980s.
--BjKa (talk) 13:38, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]