Talk:Fender (company)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Fender (company) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Guitarists: Equipment This article is within the scope of WikiProject Guitarists, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Guitarists on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GuitaristsWikipedia:WikiProject GuitaristsTemplate:WikiProject Guitaristsguitarist This article is supported by Guitar equipment task force. Musical Instruments Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Musical Instruments, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of musical instruments on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Musical InstrumentsWikipedia:WikiProject Musical InstrumentsTemplate:WikiProject Musical Instrumentsmusical instruments Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Companies Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Companies To-do: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes Maintain : Portal:Companies Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs Other : Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner Answer requests for comments Anthropology: Oral tradition This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. This article is supported by Oral tradition taskforce.

I think the product list should have it's own page. Does anyone agree? Izzy007 22:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking about a page dedicated to the Fender-Gibson rivalry. It'll have stuff on solid-body vs. hollow-body, basses, amps, and that kind of thing. Does it sound useful, and what should I call it if so?Deltabeignet 01:09, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

what happened to the list of guitars page? There is far more to Fender than Strats and Teles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.140.47.132 (talk) 17:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm deleting the following quote:

However, the Fender instruments made in 1966-1979 under CBS are of a high quality, and tend to be much better built instruments than the latest Fender products. [citation needed]

This is nearly an exact opposite of both common and professional opinion. See any industry specialist, see the current issue of Vintage Guitar, etc. The overwhelming perception is that quality control started to go down when CBS took over, but did not immediately go from great to mediocre. The period more or less from 1973-1984 was considered the low point, and guitars from both before that era and mid 1980s to present are considered better than the 1970s guitars. I'm not speaking as a professional, but as an industry hobbyist very familiar with about 10,000 guitar products. 146.149.18.6 18:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following comments might be of use.

From 1977 to 1981 I sold guitars at Manny's Musical instruments, 156 West 48th St, NYC. To my recollection, the issues with Fender quality had more to do with quality control and shipping than basic quality. Guitars were badly set up, if at all. I remember one day when we unboxed all the Super Reverb amps in the store (to my recollection three or four, brand new, previously un-opened) to find one which worked. None did. I'm sure the amps had at least been plugged in and made sound when they were put on a truck in California bound for New York. But they were shipped with tubes in place (hanging down) and minimal packing (some styrofoam in the corners). The hand wiring put a lot of stress on solder joints. Of course the amps shook themselves to bits over 3,000 miles, but the fixes were generally simple.

As for the Strats, it seems mean-spirited, in fact absurd, to suggest that Fender went from using four neck bolts to using three, or to the bullet truss rod, to save money. Both changes appear to have been bona-fide attempts to improve the product and these design changes required re-tooling, which is a significant business expense. The changes addressed flaws in the original design. A major problem with Strats had been that you had to unbolt the neck to adjust the truss rod and you could only change the angle of the neck by taking it fully off and putting in shims. The angle of the new three bolt neck could be changed with an Allen wrench. The bullet truss rod neck could be straightened with an Allen wrench from the headstock.

BTW - I bought a used 1974 Strat which came into the store as a trade in 1979 - three bolt neck, large headstock and bullet truss rod Couldn't give such things away at the time, but it's still going strong. I bought it because all the guys in the guitar department, including me, agreed that it had the best "out-of phase setting" of any Strat we had ever heard - and a lot of old and new Fenders came through that store. Henry Goldrich, the owner, used to set up Jimi's brand new guitars (and I'll bet they needed it). My '74's ash and maple woods weigh a ton - Fender certainly didn't cheap out by using lighter woods at the time!

I'm not sure a rivalry page would be that useful, but certainly a page covering electric guitar maintenance that incorporated issues like single-coil vs humbucker, solid-body vs semi-solid-body characteristics etc could be very useful.

I think some Informations on Fenders amps would shurely be nice on this page. It's not only the guitars Fender is famous for. --de:User:Wickler 11:22, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The Fender Amplifier History page has lots of good information but needs a more encyclopedic rewrite. It's puzzling that amplifiers such as the Champ, Twin Reverb, Deluxe etc don't have their own pages. Tremspeed 22:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the P-bass is a Fender-icon, but to me, a picture of a Stratocaster or a Telecaster would make more sense, since those electric guitars are the core of Fender's business and those are what the brand is most known for.

I agree with the amp-remark above. - FB

The Strat is the definitive icon, for sure, and is still usually the generic shape depicted in dictionary/encyclopaedia/manual entries re the electric guitar. The P-Bass used to be the definitive bass icon when electric solid-body basses were all generically referred to as Fender Basses, irrespective of brand. -NK

what about a picture of an Esquire, I really miss that one —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.84.142.167 (talk) 10:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guitars are great, but I think fender for automobiles must also have an article in here. I mean, a separate one. Cause it's odd that the site features lots of info about cars and car parts but one for fenders doesn't exist. -mech

No. Car fenders are completely irrelevant and should not be in the article about the Fender company. Rather, it is Wikipedia practice to start a whole new article on automobile fenders. Oh, and they did, at Fender_(automobile). Ariedartin JECJY ^Talk 09:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

this is the stupidest thing I`ve ever readLonepilgrim007 (talk) 05:53, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the early history section included with the entry on the Telecaster? This doesn't make sense. I've come here to learn about Fender and to send me to another entry to find that information doesn't make sense. GaTech-1101 06:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The "simple" :-) Western Electric circuits mentioned in the article were not "released to the public". These designs were carefully licensed by W/E until the expiration of their patents. Western Electric as well as RCA scrupulously pursued infringements on said patents during the era. Many early Fender amps explicitly carry the "Licensed by Western Electric" nomenclature on the chassis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CoolBlueGlow (talk • contribs) 13:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think "well-regarded" is a bit of an understatement, the JV's are as good as the pre-CBS guitars and basses. They used USA hardware and incrediable quality wood. A Squier JV is better than any modern Fender Custom Shop by far. http://www.squierjv.info/jvstratocaster.htm for more information

Please sign your posts on talk pages. Andrewa 17:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS whatever the collectors may think, from the point of view of a musician my 2005 MIJ Fender Bari is very, very nice indeed (see Fender Bass VI for a photo of it in its case). Andrewa 17:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"A Squier JV is better than any modern Fender Custom Shop by far."

Everyone's entitled to his/her opinion, but I think few would agree. For starters the Custom Shop uses far superior woods. Many JV's had basswood bodies. JV hardware, such as the pickups, while mainly American, weren't up to current standards. And those JV's produced for the Japanese domestic market were a real mixed bag. -NK

Current article reads In recent years, Fender Musical Instruments Corporation has branched out into making and selling acoustic guitars - Huh? In the 1970s I was playing in a band whose lead guitarist had a Fender for his acoustic guitar, a country-western style model. I don't know where it was made, possibly a cynical rebrand by CBS. So maybe they've only just started making acoustics, but Fender has been selling them for at least that long. Did the acoustics perhaps vanish from the catalog for a while? I'm even a bit skeptical even of this, they seemed to sell well in Australia, although I never figured out why, those I played over the years all seemed terrible value for the money to me, with mediocre actions and weak tone, unlike the superb Telecaster I played for a while in that band on which you really did get there faster.

Anyway, there's more to the story of Fender acoustic guitars than the article currently indicates. Andrewa 17:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

fender have made acoustics since late 1963. http://www.provide.net/~cfh/fender3.html#concert all the info is right here.

You can discuss this proposed merger here.

Both articles contain errors, and correcting long articles is a pain is the you know what. The main Fender entry is already long enough, IMO, and I think it would be better argued to break this up into more manageable chunks than further consolidation. Hyper-linking makes the modular approach the sensible option. Modern human beings also want their information in small, manageable chunks. Hierarchical modularisation that enables one to drill down to the specific information one wants is the key to good contemporary information design. -NK

Oppose - Fender Amplifier History is of course too informal and contains a lot of information already present in Fender, but they should not be merged. Fender Amplifier History focuses on the history of Fender amplifiers. The content in Fender Amplifier History should be added to Fender, but both articles are too distinct to be merged. Rather, it is better to create another page called Fender Amplifiers and merge Fender Amplifier History there. Ariedartin JECJY ^Talk 09:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we have a full listing of guitars but not even a heading for amps? I don't know shit about fender amps so I can't add the info myself, but someone should...

There is a great resource for Fender Amps at the Fender Amplifier Field Guide: http://www.ampwares.com/ffg/

Should this guitar be adde to the list of Fender guitars? Drogo 19:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not unless you have information on it, of course. Ariedartin JECJY ^Talk 09:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fender oddly enough also makes shoes in addition to guitars. we should add this somewhere

They make shirts and other miscellenous items too, but these are all boutique items and used for taking full advantage of the brand name. It's nothing odd, but I agree it should be added. Ariedartin JECJY ^Talk 09:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One thing i don't like about the list of guitars section is how the broadcaster and tele are listed under the same name. they're the same guitar! theres others thing that need to be changed in the list too.

Well, to jumpstart the articles on individual Fender amplifiers, I think we could definitely start with their flagship amplifier, the Cyber-Twin. It is probably one of the most well-known combo amplifiers, and it also has a lot of content to write on. Think about it. Ariedartin JECJY ^Talk 14:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How come there is no allusion to the champ/champ 12, etc. under the amps list?SHatch 23:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since its talked about in the article, I think I'm going to add it to the list if there's no objections SHatch 04:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Champ now has its own page.Izzy007 01:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

can somebody give this a seperate page a la the gibson article? --AlexOvShaolin 21:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Fender.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the sentence that begins

In recent years, Fender Musical Instruments Corporation has branched out into making and selling electric guitars,

can't be right. In recent years the compny branched out to make guitars? RUReady2Testify 00:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have corrected the sentence to: In recent years, Fender Musical Instruments Corporation has branched out into making and selling steel-string acoustic guitars, Izzy007 23:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I created the electric bass gallery. I think there should be a bass section. Shikyo3 01:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I misread the history. I thought somebody had deleted it. Oops. Shikyo3 01:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me like "fender" should redirect to the disambig page, not to here. The number of people looking for automotive fenders can't be insignificant. ASWilson 21:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 16:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone think that this would be a good idea? Maybe call it Fender Amplifiers (currently a redirect). Izzy007 Talk 21:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's with the giant infobox? Daniel Christensen (talk) 15:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article can be improved in many ways. The history given is sporadic and lacks reputable source material, which is the major killer. Simply going to the Fender website itself for a better take on the company's history would have helped this article stand better ground. It also needs to be mentioned that since 1991 the corporate headquarters moved from its Corona location to Scottsdale, Arizona. Currently, this is where "administration, marketing, advertising, sales and export operations" take place, not only for the United States operations, but many other countries as well. ^[1]

Calowe1 (talk) 02:27, 22 September 2014 (UTC)calowe1[reply]

... & neither did it contribute meaningfully to the apocryphal "poor quality" of the CBS-era instruments.

the problem with the CBS-era instruments was a much larger one of quality control & materials, & cannot be reduced to "they weren't as good"; many of these instruments are perfectly fine, but you may have to search harder for them because fender's quality control wasn't at its best after the 1965 transition.

but I digress. the three-bolt neck. have a look at this:

https://www.google.com/patents/US3550496

198.147.19.2 (talk) 06:58, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most obviously, this section seems to suggest that Fender stopped making amplifers in 1968.

While creating even an exhaustive list of amp models might be a thankless chore (considering how many short-lived and beginner-grade boxes they've made over the years), certainly it wouldn't be out of reach to list the major series, as catalogued by Blue Book.

One glaring oversight is lack of mention of acquiring Sunn Musical Equipment in 1985, relocating the factory from Tualatin to Lake Oswego (both in Oregon). Though FMIC shuttered the factory (and ended the Sunn line in 2002), there were a few Fender-branded solid-state amps built there; I'm aware of the Princeton Chorus, Ultimate Chorus and Ultra Chorus (the latter two may have been the same amp rebranded), and may include the Power Chorus. Early versions featured the red knobs that at the time had displeased amp fans; these amps are now hawked as "collectible" or even "rare" for no good reason.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 03:55, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section really is pointless, just a list which keeps on growing. Per the manual ... Consideration should be given to keeping embedded lists and tables as short as feasible for their purpose and scope: material within an embedded list should relate to the article topic without going into unnecessary detail. should this section be deleted ? Unibond (talk) 02:10, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd vote for deleting it until someone can at least offer a list from some respected critical source. I mean, when I think "Strat," it's easy to offer up Hendrix, Beck, Guy, Marvin, & a few others; it quickly runs down toward "was once seen touching a Strat," which is ludicrous. It is not WP's role to be a place for piling fanboy trivia.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 05:58, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as nobody has spoken up in defense, I killed the entire trivia pile. In any case, such fancruft is better served by a proper list, and here we already have List of Telecaster players, List of Stratocaster players, and List of Fender amplifier users; "known users" of anything more obscure ought properly be mentioned in the appropriate gear article, of course ONLY AFTER making mention (with strong referencing) in the individual's WP article.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 16:15, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The infodump list of guitars that begins this section is absurd. If it's allowed to exist at all, it belongs under the Electric Guitars subhead. But Products is presented as "currently available," and as such is schizoid, stuffed full of offtrack history and lists of models that have been out of production for a year or three.

Of course, the article make frequent use of outdated trivia, such as referring to the owners of FMIC "as of July 10, 2012," then dropping the thought entirely as though ownership in the intervening five years isn't worth noting.

And I cannot find where the article links at all to Fender amplifier, which is clearly where all the OR chaff in Products >> Amplifiers belongs.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 06:30, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the products have their own dedicated pages, no need for details here, I have been pruning but it keeps growing Unibond (talk) 12:56, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Literally, that is. There is a huge gap, 1950-1965, in the presented history. That contains the company's initial (years long) peak, and in many ways the all-time high point for the brand.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 05:25, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier this month, a portion of an old (1992) interview with Don Randall was published online. This ought to improve the "origin story" somewhat.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 16:26, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

how is this article not biased again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.115.25.33 (talk) 20:58, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? --Jayron32 21:05, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Should have checked here before making edits, but removed a lot of fluff. Also, article was still showing Los Angeles as HQ, but different section was showing Arizona. I removed conflicting info. Many of these sections have way more content than needed, so I trimmed a lot. ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sawitontwitter (talk • contribs) 18:11, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no S Valencia Drive in Fullerton, CA, only E and W. 2A01:599:744:6D53:89DD:45DC:AED9:9C45 (talk) 15:31, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I stopped by for a quick lookup as to what year FMIC opened its Ensenada (Mexico) factory, and found that it's not mentioned at all. As this factory produced Fender's Standard models (as opposed to both the American Standard models made 40 miles away, and the Squier models built overseas) since ca. 1990, this seems a particularly egregious oversight. 2001:48F8:3034:1DF5:D091:717D:64AA:E91E (talk) 19:07, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a quick start on putting it in. For what it's worth, some stuff was taken out in this edit described as "Tried to clean up a lot of the excessive info/marketing content." rbrwr^± 20:16, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There’s not one mention of Don Randall. He was president at one point and came up with the names for the guitars and amps. He was there from the beginning. DavidRavenMoon (talk) 20:25, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]