Floating trem or not?

The Shadows, their music, their members and Shadows-related activity by former members of this community

Floating trem or not?

Postby abstamaria » 11 Sep 2012, 16:27

Here's something sacrilegious.

The current wisdom and preference is to "float" the tremolo.  Hank's current setup i am almost sure follows this practice.

I have always wondered, however, whether in 1959 or even 1960, that trem bars were set that way.  Or did Fender deliver Strats in the early days with the trem blocks hard against the body?  Here is a quote on the restoration of Buddy Holly's 1958 Strat:

"In addition, popping the tremolo cover revealed five springs - a fact Page feels gives the guitar a better tone due to the plate lying flat against the body. “It would be fun to think that Buddy did this purposely because I understand he rarely used the tremolo arm, but it’s more likely that was the way the guitar came from Fender.” In the 50’s, the tremolo plate was often set up to lie flat - floating the tremolo was a practice that came later."

Were the early Shads pieces played with the trem flat against the body?  If Fender delivered the guitar that way, and since our hero had no experience yet with trem bars, woudn't he have played them that way?

Andy
User avatar
abstamaria
 
Posts: 1207
Joined: 18 Sep 2009, 03:27

Re: Floating trem or not?

Postby abstamaria » 11 Sep 2012, 16:37

Intrigued by this, I searched a bit more. Here is a quote from an article on vintage Strats:

"Original Stratocasters were shipped with five springs anchoring the bridge flat against the body. Players were able to remove the back plate covering the bridge, remove two of the springs and tighten the claw screws to allow the bridge to 'float,' with the pull of the strings in one direction countering the pull of the springs in the opposite direction. Once in the floating position, players can move the tremolo arm mounted on the bridge up or down to increase or decrease the pitch of the notes being played."

Andy
User avatar
abstamaria
 
Posts: 1207
Joined: 18 Sep 2009, 03:27

Re: Floating trem or not?

Postby ecca » 11 Sep 2012, 18:44

Andy, if this were the case then it would be immediately apparent upon listening.
A 'down only' trem sounds ghastly.
Also how would he have played the intro to Apache or Man of Mystery with a 'down only' trem ?
ecca
 

Re: Floating trem or not?

Postby Shadow Steve » 11 Sep 2012, 19:19

My strat copy has the trem panel flat with the body as this was how it arrived
I can (only) play Apache and this does not affect my playing, mostly I play with the arm removed
Maybe as I am new to guitars that is why my playing sounds as it does, my wifes says she has tears in her eyes when I play, is this a complement?

I am thinking about unscrewing the plate below and having a poke around inside, could I do some damage or will it just need a retune if I float the trem?
Prob seems an idiot question to the more knowledgable players here but I need to know before I cause any damage to my baby flender
Shadow Steve
 

Re: Floating trem or not?

Postby JimN » 11 Sep 2012, 19:30

The original "swing tag" owner's manual for the Stratocaster used to advise setting up the tremolo so that there was about 1/8th of an inch under the back edge of the bridge plate.

I don't know where the material above ("Original Stratocasters were shipped with five springs anchoring the bridge flat against the body. Players were able to...") came from, but I doubt that it was from Fender.

Why would Fender go to the trouble of designing a practical alternative to the Bigsby and then set it up with less than half the Bigsby's utility?

JN
User avatar
JimN
 
Posts: 4559
Joined: 17 Sep 2009, 23:39

Re: Floating trem or not?

Postby Pat Seaman » 11 Sep 2012, 19:47

As far as I can remember, my first Strat, which I bought in '62, came with a floating trem.

On reflection, it must have done, because I could play it straight out of the box and I wouldn't have had a clue how to adjust it in those days.

I never even heard of a Strat with the trem set flat during the early '60s.

I don't remember seeing any instructions from Fender or Selmer, who supplied it, either.

Pat.
Pat Seaman
 

Re: Floating trem or not?

Postby abstamaria » 11 Sep 2012, 19:54

No idea, Jim. I just came upon those two separate comments on the web. The fellow restoring Holly's Strat seemed petty authoritative. I wish I had saved the links. Was that tag from a 1950s guitar?

I'm not sure how the sound would be affected, as many players block the trem or snug it up. The added contact I thought would improve the sustain and tone.

Quite interesting topic.

Andy
User avatar
abstamaria
 
Posts: 1207
Joined: 18 Sep 2009, 03:27

Re: Floating trem or not?

Postby abstamaria » 11 Sep 2012, 20:11

Here's the article on the Holly guitar. It seems to be from Guitar Player:

http://www.buddyhollyandthecrickets.com/guitar.html
User avatar
abstamaria
 
Posts: 1207
Joined: 18 Sep 2009, 03:27

Re: Floating trem or not?

Postby donna plasky » 11 Sep 2012, 23:07

Shadow Steve wrote:My strat copy has the trem panel flat with the body as this was how it arrived
I can (only) play Apache and this does not affect my playing, mostly I play with the arm removed


Dear Steve: Since I am equally as new at guitar playing, I cannot give advice or share knowledge because I don't have any. :D
But I can say that when I bought my Squier Strat, the trem bridge was not floating, it was flat against the body. Being such an amateur, I did not notice, and in fact I didn't even know such a thing existed. Like you, I did not attach the trem arm for several months in the beginning...there was no reason to, since I had no idea what I was doing any way.

The folks on this site helped me realise that I needed to have the bridge floated...just like JimN described. My guitar sounded like what Ecca is saying, a "down only trem sound" which confused me to no end. I could do the "downward trem" in Wonderful Land but not the "upward trem" in Apache. I took the guitar to the place where I bought it and, since I paid for a maintenance plan, they floated the bridge for me at no charge. Afterwards I wondered why somebody would sell me a Strat and not ask me if I wanted the bridge to float or not...but it's fine now.

I guess this is a long, boring way of saying "Me, too." I always feel better when somebody says that to me, so I thought I would offer the sentiment to you. And I still don't always attach the trem arm. If I know I'm not going to use it, I don't attach it so that I save some wear-and-tear on the threads.

Good luck if you decide to float the bridge and/or have someone do it for you. Apache will sound a lot cooler if you can pull the trem arm up (outwards) in the intro and actually get that D note to rise up to E and drop back to D again. It's one of the few I know how to do!

Kind regards,
Donna
donna plasky
 

Re: Floating trem or not?

Postby geoff1711 » 11 Sep 2012, 23:17

My Strat trems are always hard down, for a number of reasons.

1) I always trem down, but bend up

2) Having that extra bit of tension helps bending, with a floating trem as you bend the trem comes forward meaning you have to bend the strings further, but more to the point flattening any other string which may still be ringing.

3) If you break a string the others stay in tune.

Oddly my Marvin I keep floating, but my other guitars all have upward and downward travel, but the pitch change is not as great as a Strat.

Geoff
geoff1711
 

Next

Return to The Main Board

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests

Ads by Google
These advertisements are selected and placed by Google to assist with the cost of site maintenance.
ShadowMusic is not responsible for the content of external advertisements.