Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Telecaster Discussion Forum' started by sergiomajluf, Apr 8, 2017.
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck...unless it isn't
If it's not branded by Fender, it's not a Telecaster. I might be a "telecaster-looking" guitar. FMIC owns the right to the name "Telecaster". Look at the (R) just after the name. There are international to follow here. And I would identify it as a "telecaster-looking" or a "T-style guitar"
If "they", and i suppose you mean Fender, put a Telecaster logo on an SG (wich is a Gibson guitar, but I don't know at the moment if Gibson has made a trademark from it) , I suppose that the marketing people at FMIC will come up with a very good explanation why they are changing the looks on one of their most famous products, and in the same moment explain why they bought Gibson. But, yes, FMIC can brand any of their products Telecaster, and we, the players, have to accept that. We might not like it, but still, accept it.
Body shape only. My homebrew CBG has all parts from a Tele except body, but i would never name this CGB a Tele.
Whilst I know that the name is a legal trademark, the identity goes beyond the name
Coca Cola could rename Coke as Fanta if they wanted, but it doesn't really answer the question 'what makes Coca Cola' to say 'whatever the company applies the trademark to is what gives the product its identity'. The identity and history of the product is not its name. If it had remained being called a Broadcaster it would still be the same question. The OP is not enquiring about intellectual property law, but the quintessence of the guitar. A decal is the last thing you can hear or feel when you play it
If Coca Cola buys FMIC tomorrow and uses the name for Coke, will you be posting tomorrow night that a Telecaster is a carbonated cola drink?
Really! It's the sound!
Pickups and the bridge with the pickup attached to a piece of steel.
The body shape is comfortable and beautiful.
Just the shape really. You can put the same kind of pickups and some of the hardware on a Flying V, and it still won't be a telecaster. Depends how much you can distort the shape and make it another model, then it's just opinion as to how much.
And if you put P-90s on it, it still won't be a Les Paul Special...
Since you can get the "telecaster"-sound from any luthier with some knowledge, and they all refer their products to t-style guitars, I still think that only FMIC can make a Telecaster. So what makes a twanging, single-coil sounding guitar? Some pieces of wood, a certain type of pickups, that steel bridge, a bolt on neck, string-thru-body. And your right, the decal is not a part of the sound.
Don't misunderstand me. I am big fan of Leo F and I'm very impressed over what he have done for modern music. Don't forget all the amps! But a Telecaster is a FMIC product. End of discussion.
Teles have very distinct body and headstock shapes. If the guitar in question doesn't have those then I hesitate to call it a Tele or a Tele-type of guitar. Probably more so for the body than the headstock, but they both are unique to the model.
Thank you for ending the discussion
If you really think the OP wanted as an answer 'telecaster is a trademark of fender and they can apply it to what they like' then you answered their question
You're the only person answering this who has interpreted the question in any such literal legal way, but I don't think you answered what the poster wanted to ask
No matter who makes it, if it reminds me of a Tele, I call it a Tele, none of this T-Type crap.
Some other brands have super horrible headstock shapes, and I tend to just ignore them.
I like G&L and Fender headstocks, and even the Ampeg Stud is OK by me.
"Those aren't stock strap buttons so THAT is not a Telecaster"!
"The neck pickup is reverse wound so THAT is not a Telecaster"!
"Those aren't stock strings so THAT is not a Telecaster"!
There are a lot of Dbags in the world I wouldn't have a beer with....
Having studied law at university and spent much of my career in court I can understand why, when duplicating an object well out of patent protection, vendors avoid trademark infringement
We all know a Tellykasta when we see one. Let the pedants have their dummy
What it says on the Headstock is what it is
I think a tele is a tele because of the original bridge, and pickup assembly. How they work, together.
Nik those components, it is no longer a tele regardless of what the headstock may say.
I do not, however, think six saddle bridges keep a tele from, errr,...being one.
What about this Bender Jellycaster (yes, it is real)?
Something obscene about that to my mind
For a time, Gibson tried to call them Les Pauls. Put the signature on the headstock & everything.
Hand a blind man a 'telecaster shaped' thingy with humbuckers he will let you know your mistake posthaste.
I stick to my definition.
I think Gibson had some trail on understanding with Lester himself and naming the early sg as a les paul was no more guilty than Apple calling a new iMac an iMac when they took out the crt screen
I understand when Lester asked for the name to be removed, they did. No one was being tricked in the purchase
Ps: my question was rhetorical, to illustrate the absurdity that the application of the trademark to anything would make its essence what we know to be a telecaster, not an allusion to Les Paul's putting his name on Gibson guitars
I understand what you're saying but I will let you be the one to put Keith Richards straight
If we need an answer in absolute terms than I don't see how it could be anything other than it legally says "Telecaster" on the headstock.
If we are willing to accept a more subjective answer than for me it would be that the profile of the guitar(including the headstock) does not stray too far from the design of the original.
I would still call a tele with humbuckers a tele.
I would call a tele with a belly cut a tele
Put a gibson style 3x3 headstock on a tele and I think it is now something else
Make radical changes to the body and it is something else
Put a bigsby on it, it is still a tele
Although I would not describe it this way I think you could just as easily make the argument that a tele is defined by it's relatively distinct sound.
It is way too subjective though.