Open Cola and Wikipedia

[rjgoos]

An idea....maybe a really bad idea...but an idea nonetheless...

Most of you have heard of open source/GNU/Linux, etc.

People are attempting to expand the open-source concept further, beyond just software. Open Cola and Wikipedia are probably the two most widely-known examples. Open Cola is (like Linux), an open-source project, involving the recipe for cola. Wikipedia is open source, licenced under the GNU document program, perhaps the biggest open-source project ever.

So....is the world ready for an open source tapping instrument? A set of plans for a generic tapping instrument is hatched, put out under the GNU document license, people can take them, use them, modify them, (even mass produce them) as long as their improvements are also published as open source. Or are there just too few people involved with this activity....not enough critical mass for it to work?

A good idea or bad idea?


Jay

[jamsire]

Hmmmmmmmmm...............

So, let's just say - OH YEAH!!!

:D

[James]

The main drawback I can see with physical objects such as musical instruments is that as soon as one design is realised, the plans for it will have changed elsewhere. You couldn't share and distribute it easily like a document or piece of software.

[BigDaddyPoo]

In GNU software there are "Official Releases" which the design has been tested and a committee or a single person, as the case may be, deems it official. An Open Tapper design could be done the same way:

1. A design is built by a person or a few people.
2. Flaws are are discovered and changed and/or new features are added.
3. An official design is released.
4. See step 1.

If someone wants to change something in the design, they are free to do so as long as they submit changes to the committee, do not produce the instrument for sale in either its original or slightly altered design, and accept the fact the the committe may like the design changes so much that they include them in the next official release of the design.

If this is done it is important that the design doesn't infringe on anyones patents or copywrites, especially any properties held by those Chapman Stick folks. They like to sue. Oops...I hope no lawyers are reading this.

[rjgoos]

Would it work something like this?

A group (3-4?) of experienced tap instrument builders first write and agree upon a specification.

Plans are kicked around between them. A first design is agreed upon.

Prototypes are built.

Improvements are incorporated.

A set of plans developed, perhaps as a beta version or as a 1.0 version.

The plans are made public, feedback for improvements are included, etc.



What I would personally like to see, is a set of plans that has detailed enough information, so that a person could go to a competent cabinet shop and say, "could you make me the following pieces", thus significantly reducing the number of power tools needed by the builder.


Jay

[Falstaff]

Check out "open design" in Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_design) and Google.

Cheers.

[Gustin]

Man, I think this is brilliant. I can't wait to see what comes from this.

[BigDaddyPoo]

Originally posted by rjgoos
What I would personally like to see, is a set of plans that has detailed enough information, so that a person could go to a competent cabinet shop and say, "could you make me the following pieces", thus significantly reducing the number of power tools needed by the builder.

That's something I was thinking about last night. If you listed a complete set of materials including dimensions / machining specifications for all woods and maybe suggestions for what type of woods to use where... then yeah what you said.

Also suggested hardware lists would be cool. Maybe broken down into high end, mid range and low end, so a builder could cut corners (cost) where they wanted to.

My suggestions (based mostly on the belief that the instrument sould be easy to build):
* 10 strings
* non-tapered neck
* bodyless like a chapman stick or stienberger, with the option of adding wings to the body if the builder wants to.
* non-angled headstock
* simple electronics: stereo passive, with maybe simple tone controls and no switching. This would cut down on complexity, expense, and the amount of space required for electronics cavities (important in a bodyless design).
* optional harnesses: either a lap bar for seated play, or a belt hook (best for bodyless designs) or strap system for standing.
* Another consideration

Kinda thinking ahead of myself here... The way some luthier forums have funded their endevors, which may work for this project, is sponsorship. Parts, tools, and woods are available through sponsors by direct link from the forum's web site. A percentage of the sales go to the forum. This could fund things like develpment costs, webhosting, and events ( NAMM, Luteirs Guild Shows, Etc. ).

[Gustin]

Would there be legal problems with the guys at Chapman Stick with copying a body-less design? It seems that creating a design with a body would allow for more creativity and make it easier to avoid any problems with copying their design.

[rjgoos]

One always should respect the intellectual property of others, Gustin. I don't think this would be a problem as a practical matter, as this would be just another part of the design specification.


Jay

[Rayzcane]

Here is a link to plans to build a lap-steel using a body-less design:

http://www.buildyourguitar.com/resources/lapsteel/

This is pretty much a S**ck with VERY high action.

Yep, that is a 2 x 4 slab of wood.

Les Paul called his first solid-body guitar the "Log". It was made using a 4 x 4.

Bottomline: You can probably buy a fairly good lap steel for less than you can make one. At about $155 USD for materials costs, plus your time and effort.... I once built a radio-controlled model airplane called the "Ugly Stick". It looked like crap but it hugged the sky like a champion. When you screwed up, just let go of the controls and it would "fly itself". I have a Chinese made Strat. It looks like a million dollars but it sounds like la poo-poo caca mucho. I would never wish to trade function vs. form.

I also explored the possibility of building a 10 or 12 string tapping instrument, like Brenda and RJGoos.... While I admit it is the ONLY way that you can get exactly what you want, a real luthier can make it pretty durn close for less money. I am not denigrating the concept of CUSTOM. The fact is that I would not mind having a 50's custom "flame", airbrushed, paint job on my axe. All instruments look the same in the dark. But, they don't all SOUND the same, do they?

I agree that the world is ready for plans for the many "do my own thing" folks. I would contribute my limited knowlege and resources to this project.

Ray

[traktor]

Originally posted by Gustin
Would there be legal problems with the guys at Chapman Stick with copying a body-less design? It seems that creating a design with a body would allow for more creativity and make it easier to avoid any problems with copying their design. Ten or fifteen years before Chapman designed his Chapman Stick, Dave Bunker had designed 'the board' which was a bodiless instrument. I'm sure that a number of others have existed.

The patents that Emmett originally filed on the instrument design have expired some years since, and now, in keeping with the agreement one makes with the Patent Office, in theory the design is freely available to all. That's what the patent law says, and that's the bargain you make when you patent something. Monopoly for X years, then free for anybody.

However, having no patent protection, Emmett now claims protection under trademark law. I don't know if this is legal or not -- to escape giving the design to the public under the alledged protection of some other law -- but if you read his trademark claims -- which seem reasonable in my opinion -- he claims, as best I recall, only three things:

1) The 'distinctive' silhouette.

2) The big round dots located at frets 2, 7, 12, 17, & 22.

3) The bevels on the rear of the neck.

Although the above is true to the best of my understanding and research, I offer this info not as any patent nor trademark expert, but just as food for thought.

However, on the general question of whether one can build a bodiless design, then I feel certain that you can do so.

But the next question is: Do you really want to do so? If you have a bodiless design, and you then cut holes out for the pickups, then you weaken the stiffness of the stick of wood. That makes it flex, and that means that tapped or plucked strings gain enharmonic vibrations. Some may think that sounds cool. Others feel that it doesn't sound so great. I think that experimentation will show anybody that there is a very noticeable difference in tone and sound between a bodiless and a bodiful design.

[BigDaddyPoo]

Originally posted by traktor
However, having no patent protection, Emmett now claims protection under trademark law. I don't know if this is legal or not...
This is absolutely legal. Fender uses similar trademark protection to keep people from reproducing thier headstock designs. This is why when you see a Strat knock -off they don't quite have the same headstock design.

On the bodyless design: Maybe contourless is more what I was meaning to say. More like a steinberger or to a lesser extent, angular like a Megatar.

I like this Idea. The more I think about it, the more I like it.

[rjgoos]

I think that some sort of a body is a given, especially if:

1. A strap support instead of a belt-hook support system is used.
2. Off-the-shelf pickups are used.

In the original Stick design, Mr. Chapman was able to get away with using a very minimal body by not needing a body for attaching straps to (the belt hook assembly attaches to the back of the neck, essentially), and by using a custom-made pickup assembly, specifically for the desired string spacing, etc.

If a strap support system and off-the-shelf pickups are used, some sort of a body is needed, it seems to me.

Just some random thoughts.


Jay