Why is the strat bridge angled the way it is?

[Jet-Jaguar]

I always thought I'd eventually come across the answer, and I never have.  I'm putting a strat single into a Humbucker slot, and I'm considering ordering the pickguard with a reversed-angle bridge if there's a reason to.

I'd imagine it would make the high strings not so treblely? Any reason I'd want to avoid it? Any reason I'd want to keep it straight?

 

[Cagey]

All good questions I've never seen a suitable answer to, either.

After all these years, I'm beginning to think it was a stylistic move on Leo's part more than anything else. But, Leo was also known for his frugality, so he may have tilted the thing that way because he was able to get coil bobbins super-cheap if he could find a way to use parts that had that centerline dimension. So, he tilted the thing to make the pole pieces line up.

As far as tone, there isn't that much distance change to have much of an effect, so that doesn't make sense. So, style or expediency... what's left?

I think you'll find that a humbucker route is too narrow to mount a Strat-style single coil into without a bit of routing, regardless of the orientation you decide on. Not always, but often enough to piss you off. It's not much, though. If you're careful and patient, you may be able to get away with a bit of chiseling or a little drill press work.

 

[mayfly]

the telecaster pickup is tilted, so I think that Leo tilted the strat pickup to match.

Now... why is the tele pickup tilted?  was not for aesthetics (the pickup was covered with the ashtray).  So it was either tone or frugality.  I personally think in the case of the tele it was tone.

 

[NQbass7]

I'm pretty sure I heard somewhere that the Tele pickup was tilted for tone - more twang on the upper strings. That may have just been a rumor though.  :dontknow:

 

[swarfrat]

I also believe it's because they actually liked shrill I mean twang back then.

 

[Steve_Karl]

I'd always head rumor that the tilt was to get them under the harmonic points of the strings.
No credible source as far as I can remember.

 

[Cagey]

The harmonic point moves depending on where you're fretting, so that theory has never held water. Although, that's not to say Leo wasn't a victim of dogma as well. Although, in real life, there almost certainly wasn't any or as much dogma back then. After all, he was a pioneer. Nobody knew that Teles were ugly or sounded like an ice pick going through your ear.

I really think people read way too much into the whole thing. Leo wanted to make something cheap and playable that was able to be amplified for use with  larger audiences. I seriously doubt it went much beyond that. Trying to ascribe all kinds of ulterior motives and secret formulae and magical knowledge/genius is just silly. It wasn't until after he made his instruments available that the magic started happening. So, you end up with a chicken/egg controversy. Was Leo a visionary genius, or were those who used his output incredibly creative? Or neither? Or both?

 

[Rickgrxbass]

The harmonic point moves depending on where you're fretting, so that theory has never held water. Although, that's not to say Leo wasn't a victim of dogma as well. Although, in real life, there almost certainly wasn't any or as much dogma back then. After all, he was a pioneer. Nobody knew that Teles were ugly or sounded like an ice pick going through your ear.

I really think people read way too much into the whole thing. Leo wanted to make something cheap and playable that was able to be amplified for use with  larger audiences. I seriously doubt it went much beyond that. Trying to ascribe all kinds of ulterior motives and secret formulae and magical knowledge/genius is just silly. It wasn't until after he made his instruments available that the magic started happening. So, you end up with a chicken/egg controversy. Was Leo a visionary genius, or were those who used his output incredibly creative? Or neither? Or both?

I seem to remember, Leo wasn't much of a player himself, was he?

 

[Cagey]

I seem to remember, Leo wasn't much of a player himself, was he?

No, not much. Nor was he much of a mechanical engineer, which was reflected in most of his bridge designs.

Leo's gift was that he was an intelligent pragmatist. He knew what players needed/wanted and what was commercially practical, and his designs reflected that. He knew a straight path for the strings would allow them to stretch without hanging up as much as those bent around the nut on the headstock, and also that having all your tuners turn the same way and be in roughly the same place were good ideas, so that drove his headstock design. He knew players needed access to all the frets with their fingers as well as their eyes and that the instrument had to be well-balanced and comfortable either sitting or standing while playing, which drove the neck/body designs. He knew in order to appeal to a wider market he'd have to take cost out of production, which drove the modular construction. These were all practical considerations which have endured to this day. The Stratocaster/Telecaster designs are still the most popular and most copied guitar designs extant, and are the standard by which all others are judged. Only the Les Paul design comes close, but that's not due to any practical consideration. Their construction and pickup design made them sound unique and fit in well with changing musical tastes.

Everything else has been pretty much an also-ran.

 

[jackthehack]

Because Leo says so!

 

[ezas]

The answer I like is that way back when amplifiers were not very bright and  that is why the bridge is angled that way to help the guitar cut through a band.

 

[Jusatele]

Because it was designed that way.

 

[Jusatele]

Actually
not being a smart ass like my last post, but then who would recognize me?
Leo did have a reason for that tilt. I have read a lot about the history of Fender. they are a remarkable company and Leo really did revolutionize the world of music . With out the release of his parts guitar design we may nave never had rock and roll as we do today, he put electric guitars into the hands of the common man, you no longer had to buy a piece of art to play, could you imagine having to buy an archtop to get started?
Anyway when you read about Leo he was constantly experimenting to get sound the way he liked it and I have read he did the tilt to get some specific tone.
On a side not, Leo never like distortion and all his amps were always designed to be as clean of a tone as you could get. Now could you even imagine a Blackface that did not have one of the sweetest distortion on the market. One that you could identify in a dark room as a Fender blackface?
If you ever get a chance to tour the G&L factory they have kept Leo's office the way it was when he died as a tribute to the man. He was still experimenting with pickups and stuff till he passed away. his office is nothing but a lab of spare parts, tins of screws most guys would throw away and junk from decades of searching for that perfect tone. He was an amazing man.

here is a video of his "LAB" at G&L

 

[Rickgrxbass]

I suppose what is just as remarkable, then, is the persistence of Fender (as in FMIC) as the status quo when both Music Man and G&L are vastly superior in terms of build quality, design, and tone. (Trendy baked maple necks notwithstanding...) They're an evolution of Leo's designs, and yet we still tolerate the quirky outdated designs of decades past...

 

[Cagey]

... we still tolerate the quirky outdated designs of decades past...

What's this "we" stuff? You got a mouse in your pocket?

 

[stubhead]

We are in a period where the historical reenactment of 1955 - 1985 music exerts an extraordinary force on the market. Rockabilly is back! 60's jangly pop is back! fishnet-stockinged hair-metal bands are back! KISS is back! Relic'd guitars that trick fat old white men into thinking they're road-hardened black chitlin-circuit bluesmen are "in!"

If you really want your fashion statement to have that ooomph, you've got to accessorize, accessorize, accessorize.

 

[Rickgrxbass]

We are in a period where the historical reenactment of 1955 - 1985 music exerts an extraordinary force on the market. Rockabilly is back! 60's jangly pop is back! fishnet-stockinged hair-metal bands are back! KISS is back! Relic'd guitars that trick fat old white men into thinking they're road-hardened black chitlin-circuit bluesmen are "in!"

If you really want your fashion statement to have that ooomph, you've got to accessorize, accessorize, accessorize.

Tom Cruise is starring in a musical reenactment of 80's hair metal, so your argument is invalid  :icon_tongue:

 

[Jusatele]

We are in a period where the historical reenactment of 1955 - 1985 music exerts an extraordinary force on the market. Rockabilly is back! 60's jangly pop is back! fishnet-stockinged hair-metal bands are back! KISS is back! Relic'd guitars that trick fat old white men into thinking they're road-hardened black chitlin-circuit bluesmen are "in!"

If you really want your fashion statement to have that ooomph, you've got to accessorize, accessorize, accessorize.

you know Stub, that is the most relevant post I have seen you make.
But then styles have always gone in circles. And pop culture is all about the style of the moment.
I do listen to the music of the day, and hear bands like Sons of Mumford with the influences they have, ( Just to use one as an example, not the only band thought of ) and see that  lot of bands are reaching way back for inspiration. That to me is exciting as in the last 20 years all we have done was narrow down the styles we have into extremely thin formulas designed to sell the proven formula and make green. We have done this at the cost of innovation. With out fresh blood we can only grow old and die.
The new crop will open things up again.     

 

[mayfly]

Hey - some of us old crop are trying to open it up as well!