An acoustic guitar makes its sounds by the energy transferring from the strings, via the bridge* to the soundboard. The soundboard vibrates and that’s what you hear. The air in the acoustic box provides resonance, helping notes to stay at relatively clean peaks rather than rapidly diverging into lower-energy noise. So it is desirable, in an acoustic guitar, for the strings’ energy to transfer to the soundboard.
(OK, also a small amount via the nut and neck)
In contrast, an electric guitar makes its sound by the strings vibrating close to the magnets in the pickups. Therefore, you want the energy to stay in the strings rather than dissipating to other parts of the guitar. In an idealised electric guitar, no energy at all would be lost from the string to other parts of the guitar. You’d have the string vibrating between two rigid, massless points that could not absorb any energy. The note would sustain for the maximum possible time.
Any energy lost to a vibrating piece of bodywork is not detectable by a pickup. If an electric guitar must have a body, it would seem to me desirable that it not absorb sound very well. But it could never perform as well in this regard as no body at all. By this theory, tone woods used in an electric guitar’s body cannot improve the guitar’s tone. Instead, what they can do is impair the tone less. If there must be a body, the ideal material would perhaps be something that doesn’t absorb or radiate sound energy much.
Les Paul’s first electric guitar “The Log” was literally a 4 x 4 piece of pine. It had detachable “wings” that made it look and feel like a regular guitar.
Steinberger guitars, which were very popular in the 80s, were very close to what you describe. The had a minimal body, probably just enough to keep it from rotating in the player’s hands.
If an electric guitar has no body at all, or a minimal one, then the person playing it just looks like some dorky air guitarist instead of a cool musician. Cool wins out over sound any day.
OK, but does an electric guitar need a body to sound good, is the question. Others have mentioned the dork factor of bodyless guitars, but that’s probably just because we expect guitars to look a certain way. If you hang around on any guitar forum, you will see people earnestly discussing size, shape, composition, even the lacquer of electric guitar bodies, and how they affect the sound. That’s what I am asking about.
That’s because they are fetishists. I’ve heard of guitarists who insist on a particular brand of battery for their effects pedals, claiming that it is an essential element of their “tone”.
And how did they perform? While Googling in preparation for the OP, I came across a thread which claimed that Steinberger’s more rigid neck merely moved the “dead spots” (resonant areas) further up the neck of their bass guitars. Which nevertheless seems like a result to me.
Because without the body, you couldn’t call it an “axe”, which is way cooler than calling it a “stick”. “I’m shredding my stick”. See, doesn’t work at all, and “flogging my log” just sounds perverted.
A body can be useful for positioning your arm or fingers for certain styles of play. I’ve tried some of the neck-only or very small body guitars and they feel awkward without something to rest the heel of my palm or right arm on. Also they can keep the guitar oriented just so against your body when you play. That sort of consistency is pretty important. Also it helps balance the guitar on the strap, so you don’t have to hold the neck up with your left hand as you play it. And some guitar finishes are really beautiful, so why not?
But to answer the OP, it doesn’t need a body, strictly, to make sounds.
“Mechanically” nah - per the OP’s comments, no you only need the right components to make noise - they don’t have to be in Strat form.
But what makes a guitar a guitar? You gotta have swagger, comfort, a connection to your influences, etc. So you have the parts but they aren’t the whole
I am not one of the fetishists mentioned by gaffa, but I know a few.
The wood does something to the tone of a solid-body guitar. It’s hard to quantify, which is why guitar messages boards are full of religious arguments over wood, nut material, bridge material, coatings, everything. What I have noticed in the dozen or so Strats I have owned, and the scores more I have played, is that the heavier ones were bassier, and the lighter ones were more trebly. I have somewhat less experience with Telecasters, but the trend is similar.
The body and neck are part of the system that allows the vibrations of the strings, and they have an effect I can hear, and WordMan will tell you that I don’t have the ears of a tone freak.
I cannot for the life of me remember the name of those late 70s guitars which were just an aluminum rod with aluminum frets and that’s it. Looked kinda like a fish skeleton - does anyone else remember reading about them in Guitar Player magazine? Might have been a gitless or Gatlin, but neither of those turn up what I remember. I’ll keep thinking - gotta go get some work done.
I’ve got to say that I’m pretty sure part of your theory is wrong. I’ve got a telemaster style guitar. It’s got holes for both top-strung and through-body strung. According to your theory, if I string it across the top, where the strings do not go through the body at all, it should sustain longer than the other way, where the strings go through the body.
It’s very clearly the other way. Further, the Jazzmaster body on the guitar sustains for longer than the standard, less massive Telecaster body.
And remember, a lot of guitar playing is about breaking or distorting the sound in ways that may not appear electronically optimal… but distort in a pleasant way.
