1
 
 
 
 
A GUIDE TO MUSICAL INSTRUMENT DESIGN 
 
FOR PRESCHOOL CHILDREN 
 
Derek Smith 
 
 
 
A Thesis 
Submitted to 
The Graduate Faculty of  
Auburn University 
In Partial Fulfillment of the 
Requirements for the 
Degree of 
Master of Industrial Design 
 
 
 
 
 
Auburn, Alabama 
August 8, 2005 
 
 2
 
 
A GUIDE TO MUSICAL INSTRUMENT DESIGN 
 
FOR PRESCHOOL CHILDREN 
 
 
 
Derek Scott Smith 
 
Permission is granted to Auburn University to make copies of this thesis at its discretion, 
upon request of individuals or institutions and at their expense.  The author reserves all 
publication rights. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
       ___________________________ 
      Signature of Author 
 
 
       ___________________________ 
    Date 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 3
 
 
 
 
VITA 
 
 Derek Scott Smith, son of Roy Wayne and Alison (Pearson) Smith, was born 
August 9, 1971, in Texas City, Texas.  He graduated from Grissom High School in June, 
1990.  He graduated from Middle Tennessee State University, with a Bachelor of Science 
in Recording Industry Management, in December, 1997.  In May, 2003 he began post-
baccalaureate studies in the Department of Industrial Design at Auburn University, and 
received a Bachelor of Science in Environmental Design in May, 2004.  Upon 
completion of this undergraduate work, he entered the Graduate School at Auburn 
University in Industrial Design.  He graduated with a Master of Industrial Design degree 
from the Auburn University Graduate School in August 2005.  He married Deanna 
(Sasnette) Smith on December 19, 1998.  Their daughter, Sophie Caroline Smith, was 
born August 29, 2003, in Montgomery, Alabama.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 4
 
 
 
THESIS ABSTRACT 
A GUIDE TO MUSICAL INSTRUMENT DESIGN 
 
FOR PRESCHOOL CHILDREN 
 
 
Derek Scott Smith 
Master of Industrial Design, August 8, 2005 
(B.S.E.D., Auburn University, 2004) 
(B.S., Middle Tennessee State University, 1997) 
 
 
 
125 Typed Pages 
 
Directed by Richard Britnell 
 
 
 
 In order to improve the ergonomic and aesthetic qualities of musical instruments, 
intended for preschool children, a guideline, which assists the designer in producing more 
age-appropriate products, has been be created.  Using a contemporary musical 
instrument, the dimensions, materials, form, scale, and weight of the child?s instrument 
have been determined through studies and comparisons of proportion, anthropometry, 
psychology, physiology, and existing products.  A step by step process is illustrated with 
a working model which seeks to attract and inspire the young user while making learning 
easier and less cumbersome.   
 
 
 5
 
 
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 
The author would like to thank Richard Britnell, Christopher Arnold, and Tsai Lu Liu, for 
their direction and assistance, in the creation of this thesis.  Thanks are also due to family 
members Deanna and Sophie, for their support during the completion of this study. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 6
 
 
Style manual used   APA Publication Manual, Fifth Edition 
Computer software used  Microsoft Word 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 7
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
 
1. THE PROBLEM????????????????????????? 1 
 1.1 Problem Statement????????????????????... 1 
1.2 Need for Study??????????????????????. 1 
1.3 Literature Review?????????????????????. 2 
1.4 Objective of Study?????????????????????8 
1.5 Definition of Terms????????????????????..9 
1.6 Assumptions???????????????????????. 12 
1.7 Scope and Limits?????????????????????..13 
1.8 Procedures and Methodology????????????????.. 14 
1.9 Anticipated Outcome????????????????????16 
2. RESEARCH PHASE???????????????????????. 18 
 2.1 Early Childhood Development????????????????.18 
2.11 Physical Attributes?????????????????. 18 
  2.12 Mental Attributes?????????????????... 20 
 2.2 The Product???????????????????????.. 22 
  2.21 Choosing an Instrument???????????????. 22 
  2.22 History of the Product???????????????? 25 
  2.23 Existing Products?????????????????... 28 
 2.3 Human Function?????????????????????... 31 
 8
   
 
  2.31 Anthropometry??????????????????... 31 
2.32 Ergonomics???????????????????? 40 
  2.33 Aesthetic Preference????????????????.. 46 
 2.4 Technical Function????????????????????... 49 
  2.41 Interaction Matrix?????????????????.. 49 
  2.42 Interaction Table?????????????????? 49 
  2.43 Compatibility???????????????????. 52  
3. DEVELOPMENT PHASE????????????????????? 54 
 3.1 Performance Criteria???????????????????? 54 
 3.2 Brainstorming??????????????????????.. 56 
 3.3 Idea Sketches??????????????????????... 57  
3.4 Concept Sketches?????????????????????. 59 
3.5 Trials?????????????????????????? 60 
3.6 Final Concept??????????????????????... 66 
  3.61 Materials????????????????????? 66 
  3.62 Aesthetics????????????????????... 66 
  3.63 Technical Function?????????????????. 69 
  3.64 Dimensions???????????????????? 71 
3.7 Computer Models?????????????????????. 73 
 3.8 Control Drawings?????????????????????. 76 
3.9 Final Model???????????????????????.. 79 
 9
  
 
 3.91 Building?????????????????????..79 
 3.92 Finishing????????????????????? 93 
 3.93 Completed Product?????????????????.96 
3.10 Flow Chart???????????????????????..100 
3.11 Sequence of Use Chart??????????????????... 101 
4. COMMUNICATION PHASE???????????????????... 103 
 4.1 Production Function????????????????????. 103 
4.11 Manufacturing??????????????????? 103 
  4.12 Graphics?????????????????????. 104 
  4.13 Packaging????????????????????... 105 
 4.2 Marketing????????????????????????. 105 
 4.3 Pricing?????????????????????????...106 
5. CONCLUSION?????????????????????????..107 
6. REFERENCES?????????????????????????...109 
 
 10
 
 
LIST OF FIGURES 
 
1.01 Anatomy of the guitar??????????????????????.11 
 
2.01 History of the guitar???????????????????????27 
2.02 Product comparison chart of various musical instrument groups?????. 29 
2.03 Product comparison chart of guitars for children???????????...30 
2.04 Child anthropometric data pertaining to guitar design?????????...33 
2.05 Adult anthropometric data pertaining to guitar design?????????...34 
2.06 Contemporary full-scale guitar dimensions??????????????35 
2.07 Methodology and formula used in the proportions chart?????????36 
 
2.08 Proportions Chart for hand length, hand width and arm length??????. 37 
 
2.09 Proportions Chart for index finger, middle finger, and grip diameter????38 
 
2.10 Proportions Chart for convenient reach???????????????..39 
 
2.11 Ergonomic issues affecting the seated player?????????????.41 
     
2.12 Ergonomic issues affecting the standing player????????????.41 
2.13 Bodily dimensions correlating to ergonomics of the seated player?????42 
2.14 Bodily dimensions correlating to ergonomics of the standing player???? 43 
2.15 Formula for determining an ergonomic lower curve radius???????...44 
2.16 Ergonomic considerations chart??????????????????. 45 
2.17 Interaction Matrix of the electric guitar???????????????..50 
 11
 
 
2.18 Interaction Table of the electric guitar????????????????51 
2.19 Existing product compatibility chart????????????????...53 
 
3.01 Performance Criteria??????????????????????...55 
3.02 Brainstorming sketch for function and design?????????????56 
3.03 Idea sketches for body shapes??????????????????? 57 
3.04 Idea sketches for body shapes??????????????????? 58 
3.05 Sketches exploring final concept body design????????????... 59 
3.06 Rhinoceros 3.0 model used to create bread board model necks?????? 60 
3.07 Three scale lengths for bread board models?????????????...61 
3.08 Three model body sizes chosen from research????????????...62 
3.09 Multi Density Fiberboard test models????????????????64 
3.10 Multi Density Fiberboard test models????????????????64 
3.11 Photographs taken during sizing test at Early Learning Center??????. 65 
3.12 Approved color schemes based on child preference research???????67 
3.13 Components found within the body of the final model?????????..70 
3.14 Design Considerations Chart for determining final dimensions?????? 71 
3.15 Final Dimension recommendations?????????????????72 
3.16 Rhinoceros 3.0 models rendered with Flamingo 1.0??????????..73 
3.17 Rhinoceros 3.0 models rendered with Flamingo 1.0??????????. 74 
3.18 Rhinoceros 3.0 models rendered with Flamingo 1.0??????????. 75 
 12
 
 
3.19 Control drawings of mother of pearl inlays?????????????... 76 
3.20 Control drawings for guitar dimensions??????????????? 77 
3.21 Control drawing for dye colors to be applied to maple tops?????.......... 78 
3.22 Rhinoceros 3.0 file used to route the neck and body of the final model???79 
3.23 Alder and maple block being formed by the CNC Router????................. 80 
3.24 Alder and maple block being formed by the CNC Router????????. 80 
3.25 Alder and maple block being formed by the CNC Router????????. 81 
3.26 Alder and maple block being formed by the CNC Router????????. 81 
3.27 Rhinoceros 3.0 file of bridge and fingerboard used on a laser cutter???? 82 
3.28 Rhinoceros 3.0 file used for the rear sections maple tops????????..82 
3.29 Rhinoceros 3.0 file used for the forward sections maple tops???????83 
3.30 The headstock following CNC routing???????????????.. 83 
3.31 The headstock after being hand shaped into its final form???????? 84 
3.32 Routing down the top of the body to accommodate the maple tops????.. 85 
3.33 The body routed down one quarter of an inch????????????... 85 
3.34 Preparing to cut the speaker hole by creating access holes for the jig saw??86 
3.35 The completed speaker hole???????????????????... 86 
3.36 The forward section of the front maple top being glued onto the body???. 87 
3.37 Cavities created to contain electronic components??????????? 88 
3.38 Routed half inch slot and carbon fiber truss rod???????????? 89 
3.39 The truss rod after being set into its slot, prior to gluing????????... 89 
 13
 
 
3.40 Gluing the carbon fiber truss rod into its slot with wood glue??????... 90 
3.41 Hole to allow sound from the speaker through the grill????????? 91 
3.42 Headstock with machine head holes????????????????...92 
3.43 Guitar body following sanding the first aniline dye application??????94 
3.44 Guitar body following the second aniline dye application????????.95 
3.45 Front view of final model????????????????????...96 
3.46 Back view of final model????????????????????... 97 
3.47 Mirror view of final model????????????????????.98 
3.48 Detailed view of final model body?????????????????. 99 
3.49 Flow chart of technical events during operation????????????100 
3.50 Steps one through six of the sequence of use?????????????.101 
3.51 Steps seven through twelve of the sequence of use???????????102 
 
4.01 Logo design for Progeny Guitars??????????????? 
 
 14
1. THE PROBLEM 
 
1.1 Problem Statement 
 A guideline which provides designers and luthiers instruction for the design of 
musical instruments, that are better suited for young children.  A step by step process will 
be established, that takes into account ergonomics, anthropometrics, aesthetics, 
physiology, and psychological characteristics of the user, will then be illustrated by the 
design of a working musical instrument.  By researching historical and contemporary 
practices in early childhood music education, to determine how success has been 
achieved, this thesis will discover the form of a musical instrument that bests inspires, 
intrigues, and fits the young user.  
 
1.2 Need for Study 
 Justification for this thesis exists in that there is currently no contemporary guide 
to designing early childhood instruments and today?s mass produced musical instruments 
intended for children are either toys or are merely scaled down versions of adult 
instruments, which do not take into consideration the vast physical and mental 
differences between adults and children.  By researching the many aspects of children?s 
abilities and limitations, this thesis will attempt to discover what dimensions and 
proportions the correctly designed instrument will possess and therefore seek to improve 
the quality of the child?s musical experience. 
 The benefits of this study will be that children who interact with better designed 
instruments will be more excited and willing to play them due to improved ergonomics 
 15
and a design that will make them feel the instrument is made just for them.  In addition, 
parents will be encouraged to purchase a product that might ignite a passion for music 
and foster musical accomplishment at a time earlier in the child?s life, than is typical in 
our modern society.  It has been clinically proven that children that learn to play musical 
instruments are better at math and verbal skills and therefore it can be assumed that any 
step taken to improve the human experience in regard to musical instrumentation will 
assist the user in advancing his or her general scholastic abilities. 
 
1.3 Literature Review 
 This literature review provides information, in the form of statistical data and 
quotes, which supports a need for study in the design of musical instruments intended for 
preschool children.  The goal of this review is to identify the many benefits of beginning 
music education at a younger age, highlight typical preschool musical ability, support the 
claim that there is a lack of research on preschool musical instrument design, discuss the 
marketing potential of musical instrument design, and to ultimately validate the creation 
of a guideline for designers and companies intent on producing instruments for young 
children.   
 To begin, one must understand why parents and guardians, charged with the 
responsibility of developing young minds, would want to provide their children with 
musical education.  These facts, provided below, are one of the driving forces behind the 
creation of instruments targeted for children.  A designer who produces these products 
serves the parent well by fulfilling the material need of the music student. 
 16
 The benefits of learning to play music are numerous.  They include creating a 
strong foundation and overall improvement of one?s role in society.  According to the 
Texas Commission on Drug and Alcohol Abuse Report, ?Secondary students who 
participated in band or orchestra reported the lowest lifetime and current use of all 
substances (Houston Chronicle, January 1998).  A study at Auburn University showed 
?significant increases in overall self-concept of at-risk children participating in an arts 
program that included music? (Barry, 1992).  Other studies demonstrate the benefits 
music education has on improving skills, which lead to success in school.  Of 237 second 
grade children, which were provided piano keyboard training coupled with newly 
designed math software, 27% higher test scores on proportional math and fractions where 
achieved, over those that where exposed solely to the math software alone (Graziano, 
Peterson, & Shaw, 1999).  The College Entrance Examination Board found that students 
who studied music appreciation scored 63 points higher on verbal and 44 points higher on 
the math, than did students with no music education. (College Entrance Examination 
Board, 2001).     Physician and biologist Lewis Thomas in researching the undergraduate 
majors of students applying to medical school discovered that ?66% of music majors who 
applied to medical school were admitted, the highest percentage of any group. 44% of 
biochemistry majors were admitted.? (Miller, 1994).  The correlation between success 
and music education is evident in the Silicon Valley, where our most talented engineers 
and designers ?are, nearly without exception, practicing musicians? (Venerable, 1989). 
 Intelligence is increased through music education according to researchers who 
found that ?children given piano lessons significantly improved in their spatial- temporal 
IQ scores compared to children who received computer lessons, casual singing, or no 
 17
lessons? (Rauscher, Shaw, Levine, Wright, Dennis, & Newcomb, 1997).  The Journal of 
Research in Music Education reports that three- and four-year-olds given lessons with 
song bells ?led to significant improvement of spatial-temporal scores? (Gromko, & 
Poorman, 1998). 
 If music education is beneficial, one must decide when it is appropriate to 
introduce it to children.  Roberta Markel argues that children lack ?enough self-discipline 
before the age of eight years to make formal study of an instrument a particularly 
satisfactory experience,? yet proceeds later in pointing out how Shinichi Suzuki ?taught 
three-, four-, and five-year-olds by asking them to imitate? (Markel, 1983).  This 
illustrates the fact that teaching children to play instruments at a young age will not 
usually yield the same results as with older children.  Instrument instruction for 
preschoolers ?should stress the development of accurate performing gestures and the 
playing of simple nursery rhyme tunes by ear? (Zimmerman, 1971).  Children have the 
mental capacity to learn to play instruments, in fact in general ?psychologists today 
generally agree that all children are capable and often desirous of learning much more, 
much sooner, than has previously been thought possible? (Webber, 1979).  Because 
?about 17% of the growth takes place between the ages of four and six,? what children 
learn during their preschool years can have ?far-reaching consequences on the child?s 
learning pattern? (Webber, 1979).  A study published in Musical Characteristics of 
Children reports that half of 441 cases reported show that ?musical aptitude manifested 
itself between the ages of two and four? (Zimmerman, 1971). 
 Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart began composing minuets at the age of five and is the 
classic example of the child music prodigy (Landon, 2005).  G. Revesz writes about 
 18
prodigy Erwin Nviregvhazi who?s father discovered that his three-year-old son ?had a 
sense of absolute pitch? and could ?locate on the piano notes that were sung to him? 
(Revesz, 1925).  Although these two men illustrate the extreme ability of young 
musicians, numerous other contemporary success stories have been recorded.  G.E. 
Smith, former guitarist of the popular television program, Saturday Night Live, claims to 
have started playing at the age of four (G.E. Smith, n.d./2005) and Elektra recording artist 
John Campbell says that when he was almost three he began playing  the Hawaiian lap 
steel (John Campbell, 1991).  In fact, a slew of musicians can be found online making 
similar claims about beginning their musical experience between the ages of three and 
six. 
 Perhaps the most successful and well known institution providing music 
education to young children is the Suzuki Music Academy who claims that ?for more 
than fifteen years? to have ?provided superior formal classical music training for 
children, from age 2 - offering formal training in Suzuki violin, Suzuki viola, Suzuki 
cello, and Suzuki piano? (America?s Suzuki Music Academy, n.d./2005).  In stating why 
young children should begin the Suzuki program, Elizabeth Mills writes that ?before they 
are eight, children have more time for music,? and ?the study of music after age seven is 
apt to become more intellectual and mechanical.?  She goes on to add that, by age two, a 
child has tremendous power to observe and imitate and that ?although it has limited 
judgment about what to imitate, it will repeat whatever it hears? (Mills, 1974).  In "Teach 
Your Kids About Music", Ruby Chroninger reflects on experiences teaching music to her 
three- and five-year-old children by saying, ?it was a joy to see how easily the children 
grasped musical concepts? (Chroninger, 1994). 
 19
 Parents who believe that musical education may increases their child?s potential 
to succeed should take it upon themselves to pursue the purchase of musical instruments 
and play a major role in their child?s learning process.  Although school initiates the 
musical education process for children 64% of the time (G. Leblanc Corporation, 1961), 
parents cannot depend upon the education system to always take an interest in their 
child?s musical development.  ?Sadly, it is fashionable in most Western cultures to pay 
tribute to the musically elite minority who are tagged early on as ?talented? and then 
tracked and provided with the training that others cannot have? (Campbell, 1998).   
 Another reason for providing the commercial market with instruments aimed at 
children is that they truly enjoy interacting with these products.  Designers and 
companies can rest easy knowing that their products are absolutely desired by the group 
they are targeting. Patricia Shehan Campbell observes that young children are ?eager to 
get their hands on the instruments they see sitting in corners or lined up on tables and 
shelves? (Campbell, 1998).  The Pillsbury Foundation School reported in a 1940 study 
that ?four-year-olds enjoyed experimenting with notes on a piano? (Haroutounian, 2002).  
Children are fascinated with the ?diverse sounds? that musical instruments create and 
want to be given the chance to create them themselves (Chroninger, 1994).  Elizabeth 
Jones of the National Association for the Education of Young Children, in researching 
preschool music education, reflects upon this classroom experience: 
 A teacher put a Ukulele, a basket of tea balls?a variety of rattly things ?   
 acorns, jacks, rocks, toothpaste caps, balls ? inside, to look at and listen to,  
 and five big red temple blocks, with their wooden mallets, on the rug in   
 one corner of the big room.  Lauri promptly took the Ukulele to the   
 20
 housekeeping corner, and it was passed around from three-year-old to   
 three-year-old as the morning went on (Jones, 1969). 
 
 Young children have physical constraints when compared to adults and therefore 
questions arise regarding their ability to play musical instruments.  Though they have 
smaller features and different proportions, young children have, for centuries, learned to 
play music.  There are many products on the market today which are reduced versions of 
full size instruments because ?there is an idea that small people need small instruments? 
(Young, 2003).  Perhaps this is true, but without a thorough evaluation of child human 
factors including physiology, anthropometry, and ergonomics no one can be sure that 
simply reducing scale is the best option.  Products like the Gibson Les Paul Pee Wee 
guitar use traditional hardware and strings.  They suggest tuning the strings full one and 
one half steps higher to accommodate the shorter neck.  Other options should be explored 
in order to accommodate the young user and allow him or her to play in the same key as 
the adult musician.  As Mills states in her book ?In The Suzuki Style,?  her book ?In The 
Suzuki Style,? even a talented child guitarist will have problems with tuning standard 
guitar pegs before age nine or ten (Mills, 1974).  Still another weakness in small 
instruments is that their sound tends to ?be limited to higher pitches and low resonance? 
(Young, 2003).  These types of issues make a strong case for the re-evaluation and 
improvement of instruments intended for young children. 
 There exist numerous books on how to build musical instruments with dozens 
focusing on stringed instruments.  However, there is no definitive authority or text which 
explores and defines how musical instruments for children should be designed.  For this 
 21
reason, a guideline created solely to address this issue, can stand alone as a resource for 
future luthiers and designers to reference. 
 Finally, financial gain, the reason that most companies have for making 
instruments, should be addressed.  According to a July 2003 press release from the 
National Association of Music Merchandisers, a recent Gallop poll was cited claiming 
that ?54% of Amercian households contain at least one person who plays a musical 
instrument, an increase from 50% in the 2000 Gallup poll? (Robertson, July 18, 2003).  
The release continues this time quoting Music USA by adding that year 2002 sales of 
musical products increased by 1.5 percent to $6.97 billion.  When compared to similar 
industries musical instruments are doing well and should remain attractive to any 
potential manufacturer.  The Recording Industry Association of America found that 
music sales generated $11.2 billion in 2003 (Korzeniowski, July 7, 2004) and according 
to marketing information provide, NPD Group, 2004 United States sales of video games, 
software, and hardware, produced sales of $9.9 billion. 
 
1.4 Objective of Study 
 The study to be conducted will seek to identify the necessary physical 
considerations in creating musical instruments for children between the age of three and 
five.  The guidelines will be designed so that they may be incorporated into traditional 
music design practices, such as a piano maker would perform in the construction of a 
child?s keyboard by replacing established dimensions such as key size and spacing.  In 
addition, the typical mental ability of the young student will be researched in order to 
match the instrument to the child.  The steps need to achieve this thesis are as follows: 
 22
 
1. Research contemporary musical instrument products aimed at children. 
2. Identify the mental abilities and limitations of children age three to five. 
3. Identify the physical abilities and limitations of children age three to five. 
4. Identify the anthropometric variables of children age three to five. 
5. Identify the ratio of full scale instrument to their intended adult users.  
6. Use the ratio of full scale instruments and adults to determine what the size and 
proportion a child?s musical instrument should be. 
7. Research aesthetics in children?s products and determine what inspires them to 
interact with a favorite product. 
8. Design a working musical instrument based on the findings of the thesis. 
 
1.5 Definition of Terms 
Design - the arrangement of elements, aesthetics, and function in a product or artifact 
Anthropometry ? the study of the measurement of man 
Ergonomics ? fitting a product correctly to the user 
Physiology ? the study of the functions, activities, and bodily processes of life  
Psychology ? the science of mind and behavior 
Aesthetics ? the beauty or pleasing appearance of an object 
Preschool ? the age of a child between the years of three and six 
Instrument ? a device used to produce music 
Luthier ? a person that creates stringed instruments such as guitars or violins 
Guitar ? a fretted musical instrument usually possessing six strings 
 23
Tempered ? fixed tone instruments like pianos and guitars 
Plectrum ? an instrument played by plucking strings with a pick or fingers 
Pick - a small thin object used to pluck the strings of a stringed instrument 
Neck ? the long part of a stringed instrument which houses the fingerboard 
Headstock ? the part of a stringed instrument which houses the tuning machines 
Fingerboard ? the flat area of wood laminated to the neck above which the strings run 
Bridge ? a device resting on the body which holds the lower end of the strings 
Strings ? thin metal or nylon wire used to produce sound on an instrument 
Body ? the main part of a stringed instrument which is used to amplify sound and tone 
Body Blank ? a solid piece of tone wood sold for the purpose of creating a body 
Neck Blank ? a solid piece of tone wood sold for the purpose of creating a neck 
Truss Rod ? an adjustable metal rod running through the inside of the neck 
Tuning machines ?machine heads, tuners; rest on the headstock and adjust the strings 
Pickup ? device resting on the body that converts string vibration into electronic signals 
Pickup Selector ? a switch which lets the player choose between two or more pickups 
Pick Guard ? a thin plastic or laminate material on the body which protects the surface 
Nut ? material that braces the strings at the joint where the headstock meets the fretboard 
Positioning Markers ? inlays; various shapes often ornate that mark specific fret positions  
Jack Socket ?? inch phone jack socket used to connect an amplifier chord to the guitar 
Control Knob ?rotating knobs used to adjust variances in volume and tone 
Binding ? wood or polymer strips placed on the body and neck where two materials meet 
Fretwire ? spools of metal strips used to create frets on the fingerboard 
Tone Wood ?woods such as alder, mahogany, or maple preferred in luthier design 
 24
Scale Length ? the total string length from nut to bridge 
Nut Width ? the width of the nut, usually extending 1/8 inch beyond the outside strings 
Fret Distance ? the spacing between each fret set at a specific mathematical ratio 
Fret Constant ? mathematical constant (17.817) used in determining fret distance  
Action - The height of the strings above the fingerboard 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 1.01 Anatomy of the guitar. 
1.6 Assumptions 
 In creating this thesis, it can be assumed that certain constants exist which do not 
require any level of testing to insure the proof of their existence and that some amount of 
information will be provided based solely on the author?s philosophy, education, and 
personal social perspective.  The intention of this undertaking is to create an original 
 25
thesis supported by tangible research.  However, it is assumed that all intelligent, 
educated individuals should possess a certain level of understanding regarding their 
chosen curriculum, and in choosing a particular thesis subject, they probably already 
possess knowledge regarding that topic as well.  With that said, the following 
assumptions are made regarding the inception and execution of this proposed thesis. 
1. Improvements can be made in the practice of designing musical instruments for 
children 
2. Children enjoy interacting with musical instruments 
3. Most parents would be pleased to see their young children learning to play an 
instrument 
4. It is the designers duty to improve the ergonomic properties of a product specific 
to a group of individuals 
5.  Anytime a niche is created within a product category, market potential is 
increased 
6. Musical accomplishment increases a child?s intelligence and ability to learn 
complex concepts in math and language  
7.  Musical instrument products are one of the oldest and most successful 
components of the consumer market 
 
1.7 Scope and Limits 
 Restrictions, which impede the author?s ability to perform certain forms of 
research, exist and should be defined.  These limitations may affect the outcome of the 
thesis by preventing the author from conducting research beyond the average person?s 
 26
economic, temporal, and social abilities.  In light of these circumstances, the thesis may 
still be written effectively.  And, in order to illustrate the author?s intentions and make 
clear why certain information will not be included, the anticipated scope and limitations 
are defined below. 
Scope 
 The thesis will be conducted over eight months, taking place from January 2005 
to July 2005.  The research will extend to most accessible forms of text, as well as 
interviews conducted with key professionals.  During this eight-month period, a project 
will be undertaken which illustrates how a designer would follow the guidelines to create 
a product. 
Limits 
 Due to time constraints, involved in all academic endeavors, limitations will be 
set on how long the author will have to conduct research and interviews.  During the 
writing process, any free text-based resources may be accessed.  However, it can be 
assumed that books, which cannot be found locally or online, may not be available to the 
author.  Also, the author will not purchase books that cost in excess of $75, in order to 
obtain research.  Other economic limits may exist in regard to the purchase of equipment 
and services, which may be required to conduct research.  Interviews may be conducted 
through online surveys, telephone conversations, and U.S. mail.  Although these forms of 
interview are inexpensive, economic restrictions will prevent the author from contacting a 
certain number of prospective respondents.  In regard to interviews it must be considered 
 27
that not every candidate will be willing or available to participate and that some 
information may be excluded due to their lack of involvement.            
 
1.8 Procedures and Methodology 
 In order to draw enough information to either prove or discount this thesis, a 
considerable amount of information must be obtained and analyzed.  The necessary 
procedures, and their respective methodology, are detailed below.  This information can 
then be used in the re-design of any musical instrument intended to fit preschool children. 
 Procedures 
 The subject matter should be approached as one would the design of an 
instruction manual.  The instructions, in this case, lay out a clear guideline for the 
designer to follow when creating a music instrument?s dimensions.  The list of steps will 
include the how, where, when, what, and why of instrument design.  The data that must 
be compiled will be gathered from books, web pages, periodicals, and interviews with 
parents or educators that have experience in purchasing instruments or teaching music to 
preschoolers.  
1. Interviews  
2. Anthropometric data for children ages three to five 
3. Selection of interview respondents 
4. Research existing products 
5. Research marketing strategies for children?s toys and instruments 
 28
6. Research aesthetics in children?s products in relation to their psychological 
profiles 
7. Research early childhood development regarding psychological and physical 
abilities 
8. Research historical and contemporary childhood music education practices 
9. Fitting tests to determine correct instrument dimensions 
10. Illustrate guideline with working model 
 Methodology 
 The following list explains how each procedure will be enacted in order for the 
data to be compiled. 
1. Interviews will be conducted in person if possible or by mail and a website.  
They will consist of 10-15 questions which ask specific questions regarding 
their experiences with music education in relation to instruments. 
2. Data regarding anthropometry will be gathered through books, software, and 
websites. 
3. Interview respondents will be sought out through friends, colleagues, 
educational institutions, daycares, and via the internet. 
4. By searching online and in periodicals, a list of currently offered products 
targeted at preschool children will be analyzed, categorized, and compared for 
their intent and value of music education. 
5. Marketing strategies of current products will be examined to determine when 
where and to what demographic current products are marketed. 
 29
6. By reading books and websites pertaining to early childhood development, a 
clear understanding of what attracts children to their favorite products and 
what, in their minds, separates a toy from a useful product 
7. Books, articles, interviews and websites will provide the necessary 
information pertaining to early childhood development 
8. Research on music education will be found in books, websites and periodicals 
9. Fitting tests will be conducted by creating breadboard models and observing 
them being used by preschool children 
10. Thesis will be illustrated through the design and creation of a working musical 
instrument 
 
1.9 Anticipated Outcome 
 The anticipated outcome of this thesis is that designers may access the 
information provided and use it to create tempered musical instruments that are more 
ergonomic and better fit the anthropometrics and proportions of preschool children.  By 
following the guidelines, designers will know what dimensions a neck or keyboard 
should be in and be able to proceed with the design knowing that their product will be 
correctly suited for a child between the ages of three and five.  An additional anticipation 
is that a greater interest and understanding of the importance of introducing young 
children to real musical instruments will be instilled in the minds of the reader.  Perhaps, 
as a new line of children?s instruments begin to emerge, parents and the educational 
community will begin to embrace the idea of teaching children how to play music at a 
younger age.  The aesthetic qualities of an instrument designed to attract young children 
 30
will foster increased desire among children to receive the product as a gift.  And, children 
that are currently learning to play and are provided with a better designed instrument will 
benefit through reduction in discomfort or inconvenience. 
 
 31
 
 
2. RESEARCH PHASE 
 
2.1 Early Childhood Development 
2.11 Physical Attributes 
 In order to correctly design a product intended for a specific group of children, a 
look at what physical attributes they possess is needed to insure that the requirements 
necessary to operate the product are not beyond the users physical capacity.  Both 
abilities and constraints are important to the study because if the product is intended to fit 
the user?s physical facilities, a product that is too weak may break in the user?s grasp, 
rendering the product useless or causing injury to the child.  A product that is difficult or 
cumbersome to use will not allow the child to perform the functions of the product with 
ease and will negatively affect the child?s attitude toward the product. 
 The most obvious difference between children and adults is a reduction in 
strength.  Although, it is fact that preschool children already execute the tasks necessary 
to play musical instruments, a closer look at how much strength and dexterity children 
possess allows the designer to make the various devices on an instrument easier to 
manipulate.  A child?s ability to move strings and keys is vital to playability and a grip 
dynamometer test is a good indication of one?s ability to press objects.  According to 
Measure in Pediatric Exercise Science, children between the ages of three and five 
scored as follows: 
    
 32
   3-year-olds?????.4.41 lbs 
   4-year-olds?????.11.02 lbs 
   5-year-olds?????.17.6 lbs 
   (Docherty, 1996) 
These findings illustrate a clear increase in strength during the preschool years and 
should be taken into consideration.  Tests on how much force is required to execute the 
various functions of the adult instrument should be analyzed to determine if devices and 
mechanisms should be redesigned or if the instrument itself is unfit for the young 
musician. 
 In addition to strength, dexterity is vital to musical performance.  A 1940 study 
describes the ?developmental trends of a child?s drawing and writing behavior during the 
preschool period.?  The researcher found that ?the child used a palmer grip of the crayon 
before the age of three or four years, after which the child changes to a more ?adult? grasp 
of the writing instrument.  The pencil is now held with the tip of the thumb, index, and 
middle finger, the latter being most extended (Kalmerboer, Hopkins, & Geuze, 1993).  In 
other words, the child during these developmental years, changes his grasp of an object 
from a power grip to a precisions grip demonstrating a greater ability to control whatever 
he is holding.  This data clearly illustrates the developmental changes a child undergoes 
during the preschool years and how she can perform the functions of many musical 
instruments. 
 
 
 
 33
2.12 Mental Attributes 
 A survey of the psychological abilities and constraints, of the preschool child, and 
how they pertain to music education, provides the designer insight into the mind of the 
intended user.  It also provides foresight into ways a product may be redesigned, to assist 
and communicate with the user, in a language that best fits their mental capacity.  A 
designer should take into consideration the following information when selecting an 
instrument, to determine if it falls within the abilities of the young musician.     
  Swiss Psychologist Jean Piaget, the leading authority in child psychology, places 
the preschool child in the preoperational stage, of his four stage theoretical structure.  
This is the second stage of a child?s mental development and encompasses the ages of 
two to seven.  During this time, informational processing is ?more cumbersome than 
adults? (Abeles, Hoffer, and Klotman, 1984, pp.196-197), and they are unable to resolve 
logically conflicting perceptual information.  However, they do begin to fantasize and 
store images, which is evidenced in the form of language.  Another important evolvement 
is the ability to classify items by common attribute which is key to recognizing varying 
rhythmic patterns (Abeles, et al., 1984). 
 An important characteristic of the preschool child?s psychology is that they 
?respond to music in a natural, uninhibited manner, which makes musical activities 
extremely important to a child?s development during these years? (Abeles, et al., 1984, 
p.293).  Their openness to new experiences is why the ?absorption abilities of the 
children are at a peak in these formative years? (Kendall, 1966, p. 17).  Furthermore, an 
?assessment of rhythmic coordination of preschool children revealed significantly greater 
rate of improvement between the ages of three and four, than for all other years? (Perry, 
 34
Peery, and Draper, 1987, p. 111).  If parent and child are to exploit these positive 
attributes, the fact that ?preschool children?s exploratory behaviors rather than their 
guided manipulations may be more important in their forming perceptions about pitch 
and melody,? (Perry, et al., 1987, p. 216) should be remembered by the designer in 
creating an instrument that evokes creativity. 
 ?Children generally begin to react to music as early as 18 months, although other 
apparent musical behaviors may be exhibited earlier? (Abeles, et al., 1984, p.196), and 
during this period, as the child?s mind rapidly develops, a series of common, yearly 
evolutionary steps occur among children, in both their ability and their approach to 
music.  For instance, when faced with memorizing songs, ?young children progress from 
imitating words, to singing melodic fragments (ages two to three), to producing whole 
songs at about the age of three to four? (Abeles, et al., 1984, p.196).  And in regards to 
musical exploration, studies found that ?the improvisation of three-year-olds was 
rhythmical, four-year-olds included repetition and similar phrases, and five-year-olds 
showed a preference for F? tonality and increased used rhythmic repetition? (Perry, et al., 
1987, p. 217).  The willingness and desire to explore on ones own, diminishes over the 
preschool years.  ?Children during the early stages of development (ages two to three) 
have a greater tendency for free improvisatory and unstructured note play, which 
gradually develops with the incorporation of diatonic intervals, and then diminishes into a 
preference for exact imitation? (Abeles, et al., 1984, p. 196).  This demonstrates the 
child?s developing mental capacity and eagerness to memorize and play songs.  While the 
preschool child does change over these three years, it is clear that once she is in her fifth 
year, mental skill is significantly heightened.  ?The ability of three- and four-year-olds to 
 35
assimilate pitched and non-pitched sounds, discriminate between pitches, order the 
direction of sounds, and associate directions on melodic instruments was less developed 
that that of five-year-olds? (Perry, et al., 1987, pp. 216-217).  
 With these newly-acquired mental facilities, the child seeks to express himself, 
and at this age, children ?look for objects to satisfy their inclination to produce sound? 
(Wright, 2003, p. 200).  This is when musical instruments may be introduced to provide 
the child a means of expression.  The child?s experience in playing an instrument centers 
around sight and touch and ?musical material developed for children in this stage should 
rely on visual and tactile cues, since children?s learning interactions are dominated by 
these senses? (Abeles, et al., 1984, p. 197).  The designer should keep this in mind when 
developing a product intended to stimulate the user and leave a positive experience which 
may further inspire willingness to learning. 
 
2.2 The Product 
2.21 Choosing an Instrument 
 In choosing an instrument appropriate for a preschooler to learn to play, there are 
many factors that should be considered.  Given the differences which exist among the 
various groups of instruments, a parent should make a decision that not only suits the 
child?s age but his or her personality as well.  Not every instrument should be weighed 
evenly as there are some instruments that have proven to work with preschool children 
and some that the child simply cannot play. 
 One important factor in musical success is allowing the child to choose the 
instrument she will play.  Roberta Markel writes that ?the choice of instrument should not 
 36
be haphazard? and should not be based on what is the handiest, cheapest, or most socially 
acceptable instrument available, nor the one that the parent has enjoyed playing.  
Furthermore she adds that ?too often a child is called unmusical because he doesn?t 
succeed on what was simply the wrong instrument for him? (Markel, 1983, p.52).   
 Although this is an ideal that parents should strive for, it is not always a 
possibility.  According to Dr. Jim McCutcheon, Woodwind and Brass instruments ?are 
physically difficult to play and require a lot of wind which children under the age of 10 or 
11 are incapable of producing? (McCutcheon, April, 2003).  Therefore, it is clear that a 
parent should delay the introduction of this instrument even if the child shows an interest. 
 In regards to the piano, which Dr. McCutcheon calls ?the traditional first 
instrument for children,? the child may find this instrument ?very rewarding to play 
because each note requires a fairly simple movement of only one finger.?  However, in 
contrast, Anthony E. Kemp argues that ?the piano is often viewed as the instrument with 
the highest failure rate? because parents assume ?that ?it would be good for her to play a 
musical instrument? with little consideration given to other alternative instruments? 
(Kemp, 1996, pg. 167).  Kemp adds that ?it is clear that the piano makes considerable 
demands upon young children?it requires equal dexterity of all 10 fingers.?  Pianos also 
may not be a practical instrument for many households as it ?represents a sizable 
investment of money and floor space in the home? (McCutcheon, April, 2003). 
 The String family is what the Suzuki method uses in teaching young children and 
while the piano is a member of this group, violins, cello, and violas are more frequently 
taught by Suzuki teachers.  Plucked or strummed instruments such as the guitars, banjo, 
mandolin, and lute are also a part of this family.  ?Over the past few decades, 
 37
advancements in pedagogy?have resulted in much success with children beginning to 
play music on string instruments? (McCutcheon, April, 2003).  However, some preschool 
children may have difficulty playing a bowed instrument, such as a viola because ?the 
beginning player needs plenty of good old-fashioned muscular stamina.  When played, 
the instruments are supported entirely by the player? (Markel, 1983, p.60). 
 For the purpose of this thesis, the guitar will be the instrument of focus and used 
to illustrate the procedures and methodology used in transforming the adult musical 
instrument into an age-appropriate instrument intended for children between the ages of 
three and five. 
 
Why the Guitar? 
 Besides the benefits mentioned above regarding stringed instruments, there are 
many reasons why a smaller, well proportioned guitar is a good instrument for a 
preschool child.  ?The guitar is the ?people?s instrument,? relatively easy to play, quite 
inexpensive [when] compared to most other instruments? (Markel, 1983).  In addition 
almost all guitars are light weight and may easily be transported to and from the home.   
 In a 2002 Electronic Musician Magazine survey, respondents were asked to check 
what they considered to be the primary and secondary instruments that they currently 
play.  Guitars accounted for 25.3%, the highest percentage of the primary row, 28.7% of 
the secondary row, and 54% of all answers (Electronic Musician Magazine, 2002).  
Similarly, in the 2001 market research report Australians? Attitudes to Music, acoustic 
guitars constitute 25% of the musical instruments Australians play, trailing closely behind 
pianos in second place (The Australian Music Association, April 9, 2001).  With this 
 38
data, it can be assumed that a child learning to play the guitar will be more likely to know 
an adult with experience playing the guitar over any other instrument, and hence have 
more opportunity to receive instruction at home from someone she knows. 
 In addition to the player?s benefits, a prospective manufacturer of such an 
instrument can potentially carve out a niche in a thriving, lucrative market.  A recent 
sales report published in Music USA calls the guitar  ?the world's most popular musical 
instrument? and claims that is seemed to ?broaden its appeal during 2002? when ?sales of 
acoustic guitars advanced a brisk 14.8 percent to 973,522 units while electric guitars 
increased 8.2 percent to 969,103 units? (Porta, March 28, 2003).  Sales of guitars in 2002 
were nearly $1.1 billion, being spilt between acoustic and electric models (Lieberman, 
December 16, 2002). 
 
2.22 History of the Product 
 The guitar is a ?plucked, stringed instrument that has a ?waisted? body with 
incurved sides.  There is, according to experts on its history, little evidence of such an 
instrument existing before the fifteenth century? (Bacon, and Day, 1991, p.12).  
However, similar instruments dating, back almost 4,000 years, are believed to have 
contributed to its gradual evolution.  As illustrated on chart (Figure 2.01), proof of these 
early contributors exist in carvings of plucked, stringed instruments found in Babylonia, 
Egypt and Rome, having been created as early as 1900 BC (Oracle Education 
Foundation, 2000).  Over the centuries, popularity of the guitar waxed and wended until 
the 20
th
 century, which proved an era of unprecedented popularity, manufacturing, and 
revenue.  ?The huge boom in guitar playing occurred in the early 1970?s. This boom 
 39
seemed to have peaked in 1972 when over 2,500,000 guitars were sold in the wake of the 
folk and rock music revolution that was absorbing the nation?s youth? (Bacon, and Day, 
1991, p.9).  Today, electric and acoustic guitars generate over $1 billion is sales annually 
and offer the player numerous options in form, style, materials, and special effects. 
 40
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 2.01 History of the guitar.
 41
2.23 Existing Products 
 A look at current products marketed to those wishing to provide musical 
instruments to children, is key to understanding what needs to be changed, what works 
well, marketing placement, and trends.  Two charts have been created, one sampling an 
array of musical instrument families (Figure 2.02) and the latter showing examples of 
guitars (Figure 2.03), both acoustic and electric.  Common attributes like scale and 
pricing can be seen among the competitors of each group.  In addition, by observing the 
style, color and, form of each product, conclusions can be drawn as to how the designer 
chose specific aesthetic qualities in an attempt to appease child and adult preferences.  
 
 42
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 2.02  Product comparison chart of various musical instrument groups
 43
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 2.03  Product comparison chart of guitars for children.
 44
2.3 Human Function 
2.31 Anthropometry 
 Although it is not sufficient to simply reduce the scale of an adult-size musical 
instrument and assume that it is correctly designed for child, an anthropometric 
evaluation of proportions is the best place to start the redesign process.  Data on specific 
body measurements of adults and full scale contemporary instruments were compiled.  A 
formula was created which could then be used to determine general dimensions and 
proportions that a child?s guitar might be designed with.  By dividing a specific guitar 
dimension by an adult dimension, a number is produced.  These anthropometric numbers 
were derived by comparing 1%ile men, 99%ile men, 1%ile women, and 99%ile women, 
or in some case where data is limited, one number for men and one number women.  
Once all proportions are calculated, an average of each category is produced.  Then, by 
multiplying each variable by its correlating child dimension, for ages three, four, and 
five, a new guitar dimension and percentage is defined. 
 
Example: 
Scale Length of Adult Guitar (25?) ? Convenient Reach of Adult Male (32.5?) = .77? 
Scale Length of Adult Guitar (25?) ? Convenient Reach of Adult Female (23.5?) = 1.06? 
The average of .77? and 1.06? = .92? 
Proportion Variable (.92?) X Convenient Reach of Five-year-old child (11.2?) = (10.3?) 
  
 As it occurs, 10.3? is 41.2% of the original scale length of 25?.  In comparison to 
other results on the chart, it is easy to see that the resulting proportions vary from as low 
 45
as 37.2% to as high as 86.6%, and thus proving that a simple reduction in scale is not 
only a bad idea, but cannot produce a proportionately accurate model.  However, by 
deciding which anthropometric dimension should bear greater consideration for its 
respective guitar dimension, better decisions can be made on how to size each part of the 
child?s instrument.  The highlighted instrument dimensions on each anthropometric 
category, illustrate what should be grouped and weighed heavier in consideration of 
proportions.  This data will then be used in conjunction with the remaining human factors 
studies and used to determine scale and proportion. 
 In addition to proportional evaluations, it is necessary to evaluate aspects of an 
instrument that do not determine musical function, but effect ergonomics.  These include 
the shape of the body, controls, weight, and balance.  By analyzing key preschool 
anthropometry, conditions such as how the instrument is held and how it rests on the 
child?s lap, can be solved with greater precision.  Many of the same bodily dimensions 
used in the proportions chart will apply to the non-musical chart and should be reused in 
the evaluation process. 
 
Child Anthropometry 
 The following chart provides the 3-, 4-, and 5-year-old anthropometric data, 
which when used to alter a guitar dimensions, will affect the mechanical and musical 
properties of an instrument. All data is in inches. 
 46
 
hand length 
3yo 4yo 5yo 
4.10 4.50 4.70 
   
hand width 
3yo 4yo 5yo 
2.00 2.10 2.20 
   
arm length 
3yo 4yo 5yo 
10.00 10.50 11.20 
   
index length 
3yo 4yo 5yo 
1.60 1.60 1.75 
   
middle finger length 
3yo 4yo 5yo 
1.70 1.80 2.00 
   
grip diameter 
3yo 4yo 5yo 
1.18 1.22 1.30 
   
convenient reach 
3yo 4yo 5yo 
10.00 10.50 11.20 
 
Figure 2.04 Child anthropometric data pertaining to guitar design. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 47
Adult Anthropometry 
 The anthropometric data in this section correlates to the child anthropometry 
provided, in order to compare the two age groups. (LM/W = large man/woman, 
SM/W=small man/woman, MM/W = median man/woman). 
 
 
hand length 
LM SM LW SW 
8.40 6.60 7.80 6.00 
    
hand width 
LM SM LW SW 
4.60 3.70 4.10 3.20 
    
arm length 
LM SM LW SW 
31.50 25.50 28.50 23.50
    
index length 
MM MW 
3.00 2.70 
    
middle finger length 
MM MW
 nm 3.40 
    
grip diameter 
MM MW 
1.50 1.50 
    
convenient reach 
MM MW
32.50 23.50 
 
Figure 2.05 Adult anthropometric data pertaining to guitar design.
 48
Guitar Dimensions 
 The guitar dimensions shown below were chosen because they will pertain solely 
to playability and the physical attributes of a string instrument, and as they are changed, 
so will the sound of the guitar.  All dimensions reflect industry standards for 
contemporary electric guitar design. 
 
Full-Scale Electric Guitar
fingerboard length 15.50
scale length 25.00
nut width 1.63 
nut spread 1.38 
bridge spread 2.13 
 
Figure 2.06 Contemporary full-scale guitar dimensions. 
 
Proportions 
 An explanation of the proportions chart found on the next page is provided in 
Figure 2.07.  As previously stated, a formula was created in order to begin the conversion 
process.  Although proportions vary among adults and young children, this formula was a 
good starting point in discovery the correct dimensions for a preschool electric guitar.  
The results of the research can be viewed in Figures 2.08, 2.09, and 2.10, through 
measurements in inches and percentages of the original value.  In each section of the 
chart, certain guitar categories have been highlighted because they possess greater 
relevancy to bodily dimension addressed in that specific section.   
 
 
 49
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 2.07 Methodology and formula used in the proportions chart. 
 
 50
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 2.08 Proportions Chart for hand length, hand width and arm length. 
 
 51
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 2.09 Proportions Chart for index finger, middle finger, and grip diameter. 
 52
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 2.10 Proportions Chart for convenient reach. 
 53
2.32 Ergonomics 
 Factors that affect the comfort and ease of operating the guitar are considered 
ergonomic for the purposes of this study.  In many instances the anthropometry data used 
to analyze playability and musical physics will also pertain to the ergonomic factors of 
the user, and will thus overlap.  The considerations for this section include how the 
instrument sits on the user?s lap, balance of the guitar both while sitting and standing, and 
areas of the body that may cause discomfort from contact with edges.  Figure 2.11 
illustrates the key factors in designing an ergonomic guitar for any user within a specific 
anthropometric group while seated, and Figure 2.12 highlights issues affecting a player 
while playing the guitar using a strap, to hold it in place. 
 Bodily measurements that relate to these important ergonomic factors were 
researched and are presented below for the seated (Figure 2.13) and the standing (Figure 
2.14) players.  They were used in making decisions on test models as well as the final 
prototype recommendations.  By using the formula illustrated in Figure 2.15, the lower 
cutout of the guitar can be designed so that it fits comfortably on the leg of the user.  The 
provided example uses the thigh circumference of a three-year-old.  The desired curve is 
yielded by dividing the thigh circumference by pi to get the diameter of the thigh, then 
dividing the diameter by 2 to get the radius.  The radius is multiplied by 1.5 to insure that 
the curve fits well on the leg but does not fit too tightly.  To further explore how each 
anthropometric measurement weighs in the design of an ergonomic guitar, a chart (figure 
2.16) was created.  By seeing every bodily dimension as it relates to one or more guitar 
parts, the designer will reduce oversight and have a clearer view of what needs to be 
addressed. 
 54
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 2.11 Ergonomic issues affecting the seated player. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 2.12 Ergonomic issues affecting the standing player. 
 55
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 2.13 Bodily dimensions correlating to ergonomics of the seated player. 
 56
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 2.14 Bodily dimensions correlating to ergonomics of the standing player. 
 
 
 57
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 2.15 Formula for determining an ergonomic lower curve radius. 
 58
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 2.16 Ergonomic considerations chart. 
 59
2.33 Aesthetic Preference 
 ?Since the 1950s industries focusing on children, including clothing, food, 
entertainment, and education, have been mainsprings for many businesses and 
wellsprings of fortunes? (Heller & Guarnaccia, 1994).  A company hoping to join this 
lucrative market segment should take a serious look at what products preschoolers like 
and what drives their parents to the products they purchase for their children. 
 A guitar designed for a child must be what it is, a musical instrument.  Semantics 
however, does play a role in every product?s ability to attract its target audience and make 
them feel that the product was designed with full consideration of the user.   As 
Designing for Children states ?well-designed is of course a relative term.  What an adult 
might savor a child might shun,? yet ?today?s products and packages must appeal to both 
kids and parents, and therein is a tension that must be reconciled? (Heller & Guarnaccia, 
1994).  And while accessing the thoughts of preschool children is not as easy as can be 
with adults, ?young children are concerned with the abstract themes of good and bad, 
beautiful and ugly, power and control, and love and hate? (Egan, 1988).  ?If anything 
characterizes the very young child, it is curiosity about and responsiveness to stimuli in 
its internal and external contexts.  The child is a seeking, active organism that is always 
impacting and impacted upon? (Sarason, 1990).   
 The achievements of toy, entertainment, and literature manufacturers reveal 
formulas marked by success and excessive monetary gain.  And while it seems that these 
formulas have evolved through decades of product development, a question arises 
regarding styling in children?s products originally intended for adults.  ?Sony electronics 
for children are cartoon-style interpretations of adult products, but Rappin? Robot, a tape 
 60
recorder, is a cartoon character, and a delightful one.  This child-friendly imagery teaches 
kids how to use and respect a real machine? (Heller & Guarnaccia, 1994).  This is an 
example of a real working product styled in a way that attracts the young user.  After all, 
?So why inflict the matte black, high-tech aesthetic on them at an early age?  Why not 
target them with a line of products fitted with exciting colors of childhood? (Heller & 
Guarnaccia, 1994)?  However, if a product does not possess the sterile qualities of the 
average home appliance, for instance a baseball glove, there is often no need to transform 
the product significantly in visual aesthetics.  The questions at hand is whether a child 
would feel happier with a guitar that looks like their parent?s instrument or one that 
eludes youth and is marked by the qualities of a toy.  As seen in the existing product 
chart, there are instruments that take both approaches.  No matter what decision the 
designer makes the main focus of the instrument, following quality and ergonomics, 
should be communication with the user.  
 Beyond the analysis of success in child products, research on child preferences in 
basic visual elements like color groups, will insure that a guitar will not be off the mark 
when it hits the shelves.  In 1906, a famous German doctor, coined the phrase 
?Farbendummheit?, or color stupidity (Saunders, & Van Brakel, 2002).  He was 
addressing the problem many children have in verbalizing the colors that they see and 
know.  ?Though they have, at an age between two and three years, perfect color vision 
and a good command of the color lexicon and its internal semantical relations, they have 
problems in assigning color names to pure sensory qualities and in abstracting away from 
concrete objects, evidenced in the problems they have in linking lexical items to color 
appearances? (Saunders, & Van Brakel, 2002).  Children do eventually resolve this 
 61
problem, usually at a time occurring in the middle of this test?s age group.  ?Four years 
seems to constitute some sort of minimum chronological age for correct and consistent 
color naming? (Saunders, & Van Brakel, 2002).     
 In addition to developing abilities, children?s tastes in color changes over the 
preschool years.  As one study reports, ?a decreased preference for red and an increased 
preference for blue were found at 4 years 6 months and 5 years.  The period of greatest 
transition from warm to cold emphasis tends to be between three and three and a half-a 
period already described as nodal in the transition from emotional to controlled behavior? 
(Pickford, 1972).  With these changes taking place in the midst of the preschool years and 
this study?s target age group, seeking to find a common denominator among all age 
groups in regard to color choices is the best solution to insuring a product will attract a 
wide range of children.  A Scottish study of 138 preschool students exposed to 
combinations of colors on cards, yielded the following results: (Pickford, 1972).   
 
Card 4. Orange-red and blue-violet, maximally saturated-?primitive or impulsive?. This 
card was favoured by 6-year-olds, and increased in popularity until age 13 years. 
Card 6. Orange and green-?offensive?. No age trends were found for this card 
Card 1. Two shades of gray ??adaptable and flexible?. This was rarely considered 
attractive, but often unattractive. 
Card 9.  Orange-red and red-purple-?vibrating reds?. This card was liked by half the 6-
year-olds, but then declined in popularity. 
 62
Card 7. Polychrome-six sets of complimentaries with triadic interpretations-to appeal to 
those responding impulsively to color.  It was among the most attractive to 94 
percent of the 6-year-olds and then declined in popularity    
 
One area of aesthetic preference that seems to be constant is that to a ?statistically 
significant extent,? preschool children, ?prefer balanced to unbalanced three-dimensional 
designs? (Pickford, 1972). 
 
2.4 Technical Function 
2.41 Interaction Matrix 
 The Interaction Matrix (Figure 2.17) is used to determine how often a product 
interacts with another of its own parts.  Used in determining the placement of a product?s 
parts, the Interaction Matrix is set up on a scale.  The charted parts are provided a number 
based on the level of interaction they experience, with the other corresponding part: 
0 = no interaction 1 = light interaction 2 = heavy interaction 
 
2.42 Interaction Table 
 Similar to the Matrix, The Interaction Table (Figure 2.18) is used to examine the 
relationship between the product and its environment.  These environments include 
natural and human elements which may come into contact with parts of the product.  The 
scale used in the Interaction Table translates as follows: 
0 = no interaction 1 = moderate/indirect interaction 
2 = strong/direct interaction         score = sum of all scores in parts row 
 63
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 2.17 Interaction Matrix of the electric guitar.
 64
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 2.18 Interaction Table of the electric guitar.
 65
2.43 Compatibility 
 A look at contemporary equipment, which may interact with the product, is 
important prior to the development phase, in order to insure that total compatibility will 
exist between the instrument and the equipment.  A Compatibility Table (Figure 2.19) 
has been created to illustrate the reciprocal actions taking place between the product and 
products that accommodate the product.  These devices include amplification, cables, 
power sourcing, sound shaping, and accessories.    
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 66
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 2.19 Existing product compatibility chart.
 67
 
 
3. DEVELOPMENT PHASE 
 
3.1 Performance Criteria 
 Based upon the research in section 2 of this thesis, a set of criteria has been 
established for the design of a preschool child?s guitar.  The resulting chart (Figure 3.01) 
provides recommendations for a preliminary set of prototypes.  It will be used in the 
creation of test models and ultimately the final solution of what is believed to be the most 
ergonomic and anthropometrically correct design of a young child?s guitar.  Performance 
Criteria should be seen as a map to solving the problem at hand. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 68
 
 
Function Parameters Performance Criteria 
weight less than 10 lbs. 
strings nylon 
speaker 3" diameter 
portage hand held 
output 
headphone/cable to 
amplifier 
practical        
physiological 
knobs 1" diameter 
social/economic retail less than $750 
colors analogous/complementary
styling fun and youthful 
Human 
Function 
cultural 
aesthetic 
form 
traditional modern electric 
guitar 
    
power 9 volt battery/amplifier 
speaker 2 watts 
pickup piezo 
strings nylon 
direct 
power 
switch tilt switch 
storage 
width<25", depth<2.5", 
height<11" 
power 
source U.S. 120 volt 
Technical 
Function 
indirect 
cables 1/4" phono jack 
    
planning 
intended 
users 
3-5 year olds (36-72 
months) 
body/neck CNC/hand made 
pickup automated 
machine 
heads die cast 
knobs injection molded plastic 
Production 
Function 
manufacturing 
woods alder/maple/rosewood 
Figure 3.01 Performance Criteria.
 69
3.2 Brainstorming 
 
Figure 3.02 Brainstorming sketch for function and design.
 70
3.3 Idea Sketches 
 
Figure 3.03 Idea sketches for body shapes.
 71
 
 
Figure 3.04 Idea sketches for body shapes.
 72
3.4 Concept Sketches  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 3.05 Sketches exploring final concept body design
 73
3.5 Trials 
 A size test, using breadboard models based on the accrued anthropometric data 
research conducted in phase 2, was conducted in order to determine more accurately the 
most ergonomic dimensions for a any given group of 3-5 year olds.   
 Three guitar-shaped models, based on data from section 4.5, were created from 
sheets of multi density fiberboard.  These mock ups were designed to possess specific 
ergonomic and mechanical characteristics of the guitar including the lower curve for 
sitting, scale length, neck width, neck thickness, and body size.  Once the design of the 
models were chosen, Rhinoceros 3.0 files (Figure 3.06) of the necks were created, which 
were used to form the MDF models on a CNC (Computer Numeric Control) router.  
These proportions were derived, based upon the three scale lengths that were chosen 
(Figure 3.07) and three body dimensions were determined (Figure 3.08).   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 3.06 Rhinoceros 3.0 model used to create bread board model necks. 
 74
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 3.07 Three scale lengths for bread board models. 
 75
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 3.08 Three model body sizes chosen from research. 
 76
 Other aspects of the guitar, like strings and electronics, were not included in the 
models as they are not needed for the sole task of fitting the size of the product to the 
user.  The three models as seen in Figures 3.09 range from small to large.  It was assumed 
before the tests that the smallest model might not fit a large 5-year-old boy, and the 
largest may be too grand for a 3-year-old girl, but without testing, no sound decision can 
really be made about these statements.  Primary colors were used in order to identify 
easily the three sizes in photographic and video recording (Figure 3.10) after the testing 
was conducted.  In addition, a gray abstract graphic representation of bridge placement 
was placed on the top of each body to observe arm placement during testing and to see if 
the guitar was designed correctly. 
 In order to fulfill the required observation and recording of human subjects 
handling the models, a testing session was scheduled at the Auburn University Early 
Learning Center on March 24, 2005, at 2 p.m.  This laboratory preschool accommodates 
students in this study?s target age group of three to five years old.  Twelve students 
participated by taking turns holding each of the three models.   The session, which lasted 
20 minutes, was documented using a digital camera and digital camcorder.  Much was 
learned by conducting these trials and through analyzing the recorded files and footage, 
decisions regarding scale and proportions were determined.   The following images 
(Figure 3.11) are a few of the photographs taken during the trial.
 77
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 3.09 Multi Density Fiberboard test models. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 3.10 Multi Density Fiberboard test models.
 78
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 3.11 Photographs taken during sizing test at Early Learning Center. 
 79
3.6 Final Concept 
 
3.61 Materials 
 Materials used for the creation of the final model are as follows: 
 Neck ? quilted maple 
 Body ? alder 
 Tops ? Quilted maple 
 Truss Rod ? carbon fiber 
 Fingerboard ? rosewood 
 Bridge ? rosewood 
 Inlays ? mother of pearl 
  
3.62 Aesthetics 
 Color preference, though varied, does exist in certain common forms among the 
age range.  It is apparent that children enjoy triadic color schemes (three colors spaced 
evenly around the color wheel).  This is evident in the research, where most of the 6-year-
olds chose these patterns.  Colors schemes that seem to appeal to children of the 
preschool years the most include the following and should be considered approved color 
patterns, in order of preference:   
1. Triadic 
2. Complimentary 
3. Analogous 
Tertiary colors according to the research are preferred over primary and secondary colors.  
The tetrad, especially when possessing green and orange, should be avoided.  Wandering 
 80
very far outside of primary or complimentary color schemes should be abandoned as 
children seem to consider these patterns unappealing.  They prefer vibrant aesthetics that 
avoid chaotic combinations.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 3.12 Approved color schemes based on child preference research. 
  
 81
 Shape should be balanced, either through symmetrical layout or occult balance.  
And while it is all right to mimic existing popular designs such as the Gibson Les Paul or 
the Fender Stratocaster, a fresh design may assist in branding and increased recognition 
in a niche market.  The public may begin to associate a shape with preschool guitar 
design.  Although no clear winner was revealed in the survey, regarding shape, it is 
evident that adults prefer the traditional dreadnought (acoustic guitar) and single cutaway 
(Les Paul) shapes, while children are open to more exotic and freeform designs. 
  
3.63 Technical Function 
 The components found within the final model are shows in figure 3.13, in 
addition to their functions, the following paragraph details all technical activities 
experienced during the performance and maintenance of the instrument. 
 The guitar uses nylon strings which must use a piezo, or transducer pickup, which 
consists of crystalline, ceramic substance applied to a piece of metal, to pick up any 
vibration within inches of its vicinity.  Vibration from the strings is sent through a wire to 
the one-watt amplifier, which transfers the signal into an electric signal.  This signal 
passes through the volume pot which, when turned counter-clockwise, reduces or 
completely halts the signal.  The signal passes on the input jack.  Two input options are 
available.  An electric guitar chord may be used to send the signal to an amplifier or 
headphones may be used to allow the user to be the sole listener and thus cause no 
irritation to parents and others.  If no chord is present, the signal is passed directly to the 
two-watt speaker located in the body of the guitar.  In addition to these components, an 
on off switch, with two sounds types (clean and distorted) is present on the top of the 
 82
body.  An LCD light, indicating power, is located near the switch.   The amplifier is 
powered by a 9-volt battery stored within the body cavity.  All components can be 
accessed by removing the blue maple panel on the back of the guitar kept in place by 
screws.  The strings of the guitar are inserted through the back of the body and wrap 
around the bridge onto the nut and machine heads.  This is known as a ?string-through? 
design.  To protect the wood and create a unique aesthetic, two mother of pearl 
rectangular blanks have been inset on either side of the body.   
 
 83
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 3.13 Components found within the body of the final model.
 84
3.64 Dimensions 
 Crucial guitar dimensions, that when used, will accommodate all three years of 
the preschool age group.  Like with any product or dwelling, considerations both two-
way and one-way, are important to determining all users from the smallest to the largest.  
And upon observation, most aspects of guitar proportion design are two-way 
considerations.  A guitar neck should not be too wide for a 1%ile 3-year-old girl to grasp 
and reach every string, and yet a neck that is too slim will make it difficult for the child to 
play once she has reached the age of 5.  These considerations were weighed and placed in 
a chart (Figure 3.14) and were subsequently used to determine the final design 
recommendations (Figure 3.15).   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 3.14 Design Considerations Chart for determining final dimensions.
 85
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 3.15 Final Dimension recommendations.
 86
3.7 Computer Models 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 3.16 Rhinoceros 3.0 models rendered with Flamingo 1.0.  
 87
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 3.17 Rhinoceros 3.0 models rendered with Flamingo 1.0.  
 88
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 3.18 Rhinoceros 3.0 models rendered with Flamingo 1.0.  
 89
3.8 Control Drawings 
 In preparation for building the final model, control drawings for inlays (Figure 
3.19), dimensions (Figure 3.20), and colors (Figure 3.21) were created.  These drawings 
and instructions were used as reference in every step of the construction of the guitar. 
 
 
Figure 3.19 Control drawings of mother of pearl inlays. 
 
 
 
 90
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 3.20 Control drawings for guitar dimensions.
 91
 
Figure 3.21 Control drawing for dye colors to be applied to maple tops.
 92
3.9 Final Model 
3.91 Building 
 The following photography sequence details the process used to create the body, 
neck, inlays, bridge, and fingerboard of the final model.  From beginning to end, each 
step involved in transforming the raw materials into one form, that makes a complete 
guitar, is illustrated and explained textually. 
 The first step in creating the guitar was to produce 3D and 2D files that were used 
to cut out the body, maple tops, bridge and neck.  A CNC router was used to develop the 
body and neck, which is one piece of maple and two pieces alder glued together to 
become what it called a neck through design.  Rhinoceros 3.0 was used to create a surface 
model which was saved as an .iges file and imported into Surfcam, the program that runs 
the CNC router. 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 3.22 Rhinoceros 3.0 file used to route the neck and body of the final model.
 93
 
Figure 3.23 Alder and maple block being formed by the CNC Router. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 3.24 Alder and maple block being formed by the CNC Router. 
 94
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 3.25 Alder and maple block being formed by the CNC Router. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 3.26 Alder and maple block being formed by the CNC Router. 
 95
 In addition to the router, a laser cutter was used to cut out the four-piece maple 
tops, the fingerboard, and the bridge.  The fingerboard and bridge were cut out of one 
piece of rosewood and, unlike the CNC router, the laser cutter can only cut outlines. 
 
 
 
 
Figure 3.27 Rhinoceros 3.0 file of bridge and fingerboard used on a laser cutter. 
 
 
 
Figure 3.28 Rhinoceros 3.0 file used for the rear sections maple tops. 
 
 96
 
Figure 3.29 Rhinoceros 3.0 file used for the forward sections maple tops. 
 
 
 Once the CNC files had run, the rough cut wooden parts were ready to be formed 
further by hand using various hand tools and sand paper.  The head stock was formed 
first using files, sand papers and a power sander. 
 
 
Figure 3.30 The headstock following CNC routing.
 97
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 3.31 The headstock after being hand shaped into its final form. 
 
  
 The top of the body, on the front side, was routed down a quarter of an inch to 
accommodate the maple top and make it flush with the neck height.  This was done using 
a rotary tool.  Immediately following this, a hole was created through the body, where the 
speaker will eventually nest using a hand drill and jig saw. 
 98
 
Figure 3.32 Routing down the top of the body to accommodate the maple tops. 
 
 
 
Figure 3.33 The body routed down one quarter of an inch. 
 
 
 99
 
Figure 3.34 Preparing to cut the speaker hole by creating access holes for the jig saw. 
 
 
 
 
Figure 3.35 The completed speaker hole.
 100
  The forward section of the front maple top was glued into place.  There 
exists no routed areas beneath it and therefore would require no further alterations, other 
than shaping, once all tops were in place.  Once the cavities for the electronics are routed, 
The rear portion of the top maple pieces will be glued into place as well. 
 
 
 
Figure 3.36 The forward section of the front maple top being glued onto the body.
 101
 Routing of several areas within the body was conducted next.  Cavities which will 
contain the 9-volt battery, amplifier, volume pot, switch, light, and cables were created.  
A channel along the top of the neck was also made, using the rotary tool, to allow the 
carbon fiber truss rod to be inset into the neck.  This is an alternative solution, used in 
many smaller instruments, to a steel, adjustable truss rod found in most full-scale guitars.  
Carbon fiber is not as easily bent as a steel rod, yet is much lighter.  The truss rod was 
inset and then glued into place. 
 
 
 
Figure 3.37 Cavities created to contain electronic components.
 102
 
Figure 3.38 Routed half inch slot and carbon fiber truss rod. 
 
 
 
 
Figure 3.39 The truss rod after being set into its slot, prior to gluing.
 103
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 3.40 Gluing the carbon fiber truss rod into its slot with wood glue. 
 
 
  
  
 104
 With the rear portion of the front maple top in place, a hole was created which is 
the same dimension as the grill located on the fingerboard.  This allows sound from the 
speaker to emit from the body.  The body was then shaped using files and sandpaper and 
holes for the machine heads were drilled into the headstock. 
 
 
 
Figure 3.41 Hole to allow sound from the speaker through the grill.
 105
 
Figure 3.42 Headstock with machine head holes. 
 
 
 The next step in building the guitar was to glue on the rosewood fingerboard and 
create the mother of pearl inlays.  These were formed by printing the design, gluing them 
onto the pearl pieces and cutting out the design using a coping saw and files.  The inlays 
were then glued to the fingerboard with super glue and traced with an exacto knife.  They 
were then removed and the area where they laid was routed with a rotary tool at a depth 
slightly more shallow than the thickness of the pearl inlays.  The inlays were then inset 
and glued in place with super glue.  Once the glue dried, the inlays were files down flush 
with the fingerboard. 
 The frets were the final step in the building process.  They are supplied in 2 foot 
strips which must be cut to fit the width of the fret slots, which were cut using a special 
saw.  The frets are inserted with a rubber mallet and are kept in place using super glue. 
 
 106
3.92 Finishing 
 The finishing process began once the entire guitar was sanded with 220 grit sand 
paper using a technique called whiskering.  This refers to lightly wetting a piece of wood 
and letting it dry before sanding.  The water makes the grain of the wood stand upright, 
allowing one to see and sand grains that were not previously visible.   
 According to the design of this guitar, four panels of the maple tops must be 
stained using aniline dye.   In order to prevent the dye from seeping into areas that will 
remain natural, these areas were sprayed with lacquer and then masked with painters tape 
and automotive pin striping tape, prior to the dying process.  The dye was then applied to 
each individual area using a paint brush.  They were allowed to dry for 30 minutes, then 
sanded down and dyed again.  This creates greater depth in the final appearance of the 
wood by allowing the first coat to sink further into the grain.   
 Once the dying process is complete, the entire guitar was sprayed with four coats 
of sanding sealer, which was allowed to dry over night.  The sanding sealer was then 
sanded with 400 grit sand paper leaving it with a waxy appearance and smooth touch.  
Eight wet coats of spray lacquer were then applied to the guitar and left to cure for five 
days.  On the fifth day the lacquer coat was wet sanded with 600 grit paper to level out 
any inconsistency in the finish.  Finally automotive rubbing compound was gently 
applied to the guitar to bring to buff and produce a greater shine to the finish. 
 
 107
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 3.43 Guitar body following sanding the first aniline dye application.
 108
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 3.44 Guitar body following the second aniline dye application.
 109
3.93 Completed Product 
 
Figure 3.45 Front view of final model. 
 110
 
 
Figure 3.46 Back view of final model. 
 111
 
 
 
 
Figure 3.47 Mirror view of final model. 
 112
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 3.48 Detailed view of final model body. 
 113
3.10 Flow Chart 
 Figure 3.49 illustrates the technical events that take place when the guitar is being 
played.  Vibrations from the strings pass through the pickup to the amplifier, which is 
controlled by an on/off switch and is provided power by a 9-volt battery.  The frequency 
is transferred into sound by the amplifier and sent to the speaker, unless a chord is 
inserted into the jack, at which time sound will bypass the speaker and be sent to either 
headphones or an external guitar amplifier. 
 
 
Figure 3.49 Flow chart of technical events during operation.
 114
3.11 Sequence of Use Chart 
 
Figure 3.50 Steps one through six of the sequence of use.
 115
 
 
Figure 3.51 Steps seven through twelve of the sequence of use.
 116
 
 
4. COMMUNICATION PHASE 
 
4.1 Production Function 
4.11 Manufacturing 
 For centuries guitars have been made by hand.  Many manufacturers today use 
CNC routers to aid in the forming of complex body shapes and neck curves.  These 
machines, though costly, help the luthier by saving valuable time and, assuming the 
computer files they support are accurate, will produce perfect models every time they are 
used.  Beyond CNC routers, guitar manufacturers used conventional power tools and 
shop equipment to manufacture their wares.   
 The process documented in this thesis would be the typical way a manufacturer 
would undergo the mass production of such an instrument.  A professional luthier hoping 
to sell hundreds or thousands of units per year would need a large shop facility, and the 
support of staff members comprised of production personnel, sales people, clerks, 
designers, and engineers.   
 Most companies designing guitars purchase components, like strings, pickups, 
paints, and wood, from a manufacturer, and use them consistently on their instrument 
models.  Once these components are delivered, even a small shop can then produce a 
complete guitar, with no additional help. 
 
 
 117
4.12 Graphics 
 A mock company has been created, for the purposes of this thesis, to illustrate the 
type of identity and image a manufacturer should achieve to reflect the product and 
interests of potential buyers.  The name of the company is Progeny, which means both 
product and offspring.  Progeny Guitars will manufacture guitars solely, and therefore a 
logo has been designed that conveys the wares of the company. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 4.01 Logo design for Progeny Guitars.
 118
4.13 Packaging 
 Instrument makers often offer a leather-bound, wooden or plastic case at no or 
some additional charge to the purchaser, depending on the cost of the instrument.  Padded 
?gig bags? are also an alternative, less expensive solution to storing, protecting, and 
transporting a guitar.  However, many manufacturers will simply ship their units in 
specially made cardboard boxes, covered in their product?s graphics, to retailers that hang 
the instrument with a sales tag.  At this point the offer of a case or bag may or may not be 
available to the buyer, without further inquiry and purchase. 
 For the purposes of this instrument a unique solution has been decided.  A generic 
black tennis racket bag, which is generally the approximate size of this guitar, would 
have the company?s logo and graphics transferred to its front.  This would provide 
adequate protection and with the provided strap, would permit a child or parent to port 
the guitar effectively.  A hanging sales tag, with the company?s logo and model 
information, would be attached one of the machine heads, prior to shipment. 
   
4.2 Marketing 
 There are numerous options to marketing products intended for children.  Major 
retail outlets with toy or instrument sections, national and local musical instrument 
dealers, and online are all possibilities for providing a child?s instrument to the consumer.  
Small companies may consider first selling their products on EBay, or another online 
auction house, before consigning or shipping a large number of units to a retailer. 
 119
 The intended user of this guitar is between the ages of three and five.  However, 
as stated previously, all packaging, graphics, and aesthetics should be designed to attract 
both the parent and the young user. 
 
4.3 Pricing 
 The model created for this thesis would cost more to produce than those found in 
the comparative product chart, due to the use of expensive woods and components.  This 
reflects a modern trend among guitar makers who, like automotive manufacturers, 
typically offer an expensive, better designed, and more aesthetically pleasing model, as 
well as an affordable, less flashy, yet dependable model.  The model used here would 
cost around $450, allowing for a profit margin of around 67%, assuming each unit could 
be produced for $150.  The instruments listed on the comparison chart ranged, on 
average, between $125-150.  A manufacturer may decide to compete with these 
companies by creating an affordable model that can be produced for $50 a unit, or may 
decide to create only an expensive model, like the one used in this thesis, in order to 
stand out as a leader in quality musical instruments.  There are many companies, like 
Paul Reed Smith Guitars, that do not offer instruments that do not compete with mass 
produced, economical guitar makers, like Peavey and Yamaha. 
 
 
 120
 
 
5. CONCLUSION 
 
 For anyone using this thesis as a guideline for the design of a musical instrument 
intended for preschool children, taking heed of all guideline steps and understanding their 
importance will insure the creation of a better-designed instrument.  The purpose for 
these detailed anthropometric studies of children and their comparison of the 
anthropometry of adults is that it allows the designer to identify variation in proportion 
and how theses differences should be applied to a specific musical instrument.  For the 
purposes of illustration, a guitar was chosen for this study.  However, the designer of 
another approved instrument, such as a harp or piano, should determine what bodily 
dimensions will affect important ergonomic issues and then, through use of the provided 
methodology, discover new variations in proportion, which can be highlighted and used 
to alter the new instrument.  Testing of prototypes and breadboard models should also be 
conducted by the designers of future instruments, when using this thesis guide.  The data 
and methodology alone cannot be relied upon until a given instrument is examined in use 
and performance; no positive assertion can be made about either the perfection of the 
instrument, or any needed adjustments to design.   
 In addition to scale and dimensions, the style of an alternative instrument may 
seek to inspire a different attitude of buyers and users.  For instance, a violin may not 
need to stray far from the traditional look of an adult design, unlike the guitar made for 
this thesis which while evokes many aspects of a contemporary adult electric guitar, 
 121
possesses aesthetic characteristics that reflect the youth and light-hearted nature of the 
intended preschool user.  And on the other hand, another instrument may be determined 
to delve further into the whimsical attributes of toys.  This is the sole discretion of the 
designer, who must make a marketing decision at the point of determination of style and 
color schemes.  Quality is the most important factor in the design of any instrument, 
musical or not, and should be reflected in the aesthetic qualities of the product. 
 Much was learned, by the author, during the course of this study.   While 
discoveries in methodology may have yielded a valuable new approach to designing 
instruments for children, research into the vast benefits of musical education, will not 
soon be forgotten, and will surely cause proclamation and encouragement for friends and 
family to provide this regressing segment of childhood education, to their children.  
While many musical products are currently available for preschool children, the author 
believes that by breathing new life into the products? appearance and quality, and by 
taking a closer look at what instruments are most frequently being used by parents, whom 
usually have the duty of instructing children of such a young age, vast improvements in 
children?s lives, scholastic performance, attitudes, civic responsibility, and success, will 
be witnessed throughout our society.   
 
 
 
 122
 
 
6. REFERENCES 
 
Young, S. (2003). Music with the under-fours. New York: Routledge Farms. 
 
Aronof, F. W. (1979). Music and young children. New York: Turning Wheel Press. 
 
Haroutounian, J. (2002). Kindling the spark. New York: Oxford University Press. 
 
Jones, E. (1969). What is music for young children. Washington, DC: National 
 Association for the Education of Young Children. 
 
Mills, E. (1974). In the Suzuki style. Berkeley, CA: Diablo Press, Inc. 
 
Zimmerman, M. P. (1971). Musical characteristics of children. Reston, VA: Music 
 Educators National Conference. 
 
Chroninger, R. (1994). Teach your kids about music. New York: Walker & Company. 
 
Revesz, G. (1925). The psychology of a musical prodigy.  New York: Harcourt, Brace, & 
 Co., Inc. 
 
Campbell, P. S. (1998). Songs in their heads. New York: Oxford University Press. 
 
G. Leblanc Corporation. (1961). The influence of parents? attitudes on children?s musical 
 activity, a socio-psychological study. Kenosh, WC: Author. 
 
Markel, R. (1983). Music for you child. New York: Facts on File Publications. 
 
McCutcheon, J. (April, 2003). Choosing a first instrument, where to start? American Kids 
 Magazine. Retrieved March 15, 2005, from http://music.mccutcheon.biz/ 
 articles.htm 
 
Electronic Musician Magazine. (2002). 2002 Subscriber Profile. Emeryville, CA: Author. 
 Retrieved March 14, 2005, from http://images.emusician.com/files/33/EM 2002 
 Sub Profile-lores.pdf 
 
The Australian Music Association. (April 9, 2001). Australians? attitudes to music, a 
 market research report. Retrieved March 10, 2005, from http://www.mca.org.au/ 
 pdf/AustAttMusic.pdf 
 123
 
Abeles, H. F., Hoffer, C. F., &  Klotman, R. H. (1984). Foundations of music 
 education. New York: Schirmer Books. 
 
Kemp, A. E. (1996). The musical temperament. New York: Oxford University Press. 
 
Perry, J. C., Peery, I. W., & Draper, T. W. (1987). Music and child development.  New 
 York: Springer Verlag. 
 
Kalmerboer, A. F., Hopkins, B., & Geuze, R. (1993). Motor development in early  and  
 later childhood: longitudinal approaches. New York: Cambridge  University 
 Press. 
 
Wallis, R. S. (1931). How children grow: an anthropometric study of private school 
 children from two to eight years of age. Iowa City: University of Iowa. 
 
Wright, S. (2003). The arts, young children, and learning. Boston: Pearson Education, 
 Inc. 
 
Kendall, J. D. (1966). What the American music educator should know about Shinichi 
 Suzuki. Washington DC: Music Educators National Conference. 
 
Docherty, D. (1996). Measure in pediatric exercise science. Champaign, IL: Human 
 Kinetics. 
 
Bacon, T., & Day, P. (1991). The ultimate guitar book. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. 
 
Oracle Education Foundation. (2000). Guitars online. Redwood Shores, CA. Retrieved 
 March 17, 2005, from http://library.thinkquest.org/C001144/English/ 
 history.shtml 
 
Houston Chronicle. (1998). Texas commission on drug and alcohol abuse report. New 
 York:  Hearst Corporation. Retrieved May 2, 2005 from 
 http://schools.tdsb.on.ca/albertcampbell/music/mus-fact.html 
  
Barry, N.H. (1992). Project ARISE: meeting the needs of disadvantaged students through 
 the arts. Auburn: Auburn University. 
 
Graziano, A., Peterson M., & Shaw, G. (1999). Enhanced learning of proportional math 
 through music training and spatial-temporal training.  Neurological Research, 
 Volume 21, March, pp. 139-152. Boston: Maney Publishing. 
 
College Entrance Examination Board. (2001). College bound seniors national report: 
 profile of SAT program test takers.  Princeton: College Entrance Examination 
 Board. 
 124
 
Miller, Al. & Coen, D. (1994). The case for music in the schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 
 Vol.75, No. 6, pp. 459-461. Bloomington: Phi Delta Kappa International.  
 
Venerable, G. (1989).  ?The paradox of the silicon savior?. The case for sequential music 
 education in the core curriculum of the public schools. New York: The Center for 
 the Arts in the Basic Curriculum. 
 
Egan, K. (1988 ). Primary understanding: Education in early childhood.  New York: 
 Routledge. 
 
Heller, S. & Guarnaccia, S. (1994). Designing for children. New York: Watson-Guptill 
 Publications. 
 
Sarason, S. (1990). The challenge of art to psychology. New Haven: Yale University 
 Press. 
 
Pickford, R. W. (1972). Psychology and visual aesthetics. London: Hutchinson 
 Educational Ltd. 
 
Saunders, B., & Van Brakel, J. (2002). Anthropological and historiographic perspectives.  
 Lanham: University Press of America, Inc. 
 
Rauscher, F.H., Shaw, G.L., Levine, L.J., Wright, E.L., Dennis, W.R., and Newcomb, R. 
 (1997) Music training causes long-term enhancement of preschool children's 
 spatial temporal reasoning. Neurological Research, 19, 1-8. 
 
Gromko, J.E., and Poorman, A.S. (1998). The effect of music training on preschooler's 
 spatial-temporal task performance. Journal of Research in Music Education, 46, 
 173-181. 
 
Landon, H. C. (n.d/2005). Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. Retrieved May 8, 2005 from 
 http://www.4to40.com/ 
 
G.E. Smith. (n.d./2005). G.E. Smith. Retrieved May 1, 2005 from 
 http://www.greenmirror.com/gebio.html 
 
John Campbell. (August, 1991). John Campbell biographical sketches.  Retrieved May 
 13, 2005 from http://devilinmycloset.net/john_campbell_sketches.htm 
 
America?s Suzuki Music Academy. (n.d./2005).  America?s Suzuki Music Academy. 
 Retrieved May 8, 2005 from http://www.suzukimusicacademy.com 
 125
Robertson, S. (July 18, 2003) NAMM releases Music USA 2003; kicks off annual summer 
 trade show in Nashville.  Retrieved March 25, 2005 from 
 http://www.namm.com/pressroom/pressreleases/2003july18a.html 
Korzeniowski, P. (July 7, 2004). Music downloads shift into high gear.  Retrieved 
 February 17, 2005 from http://www.technewsworld.com/story/34963.html 
 
Porta, S. (March 28, 2003). A new place to rock in the region. Retrieved March 2, 
 2005  from http://www.thetimesonline.com/articles/2003/03/28 
 
Lieberman, D. (December 16, 2002). Guitar sales jam despite music woes. Retrieved 
 May 19, 2005 from http://www.usatoday.com/money/media/columnist/ 
 lieberman/2002-12-16-music_x.htm