getuhgrip
Bring Back Transfat!
Being just a hack and not a music student, I've always wondered how B-string tuning originated.
muttley600
Banned
Sorry fella, but what is the question again? Do you mean why is the interval g - b shorter on the guitar and not consistently tuned in fourths?
getuhgrip
Bring Back Transfat!
Yup. When did this first come into play with guitars?
muttley600
Banned
OK, two contexts to investigate
First is the attraction of having simple note values assigned to the open strings and the fact that it resolves E-E on the octave,
Second context is historical. Lutes and viols which were tuned using similar systems with similar musical aims and repertoire developed a tuning system that put the right octaves under the fingers in any position on the fret board.
The closest analogy that applies to the modern guitar but pre dates both the violin family and the guitar as we know them is the viol. Six strings tuned in fourths with a third thrown in to resolve the octave. Viols came is sizes from treble to bass and were tuned accordingly but they were all tuned in fourths with a third to resolve the octave but the third was a string earlier between the third and fourth string.
First is the attraction of having simple note values assigned to the open strings and the fact that it resolves E-E on the octave,
Second context is historical. Lutes and viols which were tuned using similar systems with similar musical aims and repertoire developed a tuning system that put the right octaves under the fingers in any position on the fret board.
The closest analogy that applies to the modern guitar but pre dates both the violin family and the guitar as we know them is the viol. Six strings tuned in fourths with a third thrown in to resolve the octave. Viols came is sizes from treble to bass and were tuned accordingly but they were all tuned in fourths with a third to resolve the octave but the third was a string earlier between the third and fourth string.
Erockrazor
I mix in (2x) real-time
I have heard that it was that typical folk chords were easier to play. But I don't really see it.
B
Brian Oshman
New member
Would that be the elusive three and a half string or did you mean to say "between third and fifth string"?
muttley600
Banned
On a guitar the interval of a third is between the g and b strings, strings four and five. On a viol it would be between strings three and four counting down from the bass course. If a viol where tuned from E as a guitar is it would mean that the interval of a third would be between the d and g strings.
B
Brian Oshman
New member
Never mind, I just misread the wording.
muttley600
Banned
R
RejectionNinja
New member
I have no idea about the historical context, but if you tuned a guitar in straight 4ths, the open strings would be E, A, D, B, C, F. It would be impossible to play a six-string barre chord on that mess, and a five-string barre chord would be very complex.
If I'm wrong, I'd love to see what you've got.
Additionally, the intervals on the G, B, E strings allow for playing a full octave in only 3 frets, which is super handy for lead playing.
So in conclusion, while I have no idea about the origins of this particular tuning, I think that straight 4ths would have been immediately recognized as a dumb idea for a 6 string instrument.
If I'm wrong, I'd love to see what you've got.
Additionally, the intervals on the G, B, E strings allow for playing a full octave in only 3 frets, which is super handy for lead playing.
So in conclusion, while I have no idea about the origins of this particular tuning, I think that straight 4ths would have been immediately recognized as a dumb idea for a 6 string instrument.
DrewPeterson7
Sage of the Order
So in conclusion, while I have no idea about the origins of this particular tuning, I think that straight 4ths would have been immediately recognized as a dumb idea for a 6 string instrument.
Actually, a straight 4th tuning would make for a more even arrangement of notes on the fretboard for scalar playing - patterns would continue to be symetrical as you moved up towards the thinner strings.
I've always thought a 5ths tuning would be ideal for scalar work, since this would allow you to play scales arranged 4 notes per string in a fixed position. However, this poses two problems - one, lower on the neck, that can lead to some pretty big stretches, and two - that would cover a HUGE range (especially if like me you play a seven string), and string gauge/intonation issues would be, um, problematic.
lpdeluxe
The Precision Bass Guy
Fourths work great for single-note instruments (think of violin or bass) but, as pointed out earlier, chords are more difficult. If you think about it, among viola-family instruments, the playing of "double stops" (playing two notes at once) is considered a sophisticated technique.
The ancestors of the guitar were 5-course (that is, 5 pairs of strings with each pair tuned in unison, like a mandolin) instruments, and it seems natural that someone would notice that an intervening 3rd interval made chordal playing much simpler. What I've read about early guitar technique seems to indicate that there were very few shredders in those days -- more typical were the strummers, which is still true today. Paganini was the Yngve of his day, and there were, given the smaller population, no doubt very few competitors in his style.
In any case, it appears that documentation is scanty: I have read that the early (16th century) 5-course guitars were tuned with a 4th interval between the first and second strings (which would make the tuning of a 5-string guitar E-A-D-G-C or A-D-G-C-F).
Tuning for the 5-course string instrument was never standardized, but one popular tuning was (using the intervals between strings) 4-4-3-4. Thus, the rogue third has already entered the history! You'll appreciate, that in the days before nylon strings and electronic tuners, "instructions on tuning in the main seventeenth-century guitar books are often imprecise." You'll note that those were the days before the acceptance of the single A=440 standard we almost have today. Anyhow, the low E was omitted, tuning becoming more or less normal at either AA-d'd'-gg-bb-e' which is pretty close to modern tuning -- and, at this early date (1674) we already have the 3rd, and its genesis is in a black hole of undocumented tuning.
By 1800, the 5-course guitar was obsolete, replaced, as far as we know, by the 5-course-plus-single-sixth string variation. This seems to be the result of the difficulty of reliably tuning very thin gut strings to one another.
During the late 18th-early 19th centuries courses became single strings, a low E was added, and off we go into Satriani-land.
The ancestors of the guitar were 5-course (that is, 5 pairs of strings with each pair tuned in unison, like a mandolin) instruments, and it seems natural that someone would notice that an intervening 3rd interval made chordal playing much simpler. What I've read about early guitar technique seems to indicate that there were very few shredders in those days -- more typical were the strummers, which is still true today. Paganini was the Yngve of his day, and there were, given the smaller population, no doubt very few competitors in his style.
In any case, it appears that documentation is scanty: I have read that the early (16th century) 5-course guitars were tuned with a 4th interval between the first and second strings (which would make the tuning of a 5-string guitar E-A-D-G-C or A-D-G-C-F).
Tuning for the 5-course string instrument was never standardized, but one popular tuning was (using the intervals between strings) 4-4-3-4. Thus, the rogue third has already entered the history! You'll appreciate, that in the days before nylon strings and electronic tuners, "instructions on tuning in the main seventeenth-century guitar books are often imprecise." You'll note that those were the days before the acceptance of the single A=440 standard we almost have today. Anyhow, the low E was omitted, tuning becoming more or less normal at either AA-d'd'-gg-bb-e' which is pretty close to modern tuning -- and, at this early date (1674) we already have the 3rd, and its genesis is in a black hole of undocumented tuning.
By 1800, the 5-course guitar was obsolete, replaced, as far as we know, by the 5-course-plus-single-sixth string variation. This seems to be the result of the difficulty of reliably tuning very thin gut strings to one another.
During the late 18th-early 19th centuries courses became single strings, a low E was added, and off we go into Satriani-land.
muttley600
Banned
I concur with most of what you say but the history of tunings is fairly well documented. The genesis of the "rouge third" lies squarely with the lute and more specifically the viol.
You raise a couple of very important considerations not least the importance of string "technology" and what was and wasn't possible. The other considerations are to do with the repertoire and musical context. Neither of these can ever be ignored.
lpdeluxe
The Precision Bass Guy
That's "rogue."
Perhaps I should have said, "here at my house, the history of tunings is scanty" which is the truth.
cephus
Slow Children Playing
While we're at it...
Why the hell is the scale with no sharps or flats C? Why isn't it A? That would make so much more sense. On a piano, middle C could just be middle A and then music would make more sense and guitar players and keyboard players would get along because they'd both want to play in A all the time.
Damned elitist snob musicians who can read music!
Why the hell is the scale with no sharps or flats C? Why isn't it A? That would make so much more sense. On a piano, middle C could just be middle A and then music would make more sense and guitar players and keyboard players would get along because they'd both want to play in A all the time.
Damned elitist snob musicians who can read music!
Gidge
Lapdance Test Dummy
I've got E,A,D,G,C,F..
mikemorgan
panned out
And what's with those fret markers on my guitar neck. You ain't the boss of me, I'll play wherever the hell I want!
R
RejectionNinja
New member
Armistice
Son of Yoda
I have heard that Robert Friipp tunes in fifths... presumably starting a little lower than E.
Not sure how that would work, but I'm not a great fan of Mr Fripp anyway.
And anyone ever notice that you can play just the B string, on its own, without sounding any other strings, and it can sound out of tune? Or is that just me. Hate B strings...
Not sure how that would work, but I'm not a great fan of Mr Fripp anyway.
And anyone ever notice that you can play just the B string, on its own, without sounding any other strings, and it can sound out of tune? Or is that just me. Hate B strings...
lpdeluxe
The Precision Bass Guy
A thought experiment...
Try this out: tune your guitar in 4ths. That would be E-A-D-G-C-F. Now play an Emaj chord.
You would play the bottom E open, fret the A string on the 2nd fret, the D string on the second fret, the G on the first fret, the C string on the 4th fret, and the top F string on the 2nd fret. The notes would be E-B-E-G#-E-G#.
Or, try an Amaj: mute the low E, play the A open, the D at the 2nd fret, the G at the 2nd fret, the C at the first fret, and the F at the 4th fret. The notes are now *-A-E-A-C#-A.
Dmaj might be easier: mute the low E, play the A open, the D open, the G at the 2nd fret, the C at the 2nd fret, and the F at the first fret. This is *-A-D-A-D-F#, reasonably easy to finger.
So let's try a B7, common in blues/rock: mute the low E, play the A at the 2nd fret, the D at the 1st fret, the G at the 2nd fret, the C at the 2nd fret, the F at the 1st fret...wait a minute, that's too many fingers. OK, switch to an alternate voice: mute the E and A, play the D string at the 2nd fret, the G at the 2nd fret, the C at the 3rd fret, and the F at the 1st fret.
D-A-D-G-A-D suffers from similar problems, in that the additional facility in fingerpicking pattern playing is lost in chordal playing.
I hope this makes it clearer why the intervals between the strings are arranged the way they are: someone took the violin/cello tuning, tried playing chords, and tinkered with it until they could play in some favored key.
Try this out: tune your guitar in 4ths. That would be E-A-D-G-C-F. Now play an Emaj chord.
You would play the bottom E open, fret the A string on the 2nd fret, the D string on the second fret, the G on the first fret, the C string on the 4th fret, and the top F string on the 2nd fret. The notes would be E-B-E-G#-E-G#.
Or, try an Amaj: mute the low E, play the A open, the D at the 2nd fret, the G at the 2nd fret, the C at the first fret, and the F at the 4th fret. The notes are now *-A-E-A-C#-A.
Dmaj might be easier: mute the low E, play the A open, the D open, the G at the 2nd fret, the C at the 2nd fret, and the F at the first fret. This is *-A-D-A-D-F#, reasonably easy to finger.
So let's try a B7, common in blues/rock: mute the low E, play the A at the 2nd fret, the D at the 1st fret, the G at the 2nd fret, the C at the 2nd fret, the F at the 1st fret...wait a minute, that's too many fingers. OK, switch to an alternate voice: mute the E and A, play the D string at the 2nd fret, the G at the 2nd fret, the C at the 3rd fret, and the F at the 1st fret.
D-A-D-G-A-D suffers from similar problems, in that the additional facility in fingerpicking pattern playing is lost in chordal playing.
I hope this makes it clearer why the intervals between the strings are arranged the way they are: someone took the violin/cello tuning, tried playing chords, and tinkered with it until they could play in some favored key.