[HN Gopher] Why Is The Guitar Tuned Like It Is?
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Why Is The Guitar Tuned Like It Is?
        
       Author : belter
       Score  : 117 points
       Date   : 2022-10-07 09:09 UTC (13 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (library.kiwix.org)
 (TXT) w3m dump (library.kiwix.org)
        
       | stakkur wrote:
       | There are _many_ guitar  'tunings', and many predate the
       | 'standard' tuning the article refers to. Also, players make up
       | different ones all the time, including using capos to temporarily
       | change 'tuning' on the fly. The 'standard' tuning is by no means
       | the only one.
        
         | wilsonnb3 wrote:
         | Yeah but it's called standard for a reason, probably like 80%
         | or more of guitar music uses it.
         | 
         | Include a few other tunings (drop d and below, dadgad, the more
         | popular open tunings) and you can bump that up to 99%.
        
       | elsherbini wrote:
       | I've experimented a lot with different isomorphic tunings on the
       | guitar - that is where each string is in the same interval. The
       | obvious one to try is perfect 4ths, E A D G C F. This one is
       | great because the same shape works everywhere, drop 2 chords for
       | instance have three sets of shapes you need to learn on standard
       | guitar but only one on perfect 4ths. However, I hate giving up
       | the open B and E strings. You can fix this by adding an extra
       | fret on the highest two strings (or just using a capo on the
       | lowest 4 strings) [1].
       | 
       | My favorite isomorphic tuning though is minor thirds tuning,
       | where each fret becomes a diminished chord. This allows you to
       | explore Barry Harris' harmonic concepts really easily, which
       | describes major and minor 4 note chords as combinations of two
       | diminished chords. I made a video showing how this works. [2]
       | 
       | [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFX5AQRg8Ko
       | 
       | [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Kg1m5KqaoQ
        
         | kazinator wrote:
         | If all strings use the same interval, you have less variety in
         | fingering; everything is the same everywhere.
         | 
         | The M3 interval between the G and B string is useful; you can
         | allocate fingerings between those two strings to play certain
         | things that don't work for a pair of strings that are a P4
         | apart.
        
           | elsherbini wrote:
           | Totally agree, I think regular tunings are cool and easier
           | for learning in a lot of ways, but the ergonomics of standard
           | tuning or other non-regular tunings make somethings easy that
           | are really beautiful. I think making whatever you consider to
           | be desirable on your instrument also be idiomatic and easy to
           | do is good.
        
         | smilekzs wrote:
         | The minor thirds tuning is incidentally the same setup as
         | chromatic button accordions (a.k.a. Bayan's)!
         | 
         | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayan_(accordion)
        
         | toolslive wrote:
         | Bass players use "regular" tuning. Fe, 6 String Basses: B E A D
         | G C
        
         | contravariant wrote:
         | I have to say the phrase 'isomorphic tunings' is very confusing
         | if you have a mathematical background. It apparently doesn't
         | refer to tunings which are effectively the same (not entirely
         | what this would mean, I suppose you could swap a few strings).
        
           | mrob wrote:
           | Wikipedia calls them "regular tunings", which I think is
           | clearer.
           | 
           | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regular_tuning
        
           | dwringer wrote:
           | It means they are effectively the same as you shift
           | rightwards or leftwards on the neck. So you can play a G
           | major chord, move the same exact shape "down one string" and
           | now it's a C major chord. This is not a feature of standard
           | guitar tuning.
        
           | elsherbini wrote:
           | Totally, my mistake. The correct term is regular tunings,
           | which yield an isomorphic layout on the guitar (well, it
           | would if you had infinite strings). In plain english, the
           | same shape always corresponds to the same intervals no matter
           | what strings you are playing.
        
             | Analog24 wrote:
             | Perhaps isometric would be a better description? We're
             | probably getting into the pedantic weeds here though :-)
        
               | osrec wrote:
               | Well, this is HN, afterall :p
        
           | Sharlin wrote:
           | I guess isomorphic tunings are isomorphic in the sense that
           | you can move a fingering not only up and down the fretboard,
           | but also from one set of strings to another, and the chord
           | remains the same, just transposed.
        
       | timdellinger wrote:
       | The list of different ways to tune a guitar is monstrously long:
       | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_guitar_tunings
       | 
       | Same for banjo: https://zeppmusic.com/banjo/aktuning.htm
        
       | shagie wrote:
       | The original stack exchange post:
       | https://music.stackexchange.com/questions/1723/why-is-the-gu...
        
         | Valgrim wrote:
         | I find it cool actually that this kind of knowledge (Q&A) can
         | be readily downloaded and stored for offline consultation on
         | any device.
        
           | shagie wrote:
           | If you want to spin up an instance...
           | https://archive.org/details/stackexchange
           | 
           | I will note that the kiwix.org site appears to not be
           | completely correct with publicly hosting the data and the
           | licensing requirements:
           | 
           | > Ensure that any Internet use of the content includes a
           | hyperlink for each author name directly back to his or her
           | user profile page on the source site on the Network (e.g.,
           | http://stackoverflow.com/users/12345/username), directly to
           | the Stack Exchange domain, in standard HTML (i.e. not through
           | a Tinyurl or other such indirect hyperlink, form of
           | obfuscation or redirection), without any "nofollow" command
           | or any other such means of avoiding detection by search
           | engines, and visible even with JavaScript disabled.
        
       | Sharlin wrote:
       | See also the great, nerd-friendly blog series "Guitar Decomposed"
       | by Bartosz Milewski[1]. Yes, the same guy who wrote _Category
       | Theory for Programmers_.
       | 
       | [1] https://bartoszmilewski.com/2020/05/24/guitar-
       | decomposed-1-w...
        
       | pohl wrote:
       | If you just look at the shapes of the diatonic triads on each set
       | of 3 adjacent strings, you can see a good reason.
       | 
       | On the group of 3 smallest strings, and the next group over, the
       | shapes are all very reachable by the hand.
       | 
       | On the thicker string groups, the shapes require a wider spread
       | of the hand -- especially the half-diminished triad.
       | 
       | The smaller, more comfortable shapes on the thinner strings are
       | made possible by the kink between the G and B strings.
        
       | shams93 wrote:
       | The lute originally had this 3rd in its open strings, guitar came
       | from the lute. Lute like guitar has all 4ths and then one 3rd.
        
         | rdtennent wrote:
         | You're speaking of the renaissance lute. The baroque lute was
         | most often in an open D minor tuning for the top (fretted)
         | strings: ADFADF.
        
       | _greim_ wrote:
       | With EADGCF tuning, barre chords wouldn't work so well, since the
       | top and bottom strings would be a half-step apart (disregarding
       | octaves) creating dissonance. Or rather, EADGBE tuning works well
       | with barre chords because the top and bottom strings are the same
       | note. An open-chord tuning works even better with barre chords,
       | but only for that one chord shape. EADGBE gained predominance
       | partly because it strikes an uneasy compromise between different
       | chord shapes and barre-chord friendliness.
        
         | CPLX wrote:
         | Indeed. I've found that double drop-D has most of the same
         | advantages and also is _so_ close to an open tuning that it
         | gives you most of _those_ advantages as well.
         | 
         | Worth noting. I don't know why I didn't discover it for the
         | first couple decades I picked up a guitar.
        
       | frakt0x90 wrote:
       | A bit off-topic but if you're interested in some modern players
       | that make heavy use of alternate tunings, I strongly recommend
       | Ichika Nito and Yvette Young (Covet). Ichika has tons of videos
       | of him playing in the weirdest tunings and it's quite
       | entertaining.
        
         | a4isms wrote:
         | Not a modern player, but the great Joni Mitchell used alternate
         | tunings so much, she claims that only a couple of her songs
         | were in E-standard tuning.
        
           | aidenn0 wrote:
           | And she is sometimes credited with influencing David Crosby
           | (who she was in a relationship with) to use alternate
           | tunings. CSNY's use of alternate tunings certainly helped
           | popularize them, at least for a bit.
           | 
           | When Stills' played in EEEEBE tuning (which he apparently
           | learned from Palmer) it almost doesn't sound like a 6-string.
        
             | a4isms wrote:
             | Her "Mingus" album from her jazz period opens with "Happy
             | Birthday Rap," in which she calls out, "play that weird
             | minor chord."
             | 
             | If anyone knew weird minor chords... It was Joni.
        
         | yamtaddle wrote:
         | A popular (well, used to be) artist who does this is Chris
         | Carrabba (Dashboard Confessional, huge in the early '00s, was
         | _basically_ a solo act when he started, break-out and biggest
         | hit was  "Screaming Infidelities" which got a ton of radio
         | play).
         | 
         | I think he did it to make it easier to play+sing his songs
         | solo, is all I can figure. Heavy use of multiple open tunings.
         | He'll use like half a dozen tunings on one album, plays on
         | stage with a rack of guitars so he can swap between songs.
        
         | quickthrowman wrote:
         | Sonic Youth is well-known for using alternate guitar tunings:
         | 
         | http://www.sonicyouth.com/mustang/tab/tuning.html
         | 
         | http://www.sonicyouth.com/mustang/tab/tuninglist.html
         | 
         | https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=H8BtI2fNVAw
        
         | tricky wrote:
         | Also see Lindsey Jordan of Snail mail. Midwest emo like Mike
         | Kinsellaof American Football, Owen, & Cap'n Jazz, et. al, and
         | Evan Thomas Weiss of Into it Over it are also fantastic
         | examples of clever tunings. My personal favorite is Chad
         | Matheny of Emperor X - such a unique artist
        
           | bmj wrote:
           | Sam Beam (Iron and Wine) also makes use of alternate tunings
           | (often DADGAD, but he uses others as well).
           | 
           | Edited to add: Also check out Lindsey's teacher, Mary Timony
           | (fronted Helium before becoming a solo act).
        
           | 0x00000000 wrote:
           | American Football guitar tunings: https://twitter.com/americf
           | ootball/status/864900332836585475...
           | 
           | Note that these are also tuned down a half step from how the
           | songs on their first self titled LP (not to be confused with
           | their second or third self titled LP) were originally
           | recorded due to Mike's vocal range changing over 20 years.
        
             | tricky wrote:
             | OMG, that is hilarious and terrifying at the same time.
        
         | camgunz wrote:
         | Can also recommend Covet, great songs, and the guitar work is
         | pretty bonkers--really incredible what different tunings and
         | tons of practice/talent can do. I watched a YT where Yvette
         | Young was talking about how her 1st tele had Bill Lawrence
         | pickups, which (after a truly mad dive into pickup research) I
         | now also have in my main guitar (microcoils + an L45-S in a
         | strat, not a tele, I'm not a monster). My point here is: be
         | careful or you might find yourself up at 1am trying to decide
         | what capacitors you want on your tone pots.
        
           | jimnotgym wrote:
           | Thats one rabbithole, but mine might be worse. I recently
           | made my first pickups.
           | 
           | First I made a coil winding machine, after lots of late night
           | research. I bought an old sewing machine and took it to
           | pieces for the main components. After my first build I
           | improved my machine with some 3d printed parts.
           | 
           | Then there is the process of choosing and sourcing the
           | components, coils, wire magnets, wax...
           | 
           | Then the actual process of getting the winding done...lots of
           | broken wires later...my tele has an awesome set of pickups
           | which sound so clear. The neck pickup is very non standard,
           | more like a strat pickup.
           | 
           | What a stupid hobby!
        
             | kjkjadksj wrote:
             | Whatever you do, don't start building your own effects
             | pedals or this probably gets exponentially worse
        
               | jimnotgym wrote:
               | Too late for me I'm afraid...I built my first effects
               | pedal before I owned a guitar! I have not built that many
               | since tbf, but that doesn't stop me planning to.
               | 
               | I found my fuzz face recently that I spent forever
               | characterising AC128 germanium transistors to get that
               | magic combination...it still sounds completely mental!
        
             | camgunz wrote:
             | Wow that is _wild_ and I love it. See this is why I need to
             | buy a house: I need space for the sewing machine I'll
             | inevitably use to wind my pickups haha.
             | 
             | I think it's a super fun hobby, I really loved the process
             | of choosing tone and options and learning what affects
             | what. It made my guitar feel like a real players'
             | instrument, like I made my own tool. I'll almost certainly
             | do it again--maybe yeah make my own pickups, but what you
             | did is next level haha.
        
               | jimnotgym wrote:
               | I rent a storage unit so I can have spare sewing machines
               | on hand. Without that where would you keep your spare
               | oscilloscope, your various antennea, and your guitar
               | projects?
               | 
               | The guitar I put them in...I made that too. To be fair I
               | got some of the parts from a kit (cheap way to get some
               | parts), but I modified it in a number of ways, and
               | changed all of the hardware. It is a lot of fun. I did
               | think about blogging about it, but I didn't think anyone
               | would care
        
             | tricky wrote:
             | I love that you did this DIY. I just had a guitar built by
             | a guy who also winds pickups per your specs - I loved that
             | I could have him dial in the tone exactly how I wanted.
        
               | jimnotgym wrote:
               | I needed a set of tele pickups. I like the sound of
               | YouTube guitarist Danish Pete's telecaster. I heard it
               | had a Fender 'nocaster' bridge pickup in the bridge, and
               | a 'twisted tele' in the neck. Fender only sell those as
               | sets of two of each, so I would need to buy 4 pickups for
               | the two I needed. List price is PS200 for each set, and
               | try and sell the unwanted pickups on ebay...but other
               | people are already onto this and there are lots of the
               | 'wrong' pickups listed.
               | 
               | Making your own is the obvious solution!
               | 
               | I have 2 strat projects I needed pickups for too, so it
               | will begin to pay off. I reckon I broke even in equipment
               | (but not time) after one pickup.
        
       | podoco wrote:
       | ive always wondered if it would be work learning the all 4ths
       | tuning. seems like the guitar would be much easier to play if you
       | dont need full bar chords. but it might be hard to switch back
       | and forth between the all 4ths tunings and standard.
        
         | wilsonnb3 wrote:
         | I've wondered the same thing in the past, mainly because my
         | primary instrument is the bass guitar which uses all fourths.
         | 
         | Once you play guitar for long enough you will understand why
         | that major third is there, though. A small compromise in the
         | "logic" of the tuning gives you so much utility.
        
       | cousin_it wrote:
       | The most beautiful and unusual tuning I came across is
       | alternating major and minor thirds, something like ACEGBD. Then
       | you can tune A,E,B down 15 cents and each group of three
       | consecutive strings (open or mini-barred at any fret) becomes a
       | _just intonation_ major or minor chord. You pluck three strings
       | and it's like plucking one static string, a sound hanging in
       | space without movement. Major and minor just intonation scales
       | are also playable, though require some jumps.
        
       | otikik wrote:
       | Please link to the original source
       | 
       | https://music.stackexchange.com/questions/1723/why-is-the-gu...
        
       | lioeters wrote:
       | I've always wondered about that kink between the G and B string,
       | a major 3rd gap, when all the other strings are spaced perfect
       | fourth. It bothers me because it's an anomaly that breaks the
       | symmetry and increases the number of shapes to keep in mind.
       | 
       | The whole thread is an enjoyable read, and the answer seems to be
       | - like many things in Western music theory - it was a design
       | decision, a kind of legacy code, with pros and cons. "Things
       | evolve to meet a need."
       | 
       | One of the answers talked about an all-fourths tuning, that some
       | instruments use such tunings as standard.
       | 
       | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_fourths_tuning
       | 
       | Theoretically it's more beautiful, and simplifies the shapes and
       | their movements across the fretboard. It might be a pain to
       | overcome years of learning patterns on the guitar _with_ the kink
       | - I 'll have to try it. Sometimes it's good to shake up the
       | foundation and see what new patterns emerge.
       | 
       | Similarly, I love the logic (and I'd say even wisdom) of the
       | piano keyboard - but there are some kinks in there too, which
       | introduce complexity in the patterns and their transformations,
       | making them harder to remember. I'm curious to try a hexagonal
       | keyboard and other alternative layouts - I imagine the symmetry
       | has practical advantages, and to my mind more aesthetically
       | pleasing.
       | 
       | Wicki-Hayden note layout -
       | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicki%E2%80%93Hayden_note_layo...
       | 
       | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isomorphic_keyboard
        
         | galangalalgol wrote:
         | Has anyone tried to approach music theory without any
         | historical underpinnings (and preferably ignorant of it). I'm
         | thinking of something that started with cog sci and signal
         | processing, and maybe ML. Don't bother linking the obligatory
         | xkcd. I know it is the height of hubris to think that approach
         | would produce anything like quality music for decades, but I
         | think it might give insight to things that were left over from
         | technical limitations or random chance. How far down the rabbit
         | hole have experimental composers gone in questioning everything
         | down to the foundation, and then kept digging?
        
           | jibbit wrote:
           | Bohlen-Pierce
           | https://amp.theguardian.com/music/2010/mar/14/bohlen-
           | pierce-...
        
           | dagmx wrote:
           | I don't think you can really throw music theory out because
           | so much of it is inate to humans hearing and culture, and
           | it's largely a formalization of such.
           | 
           | However, the rub is that what most people consider music
           | theory is western classical theory. There's a lot of
           | different music theories around the world , with different
           | scales, structures etc...
           | 
           | Here's a video you might find interesting of a microtonal
           | guitar https://youtu.be/OVZShd7GZAY
           | 
           | Also a really good video on why "music theory" is often
           | largely paired to western music https://youtu.be/Kr3quGh7pJA
           | while there's so many alternates out there
        
             | blacksmith_tb wrote:
             | Some western instruments are easier to produce microtones
             | on than others - violin/viola/cello/bass for example (or in
             | a more rock/jazz idiom fretless electric bass).
        
           | zokier wrote:
           | The problem with creating a new music theory is the question
           | what do you want the music theory to do? The main value of
           | classical music theory is exactly the historical
           | underpinnings that you want to drop
        
             | dumpsterlid wrote:
             | Yah, music theory is an instrument of conservatism.
             | 
             | Most people just make what sounds good to them and that
             | creates a massive power potential to extract by labelling
             | some of that "good" and some of that "bad" in the eyes of
             | an arbitrary system.
        
             | randomopining wrote:
             | Music theory is just a labeling of the grouping of sounds
             | that sound a certain way, right? And the reasons why they
             | do.
             | 
             | Like you could combine a bunch of random notes together and
             | it would sound terrible. THe reason why a certain scale is
             | a scale is that it all jives together in a way that makes
             | sense to the human brain.
        
               | dekhn wrote:
               | Music theory is an approximation of what the aggregate
               | human preference function for music is, where the
               | aggregate is over a region and time. It's not really a
               | theory per se, but you could definite "learn" many
               | aspects of theory from enough labelled examples. Given
               | many western music examples, you would easily learn
               | circle of fifths and other common details; given indian
               | music, you would learn microtones and other subtle
               | touches that make indian music have depth.
        
             | analog31 wrote:
             | And I would take it one step further... What do you want to
             | do with music? The people I know who studied theory were
             | interested in becoming better musicians.
             | 
             | I'm a jazz musician. The people I know who can create their
             | own compositions and arrangements in that genre all studied
             | theory in college.
        
           | S_A_P wrote:
           | FL Studio/Fruity Loops was created by gol who had no music
           | theory knowledge and was a game programmer(only) before
           | starting on Fruity Loops...
        
           | marcodiego wrote:
           | No need to wonder. You can consider how different musical
           | scales appeared around the world: arab, indian, different
           | temperaments... A nice video I watched about evolution of the
           | guitar says a bit about it:
           | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjK4GVR1EcE and also how we
           | tune modern instruments:
           | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nK2jYk37Rlg
        
           | pfarrell wrote:
           | Not exactly what you're saying, but made me think of a time
           | when once, in a guitar shop, the clerk was playing really
           | cool sounds on the guitar. She was playing in Hawaiian Slack-
           | Key tuning [0]. She said Europeans had left behind guitars
           | after "discovering" the islands. The natives then developed
           | their own way of tuning and playing them, outside of the
           | European styles. Here's a random link to a song in the style
           | I'm talking about [1].
           | 
           | 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slack-key_guitar
           | 
           | 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbqEffI9LQs
        
             | marcodiego wrote:
             | Although a different tuning, it still uses equal
             | temperament. I mean, it can be played on a guitar using
             | standard tuning, but will require different positions.
        
             | gen220 wrote:
             | Sounds vaguely reminiscent of Zeppelin's Bron Yr Aur (tuned
             | CACGCE, iirc).
             | 
             | The low C drones are so entrancing!
        
           | progre wrote:
           | There is plenty of music theory _not_ based on traditional
           | western music.
           | 
           | The "atom" of all music is that frequencies with simple
           | relationships (for example, exactly 1/3x) sounds "nice" (we
           | can hear the harmony) and frequencies with complicated
           | relationships (pi x) sounds sour (used intentionaly with
           | great effect by bands like Sonic Youth for example).
           | 
           | The essence of western music is the decision to split the
           | octave into 12 and have this be the notes we use (anyone who
           | have tried this will discover that we run into trouble when
           | our instument tonal range spans more than one octave, this is
           | where "tunings" come in).
           | 
           | But there are alternatives: Spliting the octave into 53 parts
           | has way more harmonies
           | 
           | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/53_equal_temperament
           | 
           | This is partialy used in turkish music for example.
        
             | kazinator wrote:
             | The split into 12 is not just in western music. 12 appears
             | in the 22 shruti system in Indian music due to not all 22
             | tones being used; the 22 can be seen as alterations in a 12
             | framework.
             | 
             | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shruti_(music)#/media/File:Sh
             | r...
             | 
             | There is something "special" about 12 note chromaticism
             | with 7 note diatonic scales.
        
         | Maciek416 wrote:
         | I use an all-fourths tuning on the Linnstrument and absolutely
         | love it. As a person who approached both music theory and
         | learning to play with their hands for the first time (after
         | clicking around in a piano roll for years) with an all-fourths
         | isomorphic keyboard, it removed whole categories of mental
         | gymnastics and time sucks and let me pick up big chords and
         | bits of jazz/rnb much quicker as a result. The benefits of
         | being able to transpose and dance around the keyboard
         | effortlessly without having to account for that major 3rd gap
         | can't be overstated. You've got one unified mental model for
         | everything and can skip directly to the good stuff. There are a
         | number of grid instruments on the market that implement all
         | fourths (Push, Launchpad, etc etc). If you have an iPad, Musix
         | Pro can also act as a MIDI output (either for iPadOS
         | instruments or for external hardware) that gives you an
         | equivalent layout, but also many other interesting layouts that
         | may work better for the music you want to play.
         | 
         | As a side note, after learning linnstrument, I picked up an 8
         | string guitar and found it much easier to translate my
         | knowledge by tuning in all-fourths. With all-fourths, you
         | really can learn chords as a set of (essentially) 2D glyphs
         | that interact and fit together like Lego pieces. Inversions are
         | easier to remember, transposition is always effortless,
         | training your hands is quicker. Highly recommended.
        
         | dumpsterlid wrote:
         | " I've always wondered about that kink between the G and B
         | string, a major 3rd gap, when all the other strings are spaced
         | perfect fourth. It bothers me because it's an anomaly that
         | breaks the symmetry and increases the number of shapes to keep
         | in mind."
         | 
         | One of the deeply beautiful things about the guitar is this
         | "ugly" asymmetry. People with analytical minds that desire
         | order always get bothered by this 3rd, why not go to all 4ths
         | and be more elegant???
         | 
         | Because art and music arent always about being elegant! Tuning
         | a guitar in all 4ths lets you play like a snooty stuck up jazz
         | musician, but ultimately there are so many richer bar chords
         | available with that 3rd in there that who cares if it is "ugly"
         | to have the 3rd. People forget a plain jane normal guitar chord
         | like a G chord or something is tonally actually very complex.
         | It isn't like a basic g chord on a piano G B D. The "basic" G
         | chord on guitar spans many octaves and has a non-obvious
         | combination of notes. The 3rd in there for guitar tuning allows
         | you to explore all those complexities with the given
         | limitations of the human hand best.
        
           | lapcat wrote:
           | > Tuning a guitar in all 4ths lets you play like a snooty
           | stuck up jazz musician
           | 
           | I'd love to play like Stanley Jordan, who famously uses
           | EADGCF.
        
             | KerrAvon wrote:
             | Do it! Keep a spare guitar around with just that tuning!
             | Even allowing for inflation, nice guitars are still
             | incredibly cheap by historical standards. If you want an
             | acoustic,I don't think you can go wrong with any guitar on
             | this first page:
             | 
             | https://www.sweetwater.com/c600--
             | 6_string_Acoustic_Guitars?a...
             | 
             | I'm less enthusiastic about the low-cost electrics;
             | probably want to go at least $200 and maybe something from
             | guitarfetish.com instead.
        
               | elsherbini wrote:
               | Lots of people have their favorite cheap electric guitar,
               | but mine is definitely the Tagima TW-55 (not the
               | woodstock series, has to be TW). Can often find it used
               | for ~$180
        
         | titanomachy wrote:
         | > Sometimes it's good to shake up the foundation and see what
         | new patterns emerge.
         | 
         | In this vein, I'm a lifelong guitarist and someone lent me a
         | mandolin... I've learned a lot from playing it! It's tuned to
         | straight fifths, but since it's much smaller than a guitar, you
         | can actually reach all the notes of the scale without moving
         | your hand up and down the neck. (I assume this wouldn't be true
         | of a full-sized guitar tuned to fifths, although I haven't
         | actually tried it.)
         | 
         | You can pretty quickly intuit how things work, and it will give
         | you new insights into theory. The scales show up more simply
         | and symmetrically than on a guitar. (e.g. the western major
         | scale in the open position is 0-2-4-5, 0-2-4-5, 0-2-3-5,
         | 0-2-3-5)
        
         | aaroninsf wrote:
         | The instrumental (ha HA) utility of the "kink" seems to me a
         | natural consequence of compounding constraints:
         | 
         | some musing:
         | 
         | the number of strings is constrained to allow for chord voicing
         | across all the strings,
         | 
         | and to provide range,
         | 
         | open chords with minimal fingering complexity radically
         | increase accessibility,
         | 
         | duplication is critical to support those,
         | 
         | capping with the double octave of the lowest note makes up-and-
         | down strumming work,
         | 
         | if you're going to break pattern to coerce the highest string,
         | it's extremely useful to also provide its dominant (5th) which
         | makes sounding those top strings together just "work"
         | (especially: with a bass note on the lowest string), with the
         | side benefit that it allows learned scale patterns to work
         | across those two strings, where most melodic playing will be
         | up-an-down and third- fourth- or fifth- jumping or stopping,
         | 
         | ...add all this up and it's a collection of mild but clear wins
         | that together really strongly entail the current system.
         | 
         | Robert Fripp's 500 page book on guitar playing no doubt
         | explains why this is Wrong and his preferred all-fourths tuning
         | etc. are Better though. :)
        
           | lioeters wrote:
           | It's been interesting to learn about the reasoning (or post-
           | facto explanations) of that seemingly anomalous major 3rd
           | gap. I can see its advantages, like it enables certain barre
           | chords.
           | 
           | Apparently, the tuning invented by Robert Fripp is called
           | "New standard tuning", based on all _fifths_. I like the
           | audacity to call it a new standard. :)
           | 
           | > C2-G2-D3-A3-E4-G4 (from lowest to highest)
           | 
           | > the five lowest open strings are each tuned to an interval
           | of a perfect fifth
           | 
           | > the two highest strings are a minor third apart
           | 
           | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_standard_tuning
        
             | elsherbini wrote:
             | Yeah, perfect 5ths, or the weird in-between which would be
             | tritone tuning allow for really wide intervalic leaps
             | really ergonomically. Since a lot of progressive music
             | favors melodic lines with wide intervalic leaps, it's a
             | good option for that style.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2022-10-07 23:01 UTC)