Alternative Tunings

Alternate tunings is when you change those strings to something else... Then all of the fingering you're used to on the guitar creates *very* different-sounding chords and patterns.

Nick Drake did a lot of really cool things with alternate tunings... Same with Joni Mitchell.

And everything is different from there. In a lot of ways it's easier to sound really great with an open tuning, because there are fewer ways to go wrong. Find the right one and John Fahey's not nearly as far away as it might otherwise seem.

Oh, and I often use my thumb, making me look like a retarded fiddle crab whenever I play.

The root of many alternate tunings, though, is something more along the lines of "Damn, I've just come up with this great little figure but the G string doesn't fit," or "God, this would be so much easier to play if the E strings were a whole step lower."

Jazz guitarist Kurt Rosenwinkle is into fucked up alternate tunings...he says he usually doesn't know what he's playing in a theoretical sense when he's in alternate tunings, just going strictly by what sounds good.

I don't see how this is the case at all. The music is notes, not shapes on the fretboard.

Note that it really, really helps to have two guitars when you start doing this stuff.

The first is slide-guitar or slack-key or palmwine or alternating bassline finger-picking. If you put a slide vertically on the guitar neck which has strings tuned to the standard E B G D A E, and strum, you get those notes, which do not conformo to any standard minor or major chord. As a result, it's kind of hard to play regular songs, which mostly employ these types of chords. So you retune the guitar to any number of "shapes" which resemble a chord or a suspension of one (don't worry about what that is.) Basically, you make it so that when you strum it, even without putting your fingers on the guitar neck, the guitar strings ring a chord. This also allows fast fingerpickers, like Tuck Andress or Adrian Legg, to make interesting patterns with one or two fingers pressed on the strings, while leaving the rest open (or unpressed) and have the open ones ring a chord while the pressed ones make a melody. In some cases, it's easier to play contrapunctal lines that way. Contrapunctal is essentially playing in counterpoint, or independent/contrasting bass/treble parts. Also, you can tune your strings so that almost all of them are perfect intervals--perfect means either an octave (A to A,) a fourth (A to D,) or a fifth (A to E)--this allows you to have great drones, as perfect intervals tend to resonante very nicely.

The second is that, unlike piano, most guitars only have six strings. So in some cases, it is very difficult to play certain chord intervals. In interval-ese, close intervals are ones that are (duh) close to each in note value. So if I plonked A,B,D,E all around the middle C on a piano at the same time, I'd be playing some pretty close intervals. If I played A, D, E, and then the next higher A, the D and E would be close, but the A to D, and E to A would not be close. In guitars, it's very difficult to do so, and so sometimes guitarists who are going after specific chords will retune their guitars.

The third is that, after you play in standard, your brain wires certain phrases into your head, this is at once known as your style, but also a liability to creative guitarists, who can get frustrated. Sometimes you retune and then you mentally remap the notes, revealing new relationships, but this is a pretty heady trick to do when you're in the heat of it. Mostly it's employed so that you kind of don't know what you're doing, but you sorta know once you've hit a few frets. This is also heavily employed by guitarists who aren't technically that great--it helps make interesting and often complex shapes without too much work. But it IS a bit random, so you might do something neat, and follow that up with something awful. The same goes for pounding clusters on a piano--you sound waaaay smarter than trying to play Chopin, but it's a mix of brilliance and idiocy. Indeed, some can argue that this is the cop-out of free-jazz'ers, that they don't have the capacity to play clear ideas, so they hide their inadequacies with obfuscation.

It should be noted, however, that for centuries, instruments more or less stayed the same in tuning, and there was no wont for ideas due to "staleness."

You can tune the open strings to be a barred 'E chord'. Therefore, to play an E, all you'd have to do is strum the open strings. To play any barred chord, all you'd have to do is put your index finger on one fret, touching all the strings. This is how many people play SLIDE GUITAR.

Likewise, you can tune the guitar lower or higher, but maintain the same relationship between strings. If you tune the Low E string down to a lower B or G, every other string will follow suit as long as you tune them to that string. Or, if you're stupid, get a 7-string guitar.

If you just plain tune your guitar weird, most likely, you have a specific idea in mind, and would be familiar enough with the relationship of the strings to know what you're doing. I don't think many people do that. Generally, critics will say "odd tunings" when what is really happening is some invented or inverted chord that makes it SOUND oddly tuned. For instance, Sonic Youth is famous for it's "odd tunings" but if you watch them play, they are using inverted chords and weird homemade chords that if you mimick on your regularly tuned guitar will sound the same as if SY played 'em. For instance: buy "1992 The Year Punk Broke" and see. Also, Thurston and Lee play one guitar through the whole set usually. They're not tuning their guitars weird. They might have at one time, but it's not a regular thing. For all the Sonic Youth songs I've ever learned (and there's a lot of them), I've never had to detune or weirdly tune my guitar and you don't have to get very inventive with the chords, either. It's usually just different variations on how you would play a barred chord on the top 3 or 4 strings, still tuned to E on the top string.

(1) There was, without doubt, a period during which Sonic Youth used loads upon loads of alternate tunings, and carried loads upon loads of guitars around for this purpose. You can still play most of their stuff in standard tuning, but the textures wind up a little different.

(2) I don't know about actual genuine professional metal bands, but loads upon loads of general metalhead guitarists drop the low E to a D for that single-finger power-chord option. If you want to play fast low-end riffs and have them be chunky power chords instead of single- note runs, dropping that E is the obvious solution.

then just throw your fingers around and see what weird chords you come up with. It's fun.

sebastapol = a fine word + open E tuning, BUT DUE TO MY DEEP VOX, i often tune down to D tuning. Curtis Mayfield and John Martyn played some qwell alt.tunings.

most alt tunings are one trick ponies so therefore not all are different language - some just a different accent.

drop all strings half-step = srv,hendrix,kobane - mo' meaty and bendable.

unison pairs and second apart = chime,jangle = natural chorus+

It just occurred to me that Soundgarden and a lot of grunge bands also used it. And the really fast riffing isn't a rumbling E to A change anymore than fast flat picking is a rumbling E, the notes are completely irrelevant--I could be muting the strings with both hands and still get a rumbling, just as I could mute the strings and get a "wah" sound using a pedal.

I think people dropped their entire tuning partially because they couldn't sing that high--that and it sounded lower, but a whole-step is almost immaterial as far as getting that deep sound, since you've got a bass an octave lower. If you look at the shape that you get when you drop just the E to a D, it's a barre chord. And when they're talking about drop-D "tuning"--they almost definitely mean dropping just the D.

Here's an answer from "Cyberfret.com" -- I have no idea of their standing among the guitar instruction sites, but nonetheless:

"In the modern rock era, Drop D is fast becoming the most common tuning for the guitar. The only difference between Drop D and standard tuning is that you are going to lower (drop) the 6th string from an E down to a D. Everything else will stay the same." There are a gazillion hits if you enter drop-D tuning into Google or Yahoo.

Miller's response = awesome.

Yes - I know that 'alternative tunings' exist, I know that Keef and Drake are famous for them. That's why I asked the question.

And yes, I can see that in theory, an alternate tuning should help you to find something new. I understand Ruts as well as anybody.

And thanks for the practical suggestions.

But perhaps I didn't quite make myself clear - that my point was about the EXTREME DIFFICULTY that I have to assume follows from alternative tunings. It's hard enough to get everything right on an ordinary tuning, even after all these years. (Hard enough? It's bleedin' impossible.) So how much harder is it when you turn the fretboard into a foreign country?

I hope so.

Still don't think you're getting me about the *difficulty* of using alternative tunings. ie: entering a world where nothing works the way it did - sounds exciting in theory, but in practice, hard to achieve anything whatsoever?

6 5 4 3 2 1 (6 being the lowest note I can play on the guitar.) D G D G B D 4 5 4 M3 m3 (That's the relationship between the strings in terms of how many scale notes it takes to get from one to the other. So it takes D, E, F, G to get from D to G, and that's four scale values.)

This spells basically the G chord.

And let's say I put my finger vertically on the seventh fret, and I want to know what the notes are for the lowest two strings (5 and 6.)

I know that the seventh fret of D is A, and that the relationship between the the (6) and (5) string is a 4th. So to figure out what the corresponding fret is on the G string (5), I go, what's the 4th of A? The fourth of A is D. And that's what the seventh fret of the (5) string is. Also, I know that because I can count up from the open string value of the (5) string, and I can go, G-A-B-C-D, and find that it's D as well.

This works even if you don't know the absolute value of the notes and just had the string relationships. (Another words, you can't read music.) You can break down almost any Western tonal music into chord relationships, and so you just assume an arbitrary value for the open string notes, you still have your string relationships, and you can map chord relationships in a way similar to how we mapped note relationships. It's kind of like, you may not know how big or small a map of, say, London is in reallife, but you can sketch out London by assuming an arbitrary distance and then basing all your dimensions on that. Another words, even if someone came in in the middle of the night and retuned your guitar, you could still play "Desperado" by figuring out what the string relationships are and constructing chords that way, it might just be in the wrong key, unless you have perfect pitch and can tell what absolute note values are.

I'll add, though, that "All that changes is the relation of the strings to each other" rather supports what I'm trying to say - as the relation of the strings to each other is presumably part of the essence of how a guitar works.

Imagine re. driving a car (sth else I can't do), "All that changes is the relation of the parts of the car to each other". --> Many deaths on the road?

like so:

6 5 4 3 2 1

D G D G B D

4 5 4 3 3

ARGH!!!!!!

But it's not quite that dire, it's more like if I took your mouse and then reversed the directions that it went and then took your keyboard and alphabetised it and then took off the letters from the top. It might be tough for a while to check your email, but you'd get the hang of it pretty soon.

or

eeCCEE

WHICH SHOULD I USE?????????

question: when you use a tuning like that, where one of the strings (in this case the high E) is pretty far away from standard tuning, do people generally tune up or down to get there? i assume they don't tune up 'cause that couldn't be good for the gtr. but if you tune down, how on earth do you keep that really wobbly string in tune?

Guage of the strings affects how tight it has to be to hit the note you want as does the scale of the guitar (i.e. a Les Paul's neck is shorter than a Stratocaster, etc.)

(next week on ILM: tune in to find out what size belt spiral stairs was wearing when he wrote "date with ikea"!)

Doesn't the Malkmus version of this tuning have the two Bs in unison? That would make sense if he used a .016 for both.

If you are playing with the Bs as octaves (which is what I meant when I said tune up -- if the Bs are in unison then the high string is being tuned down from standard), then you'd need a much lighter guage string to get it up to the B. I've done this with a .10.

The lighter the string guage, the higher the note you can get before the string's too tight to play on. The lower the guage, the lower the note you can get before the string gets too flappy to play in tune.

Theoretically yes, but even two guitars off the same line may need slightly different adjustments to set their intonations, so it'd be pretty hard for mass-produced guitars to come off the line with "perfect" intonation. Usually what happens is the saddles on the guitar are set to an average setting. (I'm talking about electric guitars that have individually adjustable saddles... acoustics with a single piece bridge are a different thing and usually have approximate intonations anyway.)

Intonation slips as guitars are played, so it's the kind of thing that has to be adjusted every so often regardless (if you want to keep your guitar's intonation in shape). Most stores with guitar techs will charge b/t $30-$50 to do a "set-up" which usually includes intonation adjustment, fret dressing and a couple other things. Intonation adjustments actually aren't that hard to do yourself if you pick up a book with instructions and have the tools (usually a small screwdriver and/or a hex wrench). You'd also need a good tuner or a good ear to match the 12th fretted note to the 12th fret harmonic.

The thing about intonation and non-standard tunings is that sometimes the slight variation that results from changing tuning is part of the interesting voicing that comes out of the new tuning, so it's not necessarily something that has to be adjusted every time you tune a string differently.

Unless you're just that anal.

http://www.sonicyouth.com/mustang/tab/tune.html

Also, there's a quite complete list of the SY equipment, including guitars and their tunning

http://www.sonicyouth.com/mustang/eq/gear.html

Oh dear, I have to note something from years ago:

C G D G B B
question: when you use a tuning like that, where one of the strings (in this case the high E) is pretty far away from standard tuning, do people generally tune up or down to get there? i assume they don't tune up 'cause that couldn't be good for the gtr. but if you tune down, how on earth do you keep that really wobbly string in tune?

-- fact checking cuz (fcc), Friday, May 21, 2004 4:06 PM (3 years ago) Bookmark Link

fcc, you tune up.

I think I was the one suggesting that tuning, and I actually tune that top E down to get there. This is partly to avoid breaking a bunch of E strings doing it, but partly because the wobble is part of the point: with the two highest strings tuned to B, you're always using them both at the same time, for a sort of 12-string / mandolin effect; there's no reason to play the top string alone. So its wobbly looseness (it's not really that wobbly, BTW) kind of choruses against the standard B below it. (If you're using distortion, you can detune the top string a little off B, for a mildly dissonant/wavery effect.)

man, yr daydream nation review was rong

There also exist partial capos for when you'd want to tune only a couple of strings higher than normal.

Steve, I have fantasized about such a partial capo for years. Had no idea they existed! Who makes 'em?

GEE JON YR TOTALLY THE FIRST PERSON TODAY TO SEND ME A ONE-LINE MESSAGE SAYING THAT WITH NO REASON WHY EXCEPT "EHHHHH"

I had no idea nabisco was a Sonic Youth fan.

Wow, Nude Spock was way off about drop-D. ("Heart Shaped Box" is almost definitely played with only the 6th string tuned to D.)

Wow, there is so much insanity and misinformation in some of the early posts on this thread that I can't even begin to unravel them.

The guitar is a retarded instrument - you can learn to play a G minor 7 chord without knowing what "G" or "minor" or "7" means, and a near-beginner could be taught how to play a 13 chord, in every key, without even knowing what a major triad is. It's out of this ignorant musical universe that rock and roll was born, and it's only in this universe that someone can think they "invented" a chord or that there's anything *out* about using "alternate tunings"

(A minor 7 or D minor 7 would have been better examples since those are beginner chords)

Steve, I have fantasized about such a partial capo for years. Had no idea they existed! Who makes 'em?

A google search for "partial capo" turns up a few different makers. I've never used one myself, though.

The guitar is a retarded instrument - you can learn to play a G minor 7 chord without knowing what "G" or "minor" or "7" means, and a near-beginner could be taught how to play a 13 chord, in every key, without even knowing what a major triad is.

Well yeah, but I don't think that applies any less to the piano or harp, for instance, except for the relative commonness of such guitarists being greater. The only thing the guitar does is make it easy to take one fingering and slide it around, unlike piano where one would have to do more adjusting.

It's more than that though - on the guitar you usually start out learning chords by shapes and most people don't learn notes at all. At least on a piano pretty much anyone will learn the twelve notes, (piano does happen to have the visual element that makes this easier).

Also on a piano no one is going to teach you "this is the fingering for an A7 flat 9" without telling you what the hell that means.

I know that Kyser does a partial capo, and I think there's a Dunlop Trigger Capo that's partial as well.

Hurting the first thing I learned to play on piano was a C major chord and no one told me what the hell that meant.

Yeah, but I'd imagine you eventually learned. Many guitarists never do.

Also on a piano no one is going to teach you "this is the fingering for an A7 flat 9" without telling you what the hell that means.

Seriously? There are definitely pianists who learn that way. And there are lots who are very proficient at reading notes from a page, but if you say "Play E7#5" they'll have no idea what you're talking about.

Guitarists don't tend to read notes from a page either.

Look, you guys are missing my point. Guitarists are musically STOOPID - on the whole they read worse (if at all) and know less theory (if any) than people who play almost any other instrument.

Obviously there are exceptions - guitarists who know theory and pianists who don't, but it's the general pattern of guitarists to know nothing and the general pattern of pianists to know a bit more.

I like that accessibility about guitar, though -- the way you can learn things visually / geometrically, in a grid of relationships between strings and frets. (You'd think this would mean I'd have a much better shot at figuring out modal improvisation, but no dice.) Sure, mapping things out in two dimensions like that gives you slightly less incentive to learn about notes and intervals, but it also gives you more freedom to create -- intuitively -- working, organized patterns based on stuff other than traditional notes and intervals.

Hurting, the lack of theory among guitarists isn't just intrinsic to the instrument, though -- it's kind of a genre thing, isn't it? Guitars helped make it possible, sure, but you'll find equal lack of proper training now all through pop music: dance people, electronic people, hip-hop people, pretty much anything youth-culture apart from expensive studio stuff.

(Sundar, I'm not an SY superfan, but yeah, I like them lots: something about the combo of art/trash aesthetics makes the "trash" part work way better for me, and anyway I think they function really well as a pop group, with their "difficulty" kinda overestimated, from today's perspective.)

Don't get me wrong - playing without "proper training" is often great. It's just a bit silly the way things that sound the slightest bit abnormal get touted as innovative when played on a guitar.

Hurting, the lack of theory among guitarists isn't just intrinsic to the instrument, though -- it's kind of a genre thing, isn't it?

That's my point. There are common pitfalls on every instrument - we could list them all day. The guitar isn't more prone to stoopid playing than any other instrument. It's just the guitar's position in the dominant popular culture that leads to the legion of untrained players. In Spain, for instance, the same generalizations about guitarists probably don't hold.

GEE JON YR TOTALLY THE FIRST PERSON TODAY TO SEND ME A ONE-LINE MESSAGE SAYING THAT WITH NO REASON WHY EXCEPT "EHHHHH"

-- nabisco, Wednesday, June 13, 2007 8:44 PM (4 hours ago) Bookmark Link

The part about compression.

In Spain, for instance, the same generalizations about guitarists probably don't hold.

haha yeh right

E[.]

lol