Back to playing in standard....

[M19]

My Mac is in DADGAD (or some similar alternate tuning).
My PRS Hollowbody is in Standard.
My Eastman is GDAE...


...I like that all 5ths tuning. Makes transposing and other figuring-things-out easier, IMO.

[tbeltrans]

Originally Posted by M19

My Mac is in DADGAD (or some similar alternate tuning).
My PRS Hollowbody is in Standard.
My Eastman is GDAE...


...I like that all 5ths tuning. Makes transposing and other figuring-things-out easier, IMO.

I have read about fourths tuning and major 3rd tuning as presented by Alan Holdsworth and Ralph Phatt respectively. However, fifths tuning is one I had not read about. Since with all string to string intervals being identical, you don't have that "kink" with the B string, I can see how these would simplify things. But as with any other tuning including standard, each has its pros and cons.

Tony

[Doug Young]

Originally Posted by tbeltrans

It SEEMS (maybe I am completely wrong about this?) that the various open tunings often favor certain keys, while some other keys could be rather difficult to manage in a given tuning. I have seen Pierre Bensusan play, and he seems to need to make some really long stretches to get chords that would be much easier in standard tuning.

Yes, and that's one reason someone might choose a tuning - to make certain things easier (or possible), tho at a cost of making others harder. Standard isn't immune to this, certain chord voicings that may be easily done on piano are easy, some are impossible. The guitar's somewhat unique in that we have an interesting constraint problem when trying to play polyphonically, 6 strings, 4 fingers, limited set of notes, and each time we make a choice to play a certain note on a certain string with a certain finger, our remaining options are limited further.

You sort of end up with a few choices when arranging (for solo guitar), limiting yourself to what is geometrically possible (which will vary a bit based on hand size), trying different positions to see what may work better in a different location, or changing the tuning. All just tools to have in the toolbox.

Personally, I have dabbled a bit with open tunings, but find that I always came back to standard tuning because I have so much invested in it.

That's an important aspect. Most of us probably have way more time invested in standard tuning. I certainly do, so it's easiest to default to it. It's also easy to fall into cliches in it, since we know it so well, which is sort of the same issue as alternate tunings where you fall into the trap of using your fingers instead of your ears.

In my own observation, I find much more noodling being done in open tunings than in standard tuning on youtube and some of the equivalent audio platforms, which is really what my original comments and subsequent attempts at further clarification were referring to.

That could well be, I just wouldn't blame the tuning. Going back to Baughman's point, it all comes down to whether you're "letting the fingers do the walking", or if you have truly composed something deliberately and chosen a tuning to help you realize it. There is a danger, as Steve pointed out, in picking up a tuning you don't know and quickly discovering something cool, which will probably be an accident of geometry that anyone else who picked up the tuning also stumbles across. But we could consider that a "problem" or a happy accident, depending on what is done with it.

There's also a big element of personal taste in what constitutes noodling. I suspect our tastes are similar, and I hear a lot of the young modern players that are playing things where I can't discern any melody, and that sounds pretty noodely to me. Some of these people have degrees in music composition, tho, so I don't think they need a judgement from me. (I can decide if I like it or, tho). Lots of Bach sounds pretty noodley to my pop-influenced ears, as does Coltrane, and many others...

[tbeltrans]

Originally Posted by Doug Young

Yes, and that's one reason someone might choose a tuning - to make certain things easier (or possible), tho at a cost of making others harder. Standard isn't immune to this, certain chord voicings that may be easily done on piano are easy, some are impossible. The guitar's somewhat unique in that we have an interesting constraint problem when trying to play polyphonically, 6 strings, 4 fingers, limited set of notes, and each time we make a choice to play a certain note on a certain string with a certain finger, our remaining options are limited further.

You sort of end up with a few choices when arranging (for solo guitar), limiting yourself to what is geometrically possible (which will vary a bit based on hand size), trying different positions to see what may work better in a different location, or changing the tuning. All just tools to have in the toolbox.



That's an important aspect. Most of us probably have way more time invested in standard tuning. I certainly do, so it's easiest to default to it. It's also easy to fall into cliches in it, since we know it so well, which is sort of the same issue as alternate tunings where you fall into the trap of using your fingers instead of your ears.



That could well be, I just wouldn't blame the tuning. Going back to Baughman's point, it all comes down to whether you're "letting the fingers do the walking", or if you have truly composed something deliberately and chosen a tuning to help you realize it. There is a danger, as Steve pointed out, in picking up a tuning you don't know and quickly discovering something cool, which will probably be an accident of geometry that anyone else who picked up the tuning also stumbles across. But we could consider that a "problem" or a happy accident, depending on what is done with it.

There's also a big element of personal taste in what constitutes noodling. I suspect our tastes are similar, and I hear a lot of the young modern players that are playing things where I can't discern any melody, and that sounds pretty noodely to me. Some of these people have degrees in music composition, tho, so I don't think they need a judgement from me. (I can decide if I like it or, tho). Lots of Bach sounds pretty noodley to my pop-influenced ears, as does Coltrane, and many others...

I tend to typically use 3 note, 4 note chords, and diads (3rds, 6ths, ...) for harmonizing a melody, and yes, I suspect that most, if not all, of us tend to have a musical vocabulary. If we become very familiar with a given musician's musical vocabulary, we can easily and quickly identify that musician's work when we hear it. I do experiment with changing a note here and there in chords (i.e. b or # the 5, 9, or 11, etc.) and use typical chord substitutions (i.e. V of V, extended ii Vs, tritone subs, etc.), but I would think that others who do likewise will sound different from my own vocabulary "cliches".

Think of it this way - it is said that most of us have a vocabulary of less than 200 words for use in daily conversation. As we get to know a person, we begin to recognize that person's speech patterns just as we do with musicians.

So maybe the "cliches" are our musical vocabulary? We all do it with spoken language too. I have your albums and you are easily recognizable because you (Doug) have a musical vocabulary that is easily recognizable. So does Pierre Bensusan, Laurence Juber, Larry Pattis, and probably everybody else. That certainly does not make any of you boring. You all have clear melody, song form, so the listener always knows where s/he is in the tune. That is not boring.

Regarding blaming the tuning, I go back to what I said in a previous post. Most of what I hear people doing with standard tuning is playing their renditions of existing tunes, while I hear much more attempts at composition from folks using open tunings that sound to me as noodling rather than an organized musical statement. To make it clear to those who would take my comments out of context, I am talking about the typical amatuer/hobby guitar player posting on youtube and some of the open audio platforms and NOT the pros who have already gone through the formative stages and become quite proficient.

Where I typically hear noodling in standard tuning would be in a guitar store were people are trying various guitars and are not concerned about playing tunes all the way through.

For me, noodling is a bit like how some folks whistle tunelessly while focusing on something else. I don't hear a discernable melody or form. But that is what noodling is to me. Somebody else may have a different idea of noodling. It can be a case of different individuals attaching different meanings to the same word.

I will openly admit that I don't "get" those fast jazz improv lines that we hear in forms such as bebop. I much prefer to hear the melody and interesting harmony under it. Earl Klugh was really good at doing this with his solo guitar pieces, as an example. Robert Conti talks about playing for your audience. On a restaurant gig, he says to stick with the melody and any improv would be done with the harmony supporting a clearly stated melody, while on a jazz gig, one can freely improvise because the audience expects it. Consider me the restaurant crowd.

Edit: There is a guy over at the jazz guitar forum, Mark Kleinhaut, who does a lot of solo guitar videos. He plays parts of the head so you get a sense of the tune he is improvising on, but somehow, I always know where he is and can follow his music. I am absolutely captivated by his playing and have taken to figuring some of it out by ear because I want to absorb his musical vocabulary. He plays in standard tuning, but it is probably 90% improvised. For me, he is the exception, rather than the rule for my listening tastes.

Tony

[M19]

Originally Posted by tbeltrans

I have read about fourths tuning and major 3rd tuning as presented by Alan Holdsworth and Ralph Phatt respectively. However, fifths tuning is one I had not read about. Since with all string to string intervals being identical, you don't have that "kink" with the B string, I can see how these would simplify things. But as with any other tuning including standard, each has its pros and cons.

Tony

Tony, that's my Mandolin.

[tbeltrans]

Originally Posted by M19

Tony, that's my Mandolin.

I always liked the sound of the mandolin. It works well in a number of ensemble settings. Isn't the violin tuned in fourths too?

Tony

[M19]

Originally Posted by tbeltrans

I always liked the sound of the mandolin. It works well in a number of ensemble settings. Isn't the violin tuned in fourths too?

Tony

5ths, just like the Mandolin yes. My wife bought me mine for my 65th and it's a lot of fun.

[Gtrfinger]

Please forgive the name dropping, but it seems relevant to the thread - I was talking to John Renbourn once about arranging music for fingerstyle, and he said with a big smile on his face, that if the right notes for harmonising the melody are too difficult to finger, then "Cheat!" He was laughing as he said it. Why make things difficult he said, it's the music that's important.

[tbeltrans]

Originally Posted by Gtrfinger

Please forgive the name dropping, but it seems relevant to the thread - I was talking to John Renbourn once about arranging music for fingerstyle, and he said with a big smile on his face, that if the right notes for harmonising the melody are too difficult to finger, then "Cheat!" He was laughing as he said it. Why make things difficult he said, it's the music that's important.

Joe Pass famously said that if it is difficult for you to play, then it will be difficult for the audience to listen to. He wasn't talking about open tunings, but instead (refreshingly) about playing music.

Tony

[Doug Young]

Originally Posted by Gtrfinger

Please forgive the name dropping, but it seems relevant to the thread - I was talking to John Renbourn once about arranging music for fingerstyle, and he said with a big smile on his face, that if the right notes for harmonising the melody are too difficult to finger, then "Cheat!" He was laughing as he said it. Why make things difficult he said, it's the music that's important.

This reminds me of the workshop I attended years ago with Martin Simpson. Someone asked him why he used alternate tunings. Martin (who no one can accuse of being short on technique) said that everyone, no matter how good you were, had some finite amount of technical ability, strength, agility, etc. He said he could either choose to apply his technique to playing something that was difficult to finger, or he could choose tunings that allowed him to focus his technique on playing fluidly and expressively, which he preferred.

[Andyrondack]

I have an old AG mag lesson from years ago written by Al Petteway where he writes that to save time retuning at gigs he re arranged all his dadgad tunes in standard and thought it worked fine as long as he chose the right key.
I wonder if he kept using those arrangements live or went back to dadgad?

[Bluenose]

I've been interested in traditional fingerpicking styles for many years and I'd just like to say that there is no way that somebody could do justice to the Allman Bros. "Little Martha" or Richard Thompsons's "1952 Vincent Black Shadow" in standard tuning. There are many more titles no doubt but those two come to mind. Sorry but this is what I believe and I'd like to see someone prove me wrong.

[rick-slo]

Originally Posted by Bluenose

I've been interested in traditional fingerpicking styles for many years and I'd just like to say that there is no way that somebody could do justice to the Allman Bros. "Little Martha" or Richard Thompsons's "1952 Vincent Black Shadow" in standard tuning. There are many more titles no doubt but those two come to mind. Sorry but this is what I believe and I'd like to see someone prove me wrong.

No doubt true. No doubt also true that some other tunes worked out and composed in standard or other alternate tunings sound and play best in the tuning they were originally composed in. No big surprise there.

[Doug Young]

Originally Posted by rick-slo

No doubt true. No doubt also true that some other tunes worked out and composed in standard or other alternate tunings sound and play best in the tuning they were originally composed in. No big surprise there.

That's the thing about the guitar and tunings. In any tuning, including standard, there are certain things, chords, licks, whatever that may not be feasible in some other tuning. Or maybe you can come close, but it's not ideal.

In my DADGAD book, just for fun, I presented 10 things you can do in DADGAD that are impossible (or nearly...) in standard tuning. It was kind of a joke, not necessarily practical, but fun to come up with. I'm sure we could come up with 10 things you can do in standard that you can't do - easily, at least - in DADGAD ( or some other alternate tuning) as well.

[TBman]

Anyway, I'm glad I'm back to playing in standard. There were a lot of great tunes I passed over learning because I wanted to stay in DADGAD, Orkney and other related tunings.

I'm assigning standard (down a step) to my Pellerin, the Furch as well, but it will be versatile, the Avalon to Orkney and related tunings and the J-45 to DADGAD and sometimes standard.

I won't blow through strings on 3 of them at least, but the Furch will probably get new strings the most as it will be tuned to whatever I feel like playing.