-
Converts would be nice but I'm here mainly to discuss the tuning.
Originally Posted by sgosnell
I'm into mastering the instrument at the moment so I look into possibilities on what can be achieved with the guitar. With 3 note chords (closed and spread) it ceases to be a dictionary and instead becomes a little pamphlet in M3 tuning. 4 note chords though it remains a dictionary since there is so many of them Originally Posted by Maxxx
-
11-13-2022 11:40 AM
-
If music were a language, we would be able to translate it into English.
-
This is true. My son is a fan and a teen bass nerd. Originally Posted by Christian Miller
-
Hm, I thought about it for so long at some point. Never figured this one out. Nice. Originally Posted by Litterick
Anyway. Standard tuning is for standard jobs. Would be smart to keep it alive and evolving too.
Many people use different tunings with no problems... hm, Paganini for example.
-
I always loved the A key and the G# key, and the open G. My fingers were too small to cover the holes when I started studying the clarinet at age seven, but I could get a great sound out of those three notes. Later on I saw the difficulty of playing fast passages with the A key, but it was great when I was seven... Originally Posted by rsclosson
-
I started playing electric bass and then switch to the guitar because i was moving every 3 month or so which made a band out of the question anyway, but I always thought I'd go back (did for a year or two about 5 years ago, so I never took it too seriously, but was decent for the singer-songwriter-ish stuff I was doing. Originally Posted by Maxxx
I was very very tempted to switch to 4ths once I got to where I wanted to get serious about learning to play jazz, but even giving up my access own meager accomplishments was too much.
I occasionally mess with Dropped D or DADGAD, but I almost feel like the former is just a Key of D trick and the latter is a new instrument entirely, so it's different.
-
I guess major third tuning is for those who don't mind starting over and are looking for new possibilities. I learned a lot from M3 tuning (particularly chords) and will continue learning more from it as time passes by. I have the improviser's os book and that goes hand in hand with the tuning since the author wants you to practice in a 4 fret area anyway
-
It is not broken do not try and fix a working system! The genius of standard tuning is just that...............it is the standard. No major 3rds, not in 4th's but what is thee.................Standard ............... You might say I don't buy it.
-
I can see the appeal of standard. If I should ever go back to standard I can see myself playing around the G-B string area a lot since I'm very familiar with 3rds at this point. Hmmm maybe I should tune back to standard but then again I already invested a lot of time to major 3rds tuning so...... Originally Posted by deacon Mark
Last edited by jazznylon; 11-20-2022 at 06:00 PM.
-
Title: Let us not forget our sacred tuning is also called by the name of Augmented Tuning
Hi, I have been on this thing for a long time,
The time has not come to dig this up yet but it is getting near,
I put a tutorial in a comment up here on this forum, it tells many secrets revealed by the tuning, see here:
Burial site for: 7 string guitar chord charts for M3 Major Thirds Augmented tuning
In here the unison power chords are presented, the full comprehensive triad system, the beadgcf mapping, the mary had a little lamb test
and why things may need to turn upside down, interval representation.
This includes dozens of precise charts and diagrams from which shapes will leap out at you,
culminating finally with the master diagrams.
The tuning is everything one dreams it will be and more.
-
This is a reply to jazznylon,
Standard tuning is 55545 in intervals, I have always felt that there are 5 tunings which might have become standard but didnt,
and those are 45555, 54555, 55455, and 55554, of these, I would choose 45555 since it puts the odd interval out of your way to the low end.
Of those 6, there was some wisdom in choosing 55545, but it is wisdom from that other perspective, and I would have chosen 45555.
Fortunately I have never felt torn away from our sacred tuning, with 7 strings, that is 444444.
The tuning with 6 strings is okay for practice but having 7 strings really unlocks the mysteries.
I have great love for the music which has been done using the standard tuning, we are lucky in a sense that our sacred tuning has remained thus far secret.
This is a reply to all scoffers, who offer bitter words regarding our sacred and precious tuning.
My skill on my instrument is greater than many in your camp.
I have a Indian teacher, he plays a Sitar, he is a Pundit, the lineage is renowned, he also teaches vocals and percussion,
my teacher is Jimi Hendrix squared. He never speaks to me about my tuning other than "Tune your instrument" at the start of every lesson.
Briefly he encouraged me to re-tune my instrument for every raga, then once he was assured I would mute the wrong open strings he
quit speaking of it. Never has my teacher had to show me fingering, he verbally sings me the notes and I play the notes.
As for chords, my teacher has taught me what I am allowed to do in ragas with chords and there is much room for chords in ragas
but there are also limitations where chords are not always allowed, and triads work well, and my sacred tuning is the greatest system for triads.
I go every week and have a lesson from Jimi Hendrix squared, and he does not counsel me to change my tuning.
There you have it.
So, why would I listen to you.Last edited by KooksAmass; 03-30-2023 at 12:00 PM.
-
Since the thread has been brought back from the dead I might as well reply. I don't disagree with the sacredness of this tuning. If John Coltrane were to play guitar this would probably be his tuning of choice. I tried major barre chords on my 10 string but I couldn't get it to work since the strings are so close together and I suspect that applies for a vast majority of guitars out there (except for those strings that are wide apart such as a classical 7 string wide neck like my godin). A 'workaround' would be to reduce it to 4/5 notes and mute the rest of the strings. But yeah if major barre chords aren't important to your style then this tuning is literally perfect.
-
For those that missed it, here's quoting myself from "The official-mad-at-theory thread"...
The proper name for that tuning is "diminished fourths". The resulting pitches are enharmonic, but this is not just semantics - you will need an amazing electronic tuner and a very tight theory hat to keep track of major thirds rather than diminished fourths tuning...
Tuning in major thirds
E - G# - B# - D## - F### - A####
Tuning in diminished fourths
E - Ab - C - E - Ab - C
-
Seems like it would be great for Jazz, where you dont want the open string resonance, play non-guitar keys and seldom play more than 4-note chords, but cant see it work for an acoustic instrument. You would have really low string tension on the high strings - if you start with E on the 6th, its E G# C E G# C, so the first string is tuned down a major third? hardly any classical repertoire would be playable
-
Only if you use some non-equal tempered scheme, otherwise its the same. And I dont know how you can use just intonation for Jazz, given the chromaticism. Originally Posted by pauln
For those that missed it, here's quoting myself from "The official-mad-at-theory thread"...
The proper name for that tuning is "diminished fourths". The resulting pitches are enharmonic, but this is not just semantics - you will need an amazing electronic tuner and a very tight theory hat to keep track of major thirds rather than diminished fourths tuning...
Tuning in major thirds
E - G# - B# - D## - F### - A####
Tuning in diminished fourths
E - Ab - C - E - Ab - C
-
Wouldn't Diminished fourths be Originally Posted by pauln
For those that missed it, here's quoting myself from "The official-mad-at-theory thread"...
The proper name for that tuning is "diminished fourths". The resulting pitches are enharmonic, but this is not just semantics - you will need an amazing electronic tuner and a very tight theory hat to keep track of major thirds rather than diminished fourths tuning...
Tuning in major thirds
E - G# - B# - D## - F### - A####
Tuning in diminished fourths
E - Ab - C - E - Ab - C
E - Ab - Dbb - Gbbb - Cbbb - Fbbbbb? Since we're counting 4 letters...
-
Yeah the high e string essentially becomes a 'b' string (or close enough to it) the way I do it. Or if you want you can get another b string and tune it up a half step. In any case thats why I use a 7 string to add an extra high e string Originally Posted by BWV
-
Oh!!, I think you are right! Even minor Originally Posted by jazznylon
third tuning would need a double flat.
-
There's things in this tuning though, there's deep mysteries which leap forth.
I understand there is one discussion going on which is basically a template discussion
about "alternate tuning X". What are the pro's and con's of it.
There's another discussion though, one of greater importance,
which is....
And I want to make it clear. I am leaving aside the question of the standard tuning.
I am not buying into the straw man argument that I am here to replace the standard tuning.
I am not making the argument that our sacred tuning is a replacement for the standard tuning.
But we have to consider what mysteries are revealed by our sacred tuning.
Use 7 strings! Do not do this tuning with 6 strings other than for practice when you cant get a 7 string!
With 7 strings you get a full 2 octave range - with 6 strings you dont - the shapes dont fully repeat two times without 7 strings!
The mysteries are not laid as bare with 6 strings.
A conversation I would shut down if I could, is the discussion of all things you supposedly cant do with
our sacred tuning and all things our sacred tuning, supposedly, is not good for.
You can do anything with our tuning - just like you can do anything, functionally speaking, with the standard tuning.
As to the mysteries.
I have done my best to lay out a structure in the post I linked to up there.
The mysteries are revealed when you lay out each scale you practice in a diagram,
with our tuning, and then analyze every triad at every location in that scale.
You see things about the full extent and implications of the circle of fifths.
You see all these triads laid out in their various locations.
There is a structure to it which all makes sense, but you have to break it down as
though seeing it for the first time, that is, you have to see each triad as a chord,
not as a part of a bigger chord, and I mean, each triad. With our sacred tuning
we have a certain number of playable triads and those shapes repeat over and over.
If you dont treat each set of 3 inversions as a single unit, and instead you see
each of those inversions as a chord at a specific location, and you locate those
chords based on the Mary Had a Little Lamb Rule, then you will discover the mysteries.
It is mysteries of the scale which leap out, and they leap out because
our sacred tuning is comprehensively rational just enough, to allow them to leap out.
There is this whole layer which is being missed, in music theory, because in part
of the standard tuning which has cast its shadow over much of the theory of chords.
Our sacred tuning is the Rolls Royce of triads. Ralph Patt proved you can use our infallible, Godly, and heroic tuning for chords.
But triads is where our tuning puts forth its great power, that, and the unisons.
Unisons are a big part of what our tuning is all about.
For example,
.X
X.
.X
On our sacred tuning this is the shape of a major triad, it occurs in the classical modes
at the root of Lydian, the root of Ionian, and the root of Mixolydian. I am using these
terms because I want to be absolutely clear.
But if this exists,
.X
X.
.X
Then these also exist, these inversions,
.X
.X
X.
X.
.X
.X
but what are the locations of these?
And what did I mean when I said that the major triad is "at" the root of Mixolydian, Lydian, and Ionian?
I think if you look at charts of triads within scales and mapped using our tuning, that certain things leap out at you and are more obvious,
but you have to answer the question of where the triad is, and you have to treat its inversions as related and as entities unto themselves at the same time.
Surely this has been covered before by some author on the topic of music theory.
Our tuning makes it leap out more though.Last edited by KooksAmass; 03-31-2023 at 11:02 AM.
-
One more thing. The hero must be you, the reader.
If our tuning is to be vindicated then you must do it.
Give these doubters the example they need which will force them to say
oh yeah, alright, so in that one narrow case at least it does work.
If I am able to prove this works, it may be said, well yes okay it works for heavy metal or well yess okay it works for ragas.
But thats only because you dont use full 6 string chords. If that plays out, then another person must prove you can
use it for chords.
Ralph Patt surely must have been great, since he worked for ABC, but we dont have recordings to point to.
Nobody will ever think this tuning is cool if you dont demonstrate it,
nobody is very excited about the mysteries being revealed in theory.
The tuning will receive its respect when something of value is produced which forces people to respect it.
This is how it rightly should be. I am up on Youtube at Atmost11, every 6 months or so I put up a video, you can see my progress.
Consciously there is alot I want to add in there which I dont have the skill because in that moment I have to comply with timing
rules and raga rules, the raga system adds more complexity under the additional weight of which your creativity must stand.
-
Someone in the early 90s wrote a book talking about such a tuning set-up, tuning it C# F A C# F A. For a 7-string you would add another C# for the high string. The book even gave string gauge suggestions - which was nice.
Also the book included a scale compendium listing every scale, with the different names for the scales.
It was called "The New Music System." I'm sure I still have a copy somewhere in my house, but no clue where it is as I haven't seen it since the 90s when I was a guitar major in college.
Anyways, thought I mention it.
Originally Posted by jazznylon
Hi all I've been playing maj 3rds tuning for 5-7 years and I got to say this tuning might be the one to revolutionize the guitar playing world someday. Its a big claim I know but here I'm going to list the pros and cons as I experienced playing through this tuning.
Pros
Its symmetrical. So chords, arpeggios and scales are easier to learn on the fretboard as compared to standard tuning where you have to learn different shapes depending on where you are at. Literally 66% less work
Major and minor triads/arpeggios is literally 2 frets
Learning 3 note chord inversions is brain dead simple, just simply lower or raise the high/low note by 3 strings.
Shell Voicings are easy to come by as well as chord structures 1 4 7 and 1 5 7 (in all inversions too!)
Quartal and Diminished chord shapes are inverses of each other
The Chromatic Scale in position occurs within 4 frets so that means no stretching or shifting when playing through any scale.
There are 12 positions but you can look at it as having only 4 scale fingerings due to the unique symmetrical layout it provides.
Tight pianistic voicings are even more friendly to play
Improvising is more intuitive
More powerful Maj/min barre chords (Assuming you have a 7 string)
Easy to play in 12 keys
You can sometimes have alternate fingerings for closed chords and especially for open voicings.
You can play minor 2nd intervals in every string set without stretching
Unisons are easier to come by too with only a 5 fret stretch across the board
Having a grasp of intervals is so much more easier
If you play for a while in major thirds tuning you might be able to play any possible scale or arpeggio in position just from knowing the scale or arpeggio formula
Every 4 note chord is playable in this tuning (though few voicings you have to rely on open strings the less strings on the guitar you have). Admittedly this is not too big of a deal as I'm almost sure standard can achieve the same thing but heck I just put it here because thats what I know.
Reading music is easier
There is more of a connection between single string playing and position playing. If one were to divide a single string into 3 equal parts (within 12 frets) its literally the same fingering as playing in position.
The whole tone and augmented scale is readily accessible to you within position (Fingerings 1-3-1-3 for whole tone and 1-4-1-4/1-2-1-2 for augmented)
One can easily play triple octaves (assuming you have 7 string)
Playing 3 note chord solos is really easy in this tuning (once you know the positions...)
Cons
No more open G or D maj/min cowboy chords. Those are to be fretted instead.
Certain classical pieces are more difficult to play due to them heavily relying on standard tuning open strings. (But since you have 12 notes within a four fret vicinity I doubt this is a huge issue if one can simply arrange the piece for M3 tuning).
Less Range (Assuming you use a 6 string)
String crossing is a bit more common
3 notes per string one would have to travel a bit more diagonally
Major barre chords are a pain to finger (its literally 2212212)
Less possibilities for chordal phrasing (chordal hammer-ons, pull offs). The reason I say this is because while major third tuning do have alternate fingerings sometimes, standard tuning has way more due to the irregular tuning it has allowing for more fingering phrasing opportunities.
Large quartal chords (six strings) are impossible to play as other possible 6 six string standard tuning chords since it largely depends on what tuning you have in the end which determine the 6 string possible voicings you might have.
Standard one to one teaching becomes more difficult if you primarily tune in 3rds.
If you are an experienced standard tuning player you would have to lose almost everything you know since tuning in major 3rds is a drastic change from standard tuning. (But then again the tuning is simple, it won't be long until one gets accustomed to it).
And thats all the pros and cons I can think of for this tuning. I think the pros heavily outweigh the cons personally but thats just me unless you are one of those who say that not being to play open G is a deal breaker
Reply With Quote
George Barnes plays Bach/1966
Yesterday, 06:29 PM in The Players