Jazz Guitar
Learn how to play jazz guitar with our eBook bundle
+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 93
  1. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by ecj View Post
    Thanks for sharing, Kiefer.

    As further food for thought, visit the Ole Kirkeby kompoz.com site you posted, scroll down about half way, and watch the solo vid of Dolphin Dance that he has up. That's kind of what I'm talking about. It's a nice arrangement, and he's a good player, but that looks like an incredibly difficult series of fingerings and a really tough arrangement. It ends up sounding pretty choppy because few of the transitions are nice and smooth like you'll see when you watch someone like Martin Taylor and his first finger is just barreing everything in site very comfortably.
    There is a long tradition of using bass lines on the Russian guitar, which is tuned (approximately in major thirds) in open-G tuning D-G-B-D-G-B-D, according to the monograph by Timofeyev:
    Timofeyev, Oleg V. (1999). The golden age of the Russian guitar: Repertoire, performance practice, and social function of the Russian seven-string guitar music, 1800-1850. Duke University, Department of Music. pp. 1–584. University Microfilms (UMI), Ann Arbor, Michigan, number 9928880.
    Of course, the Russian classical guitar has seven strings, which facilitates the bass-line playing and droning. (Forgive any sloppiness in terminology, please.)

    The sound of the Russian guitar's open tuning motivated me to experiment with the overtones open-tuning C-C-G-C-E-G on my Ovation, with the cross-note (minor) variant replacing E with Eb. I loved the rich major and minor chords: The sympathetic resonance of the barre-chord strings makes the guitar come alive!
    My daughter enjoyed strumming the guitar much more than she does with the augmented chord of major thirds tuning.

    It was trivial to alternate between bass notes and power chords on the low strings and melody on the high strings. (My left pointing finger is now much stronger after a month of barring, also.)


    You are right. These musical goods are unavailable with M3 tunings with six strings. Apparently droning and bass lines are conventional in Russian guitar, which has seven strings.

    On the other hand, sevenths chords (in closed position) were often difficult with the overtones tuning C-C-G-C-Eb-G, and I broke strings experimenting with G# (often reaching to A).... So the open tuning was not for me....

    I suspect that Martin Taylor makes almost any amateur look choppy, but I agree that the Ole's fingerings are difficult.

  2. #32
    It's fun to strum open chords. I'm hoping that my wife shall strum with me---and perhaps my daughter when she's 8 or so. Now, she is likely to bite the guitar!

  3. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by jster View Post

    One final point about P4 vs. M3 that hasn't been touched on is arpeggios. For P4, and standard tuning, but not for M3, in addition to regular vertical arpeggios, there are also diagonal arpeggios that are made up of four note boxes. What is so amazing about them is that unlike vertical arpeggios, the relation between a four note box and the next four note box in the cycle or moving step wise is crystal clear. Playing through the changes is super easy. Not only do I know eactly where the 1357 are for the chord I'm on, I know exactly where they are for the next chord. And that holds true even if I run up or down and octave or two. I can't emphasize this enough. In standard tuning, nobody uses these because they are an additional headache because of the G-B string wrinkle. But for P4, they are the single best thing about the tuning.
    I am exploring the relative merits of M3 vs. P4. I don't understand what you mean about diagonal arpeggios and four-note boxes and why they are clearer in P4 than M3. Could you please help me to understand this - or point me to a reference that discusses this?

  4. #34
    Ma7 arpeggio (standard tuning)

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------5--------------------
    -----------------------------------------------------------5-----------3----6------------------------------
    --------------------------------------4-----------2---5-----------3--------------------------------------------
    --------------4-------------2----5-----------3---------------------------------------------------------------
    ------2--5-------------3---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    --3---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




    Ma7 arpeggio (P4th tuning)

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------4--------------------
    -----------------------------------------------------------4-----------2----5------------------------------
    --------------------------------------4-----------2---5-----------3--------------------------------------------
    --------------4-------------2----5-----------3---------------------------------------------------------------
    ------2--5-------------3---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    --3---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





    Ma7 arpeggio (Maj 3rd tuning)

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------6--------------------
    -----------------------------------------------------------6-----------3----6------------------------------
    ---------------------------------------6----------3---6-----------3--------------------------------------------
    ---------------6-------------3----6-----------3---------------------------------------------------------------
    ------3---6-------------3---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    --3---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  5. #35
    Thanks for the diagrams!

    You have displayed nice arpeggios with major-seventh chords in standard and P4 tunings.

    Can you explain why you think having such arpeggio-diagonals is so important?
    Doesn't every tuning feature some nice patterns (by Ramsey Theory)?

    Sincerely,
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Last edited by Kiefer.Wolfowitz; 09-02-2013 at 03:55 PM. Reason: Remove stupidity

  6. #36
    @Keith

    Cmaj7 diagonal arp beginning on the 5th (using 1st and 4th fingers):

    F string: C E
    C string: G B
    G string: C E
    D string: G B
    A string: C E
    E string: G B

    C7 diagonal arp beginning on the 5th (using 1st and 3rd, then 1st and 4th fingers:

    F string: C E
    C string: G Bb
    G string: C E
    D string: G Bb
    A string: C E
    E string: G Bb

    Generalize to all 7th chords.

    Then generalize to beginning on the root, 3rd, and 7th.

    So for four types of 7th chords you will have 4x4=16 diagonal arps. Since there isn't much difference between starting on the 5th and starting on the root, we could say that there are only 8. But there are different ways to finger some of them, so that might increase the number we count.

    I explained above why these are so good: "What is so amazing about them is that unlike vertical arpeggios, the relation between a four note box and the next four note box in the cycle or moving step wise is crystal clear. Playing through the changes is super easy. Not only do I know eactly where the 1357 are for the chord I'm on, I know exactly where they are for the next chord. And that holds true even if I run up or down and octave or two."
    Last edited by jster; 09-03-2013 at 10:50 AM.

  7. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by jster View Post
    @Keith

    Cmaj7 diagonal arp beginning on the 5th (using 1st and 4th fingers):

    F string: C E
    C string: G B
    G string: C E
    D string: G B
    A string: C E
    E string: G B

    C7 diagonal arp beginning on the 5th (using 1st and 3rd, then 1st and 4th fingers:

    F string: C E
    C string: G Bb
    G string: C E
    D string: G Bb
    A string: C E
    E string: G Bb

    Generalize to all 7th chords.

    Then generalize to beginning on the root, 3rd, and 7th.

    So for four types of 7th chords you will have 4x4=16 diagonal arps. Since there isn't much difference between starting on the 5th and starting on the root, we could say that there are only 8. But there are different ways to finger some of them, so that might increase the number we count.

    I explained above why these are so good: "What is so amazing about them is that unlike vertical arpeggios, the relation between a four note box and the next four note box in the cycle or moving step wise is crystal clear. Playing through the changes is super easy. Not only do I know eactly where the 1357 are for the chord I'm on, I know exactly where they are for the next chord. And that holds true even if I run up or down and octave or two."
    How is this significantly different than standard tuning? I have never really seen what is so different about 4ths tuning. Other than that one little shift between the third and second strings, it's exactly the same. Your arpeggios are a good example of this. You can do exactly the same in standard tuning.
    Last edited by ColinO; 09-03-2013 at 11:36 AM.

  8. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by ColinO View Post
    How is this significantly different than standard tuning? I have never really seen what is so different about 4ths tuning. Other than that one little shift between the third and second strings, it's exactly the same. Your arpeggios are a good example of this. You can do exactly the same in standard tuning.
    Well, as I said above, it is a lot more complicated. Right away you have a huge difference between diagonal ones where the root is on the E string and those where it is on the A string. So that will double your number of patterns right there. Really, it is far worse because the standard tuning diagonal patterns are only defined by how they sit across all six strings. The P4 patterns are defined by how they sit across 2 strings. And, as I said above, linking P4 patterns through a cycle of 4ths/5ths is super clear. Everything is much much easier. Everything takes 1/7th the time. Perhaps it is even more extreme. There is no question that I could teach a beginner how to play through changes far earlier than if he were using standard tuning. It's "not exactly the same". Not even close. Exactly the same might be tuning the whole guitar down. There are monstrous costs for destroying symmetry the way standard tuning does. If you look at bathroom tiles that are all the same size, it is easy to visualize how they fit together. If you look at odd shaped tiles, then it is much much harder to do so. Imagine a piano where the 66th key is removed and the others are shifted over. Would that be "exactly the same"? All the notes are there. No, it would be a nightmare. But that's what guitarists do. And it's not, like say English poetry, where lots of different meters have been tried and the ones that work best get used over and over. It is not like that at all, although that argument gets made from time to time. Rather, the vast majority of guitarists do what they are told and put in an enormous amount of time before they ever, if they ever, consider different tunings. And just for kicks, consider open chords. With P4 you have 6 notes, with standard only 5. So P4 actually allows you to play more open chords than standard tuning.

  9. #39
    I'm not knocking P4. But I think that you are exaggerating the differences. In terms of the point that you are making:

    1. Difference when starting on A doubles the number of patterns. Not really - it's the same patterns as P4 only you have to remember to shift the pattern up a fret when you get to string 2(ascending). The patterns are the same otherwise.

    2. "standard tuning diagonal patterns are only defined by how they sit across all six strings". I'm not sure what you mean by this. You can play two string arpeggios using standard tuning using essentially the same patterns as the ones used in P4. Again, the one fret shift doesn't really change the pattern.

    3. "linking P4 patterns through a cycle of 4ths/5ths is super clear". I don't really see what's unclear about them in standard. Again, standard IS essentially P4 with that one shift.

    I'm not saying don't use P4, but I just think the disadvantages of standard are overblown sometimes. For example, there really are only three simple patterns to play a first inversion Maj7 arpeggio in standard tuning and the same goes with m7, 7, and m7b5 arps. Not the dozens that P4 advocates would have people believe. It may take a small amount of time to get use to the shift, but once you do, standard is not that different from P4 IMHO.

  10. #40
    jster and bako,
    Thank you for your help. I now have a much better understanding of vertical and diagonal arpeggios.

    jster,
    Unlike CollinO, whose inquiry compares P4 with standard, my interest is in comparing P4 with M3. I am trying to understand your comment "For P4, and standard tuning, but not for M3, in addition to regular vertical arpeggios, there are also diagonal arpeggios that are made up of four note boxes." It seems to me that one can play diagonal arpeggios with four note boxes in M3 tuning and that chord relationships are still clear. What exactly is it that your "but not for M3" refers to?

    In P4 the circle-of-fifths progresses vertically across the fretboard (i.e., G, C, F, & Bb are all on the 3rd fret), whereas in M3 the circle-of-fifths progresses diagonally. So arpeggio four-note boxes would have to be shifted diagonally by a fret for each string step. Is this what you are referring to? Or am I missing your point completely?

  11. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by Keith Bromley View Post
    In P4 the circle-of-fifths progresses vertically across the fretboard (i.e., G, C, F, & Bb are all on the 3rd fret), whereas in M3 the circle-of-fifths progresses diagonally. So arpeggio four-note boxes would have to be shifted diagonally by a fret for each string step. Is this what you are referring to? Or am I missing your point completely?
    Here is an example of root-bass closed-position sevenths-chords (from the major scale on C) progressing by perfect fifths (perfect fourths):
    https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/F..._M3_tuning.pdf

  12. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by Keith Bromley View Post
    jster and bako,
    Thank you for your help. I now have a much better understanding of vertical and diagonal arpeggios.

    jster,
    Unlike CollinO, whose inquiry compares P4 with standard, my interest is in comparing P4 with M3. I am trying to understand your comment "For P4, and standard tuning, but not for M3, in addition to regular vertical arpeggios, there are also diagonal arpeggios that are made up of four note boxes." It seems to me that one can play diagonal arpeggios with four note boxes in M3 tuning and that chord relationships are still clear. What exactly is it that your "but not for M3" refers to?

    In P4 the circle-of-fifths progresses vertically across the fretboard (i.e., G, C, F, & Bb are all on the 3rd fret), whereas in M3 the circle-of-fifths progresses diagonally. So arpeggio four-note boxes would have to be shifted diagonally by a fret for each string step. Is this what you are referring to? Or am I missing your point completely?
    I have never tried M3, but I'm thinking that the patterns would be simply too skew to be comfortable. So with P4, up 2 strings and over 2 frets gets you back to the start, but with M3, up 2 strings and over 4 frets gets you back to the start. But now you are really playing along the neck and so it's hard to "run" that pattern. Even with P4, the diagonal patterns in places stretch you a bit. So in M3, you would have nice patterns also that are easy to visualize and connect with other chords in the cycle nicely. But, you would have large stretches and shifts requiring lots of elbow work. I'm up two octaves in four frets. M3 players need 8 frets to get up two octaves. P4 has diagonal patterns of 45 degrees. M3 has diagonal patterns of more like 30 degrees. Someday, I would like to try the tritone tuning. The question is what happens to arps, scales, and chords.
    Last edited by jster; 09-03-2013 at 09:23 PM.

  13. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by ColinO View Post
    I'm not knocking P4. But I think that you are exaggerating the differences. In terms of the point that you are making:

    1. Difference when starting on A doubles the number of patterns. Not really - it's the same patterns as P4 only you have to remember to shift the pattern up a fret when you get to string 2(ascending). The patterns are the same otherwise.

    2. "standard tuning diagonal patterns are only defined by how they sit across all six strings". I'm not sure what you mean by this. You can play two string arpeggios using standard tuning using essentially the same patterns as the ones used in P4. Again, the one fret shift doesn't really change the pattern.

    3. "linking P4 patterns through a cycle of 4ths/5ths is super clear". I don't really see what's unclear about them in standard. Again, standard IS essentially P4 with that one shift.

    I'm not saying don't use P4, but I just think the disadvantages of standard are overblown sometimes. For example, there really are only three simple patterns to play a first inversion Maj7 arpeggio in standard tuning and the same goes with m7, 7, and m7b5 arps. Not the dozens that P4 advocates would have people believe. It may take a small amount of time to get use to the shift, but once you do, standard is not that different from P4 IMHO.
    Colin, I'm not really interested in debating it. You haven't tried it. I played over 10,000 hours of standard and maybe 1000 hours of P4. I'm trying to tell you my experience. If you read this thread and the other one that popped up at the time you will find another person who has tried it and can confirm the advantages I have described. Symmetry is immensely powerful. I'm not BSing. I could launch into a litany of heavy points about symmetry in math and science and the arts. Symmetry allows you to simplify problems immensely be they theoretical or practical. Indeed, there are physicists who think that all laws are really just the result of underlying symmetries. What about the arts? Imagine you were going to create a huge mosaic. And suppose I asked you whether you wanted the tiles to all be the same size or you wanted different sizes for different colors, which would you choose? The former I hope. And indeed, that is the symmetric choice. Or if you were hiring dancers, would you choose ones that were similar in height? Or ones that were different?

    You keep describing it as a "little shift". If we had much larger brains, it would not be a problem. But we don't. Think of all those times you have some musical project but then you do the combinatorics and realize that there 7x5x6x12 possibilites. And so you despair. With P4, often, you have an order of magnitude fewer possibilities. I'm not like a guy who joined some new religion and now wants everybody to come pray with him. In fact, I dislike people who exaggerate in order to make their choices look better to others. I fully expected P4 to have a bunch of draw backs. Usually in life there are trade offs. But that wasn't what happend. If it had happened, I would no doubt be writing threads about how I started using this stupid tuning and how I regret it.

    Everytime you have to remember to do a "little shift", I can spend that time thinking about something more interesting, like how I can make the line more melodic, and indeed I do. Since my tiles are all the same size, I can easily imagine GREAT WAYS to join them together. People could do nuclear physics with roman numerals. But arabic numerals are much easier. They could do computer science with base 10. But they switch to base 2 because it is much easier. These aren't "little" matters. They save enormous amounts of time. Ask a hardware engineer how much harder it would be be to use base 10. He will probably say that it would take him more than twice as long.

    P4 was 10 times better than I thought it would be.

    Basta
    Last edited by jster; 09-03-2013 at 09:16 PM.

  14. #44
    jster. I understand what you are saying and am happy that P4 worked well for you. I'm not saying that symmetry is not a good thing. I'm saying that it exists in standard tuning in the same way that it exists in P4. For the record, I don't "keep" saying little shift, I said it once - not to understate its presence but to avoid overstating it. 7x5x6x12 possibilities is the kind of thing I'm talking about. It's just not a fair representation of Standard.

    My only point is that you can look at exactly the same patterns you describe in P4 on a Standard tuned guitar and find the same symmetry and the same number of ways of playing if you are looking for them, and that to suggest that standard tuning creates the kind of complexities that you are talking about is just not true. I though that your arpeggio example was a good one. P4 uses exactly the same pattern as Standard other than moving up a fret when you get to the second string in Standard. I don't find that confusing and I doubt most people would.

  15. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by jster View Post
    I have never tried M3, but I'm thinking that the patterns would be simply too skew to be comfortable. So with P4, up 2 strings and over 2 frets gets you back to the start, but with M3, up 2 strings and over 4 frets gets you back to the start. But now you are really playing along the neck and so it's hard to "run" that pattern. Even with P4, the diagonal patterns in places stretch you a bit. So in M3, you would have nice patterns also that are easy to visualize and connect with other chords in the cycle nicely. But, you would have large stretches and shifts requiring lots of elbow work. I'm up two octaves in four frets. M3 players need 8 frets to get up two octaves. P4 has diagonal patterns of 45 degrees. M3 has diagonal patterns of more like 30 degrees. Someday, I would like to try the tritone tuning. The question is what happens to arps, scales, and chords.
    M3 tuning facilitates position playing on 4-fret segments. To raise a note one octave (from strings 6-4) simply shift the finger by three strings. This is simpler than the diagonal shifting for P4.

    You are correct that for shifting one octave from string 3, one needs to shift diagonally, and the M3 diagonal-shift requires 2 more frets than does P4. However, since beginners (and even Patt) play in only three positions (1-4, 5-8,9-12), a shift by four frets is routine for M3 players.

    A 4-fret diagonal-shift is a small price to pay for bass-root closed-position seventh-chords and for automatic inversions (staying on the same frets). Easier inversions reduce the need for diagonal shifting, also.

  16. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by bobsguitars09 View Post
    Ralph Patt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    "He invented major-thirds tuning under the inspiration of first the atonal music of Arnold Schoenberg and second the jazz of John Coltrane and Ornette Coleman."
    any examples of how this would help with applying 3rds tuning to Coltrane?
    Patt observed that M3 tuning simplifies inversion and allows comfortable closed-voicings of sevenths chords.

    In the interview in American Lutherier, Patt stated that position-playing made it easy to improvise and sight read, because he always used the same finger for the same note.

    For 12-tone playing, the 12 tones of the chromatic scale are packed into three strings and four frets, so one could simply sample without replacement from one 3x4 box at a time. Did Patt explicitly suggest this?
    Last edited by Kiefer.Wolfowitz; 10-09-2013 at 04:35 PM. Reason: nesting quote

  17. #47
    I made some comparative diagrams to help visualize common musical events within each of the 3 tunings.

    3 Tunings (flats).pdf

    3 Tunings (sharps).pdf

  18. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by Kiefer.Wolfowitz View Post
    A 4-fret diagonal-shift is a small price to pay for bass-root closed-position seventh-chords and for automatic inversions (staying on the same frets).

    Keifer,
    I am exploring the relative merits of P4 and M3. Let me ask about two points you raised to verify whether my understanding is correct. The M3 property of automatic inversions (staying on the same frets) applies only to triads. It takes advantage of the fact that picking up your left-hand finger from the triad's bottom note and raising it 3 strings gives exactly the same note an octave higher. This generally does not work with chords occupying more than 3 strings. Is this correct?

    Also, does your point about having a bass-root closed position seventh chord refer to the fact that M3 guitarists can easily play a G-B-D-F chord whereas P4 guitarists have difficulty playing a G-B-D-F chord directly and have to resort to an inversion such as G-D-F-B?

    I am not trying to make any point. I am simply trying to make sure that my understanding of your points is correct.




  19. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by Keith Bromley View Post
    The M3 property of automatic inversions (staying on the same frets) applies only to triads. It takes advantage of the fact that picking up your left-hand finger from the triad's bottom note and raising it 3 strings gives exactly the same note an octave higher. This generally does not work with chords occupying more than 3 strings. Is this correct?

    Also, does your point about having a bass-root closed position seventh chord refer to the fact that M3 guitarists can easily play a G-B-D-F chord whereas P4 guitarists have difficulty playing a G-B-D-F chord directly and have to resort to an inversion such as G-D-F-B?
    Inversion by shifting three strings: Triads?
    Your "only" is too strong. The inversion by shifting by three strings applies to triads, automatically, for major-thirds tuning.

    Inverting (closed voicing) seventh chords uses a vertical shift by three strings and a diagonal shift (one more string and four frets).
    Ralph Patt gives examples of inversions of seventh chords at this page:
    Chords
    Of course, omitting the fifth note from a seventh chord is standard practice. Omitting the fifth is especially attractive when inverting seventh chords in M3 tuning, because then the abbreviated seventh-chord can be inverted like a triad.

    Seventh chords:
    G-B-D-F (M3) versus G-D-F-B

    Perfect! Like other musicians (especially keyboard players or ensemble players), M3 guitarists can play canonical seventh chords (without 2nd inversions or drop-2 voicings, etc.).

    Does anybody know of a harmony book that is not written for guitarists that discusses or advocates 2nd-inversion drop-2 seventh-chords?
    Last edited by Kiefer.Wolfowitz; 09-07-2013 at 02:50 PM. Reason: copy edit

  20. #50
    I recognize the merits of M3 tuning and am seriously considering switching to it, but there is one problem that I am hoping one of you experts can help me to solve. In standard or P4 tuning, I love to play using a Chet-Atkins-style alternating bass-line. I use my right-hand thumb to pluck strings 5,4,6,4,5,4,6,4 to play notes C,E,G,E,C,E,G,E. My left hand plants my middle finger on the 4th-string E while my ring finger toggles between the C and G on the 5th and 6th strings. This leaves my first and little fingers free to play other notes. I've done this vamp a million times and it feels very comfortable.

    When I try to do the same bass line in M3 tuning, I find that I have two options: One is to move my ring finger sideways by one fret as I toggle between the 5th and 6th strings - which is very difficult to do while holding the middle finger stationary on the 4th string. (Human fingers have very little independent sideways motion.) The other is to allocate three fingers to these three notes - leaving only my little finger to play other notes as required for a chord or a melody line. Both of these choices are undesirable. Have any of you discovered some other trick that easily enables this style of play?

  21. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by Keith Bromley View Post
    I recognize the merits of M3 tuning and am seriously considering switching to it, but there is one problem that I am hoping one of you experts can help me to solve. In standard or P4 tuning, I love to play using a Chet-Atkins-style alternating bass-line. I use my right-hand thumb to pluck strings 5,4,6,4,5,4,6,4 to play notes C,E,G,E,C,E,G,E. My left hand plants my middle finger on the 4th-string E while my ring finger toggles between the C and G on the 5th and 6th strings. This leaves my first and little fingers free to play other notes. I've done this vamp a million times and it feels very comfortable.

    When I try to do the same bass line in M3 tuning, I find that I have two options: One is to move my ring finger sideways by one fret as I toggle between the 5th and 6th strings - which is very difficult to do while holding the middle finger stationary on the 4th string. (Human fingers have very little independent sideways motion.) The other is to allocate three fingers to these three notes - leaving only my little finger to play other notes as required for a chord or a melody line. Both of these choices are undesirable. Have any of you discovered some other trick that easily enables this style of play?
    The Russian guitar has 7-strings and Ralph Patt liked to play with 8-strings, either of which would give you lower notes.

    The Russian guitar's being tuned repetitively in major-triads (rather than regularly in only major thirds) may be an advantage for bass-line playing. You might look at the history of Russian guitar, which I cited previously, for a discussion of its alternating bass-line, in the 1800s:
    Quote Originally Posted by Kiefer.Wolfowitz View Post
    There is a long tradition of using bass lines on the Russian guitar, which is tuned (approximately in major thirds) in open-G tuning D-G-B-D-G-B-D, according to the monograph by Timofeyev:
    Timofeyev, Oleg V. (1999). The golden age of the Russian guitar: Repertoire, performance practice, and social function of the Russian seven-string guitar music, 1800-1850. Duke University, Department of Music. pp. 1–584. University Microfilms (UMI), Ann Arbor, Michigan, number 9928880.
    Of course, the Russian classical guitar has seven strings, which facilitates the bass-line playing and droning. (Forgive any sloppiness in terminology, please.)

    The sound of the Russian guitar's open tuning motivated me to experiment with the overtones open-tuning C-C-G-C-E-G on my Ovation, with the cross-note (minor) variant replacing E with Eb. I loved the rich major and minor chords: The sympathetic resonance of the barre-chord strings makes the guitar come alive!
    My daughter enjoyed strumming the guitar much more than she does with the augmented chord of major thirds tuning.

    It was trivial to alternate between bass notes and power chords on the low strings and melody on the high strings. (My left pointing finger is now much stronger after a month of barring, also.)


    You are right. These musical goods are unavailable with M3 tunings with six strings. Apparently droning and bass lines are conventional in Russian guitar, which has seven strings.
    Finding a friend to play bass or baritone guitar might be another option!
    (I mentioned before my liking C-C-G-C-E-G for rhythm guitar, although sevenths were difficult....)
    Last edited by Kiefer.Wolfowitz; 09-08-2013 at 05:06 AM. Reason: quote Russian guitar monograph

  22. #52

    Wikipedia article: String gauges

    The Wikipedia article on M3 tuning misquotes the gauges suggested by Dr. Ole Kirkeby.

    I suggested acoustic gauges on the article's talk page .0135 .022w/.019p .028 .035 .044 .055, which match the tension of a light set). For an (Ovation) steel-string acoustic, reasonable strings are frugally supplied by D'Addario's EJ17 string-set (supplemented by the PL019 steel string).


    For a Parker electric-guitar, reasonable strings are supplied by Thomastik (SL109 Blues Sliders), albeit expensively. I did not find a frugal string-set, and so I assembled individual strings, matching the tension of D'Addario's .009-.-042 standard-tuning set (.0115 .014 .018 .026/.028 .034 .044).

    Small discrepancies in the "matched" tensions occur because I impose the constraint that the tension be gently increasing (or constant) as the string gauge increases.

  23. #53
    Quote Originally Posted by Kiefer.Wolfowitz View Post
    M3 tuning facilitates position playing on 4-fret segments. To raise a note one octave (from strings 6-4) simply shift the finger by three strings. This is simpler than the diagonal shifting for P4.
    Kiefer, I salute you in your explorations. I don't know how many hours you have spent with each of these tunings. There seem to be at least four on the table (standard, P4, M3, NST). But I do think that one has to spend quite a bit of time with a tuning, especially the symmetric ones (since non-symmetric tunings are a priori deeply flawed), to have a decent idea of its merits. Here you say that jumping three strings is "simpler" than diagonal shifting. But I think that most guitarists would think that is false. Most guitarists shift quite a bit. Indeed, some standard tuning scale patterns require shifts. Jumping three strings, however, is something that guitarists generally avoid, unless we are talking about finger picking.

    More importantly, my comment was in response to a question about my earlier comment to the effect that the single biggest advantage of P4 was the diagonal arpeggios. So any comparison of a tuning with P4 has to first grasp this huge matter. Jumping three strings may be simpler provided this that and the next thing. But M3 doesn't have workable diagonal arpeggios. So that is a shortcoming. How big of a shortcoming it is can only be appreciated by understanding how great they are in P4.

    Tunes move in 4ths typically. It's not about running the arpeggios for more than an ocatave. That would sound lame anyway. It's about grabbing the next arpeggio. Where is it? One string up. The next diagonal arpeggio is one string up. It's one f'n string up! It's one f'n string up! It's one f'n string up! It's one f'n string up! It's one f'n string up! It's one f'n string up! It's one f'n string up! It's one f'n string up! It's one f'n string up! So, it is super easy to find grabs to play through changes. Tunes move in 4ths and P4 is a tuning in 4ths. Until this is grasped, any comparison with P4 will be deeply deeply deeply flawed. One needs to grasp that P4 is all about grabbing.

    Last edited by jster; 10-16-2013 at 07:08 AM.

  24. #54
    I don't wish to repeat myself. I've already acknowledged that all tunings have advantages. In particular, I've acknowledged that P4 allows diagonal arpeggios, when I asked you to explain the importance of that advantage.

    In all perfect-fourths tuning, is it possible to provide consistent fingerings of triads and sevenths---i.e., fingerings that exchange a repeated root or fifth for the seventh?

    Like its fingerings of triads and sevenths on 2--3 consecutive frets, M3's consistency (of triads and sevenths) appeals to beginners.

    You mentioned New Standard Tuning. The fingering of chords is easier in M3 tuning than in New Standard Tuning. NST or an open tuning (like the overtone series C-C-G-E-G or its cross-note variant C-C-G-Eb-G) would be superior for strumming triads and power chords, e.g. for rhythm guitar; open tunings seem limited for sevenths and so of limited interest in jazz.
    Attached Images Attached Images Major Thirds Tuning-knight_megaloceros-jpg 

  25. #55
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    North West, England,UK
    Posts
    1,464
    I only play in fourth tuning (P4), personally I don't think the type of tuning used is the important issue, Jazz is about creating good melodies over songs what ever instrument or tuning is used.

    Here's an example of my P4 playing, I'd be interested to hear an example of Kiefer Wolfowitz using M3 or NST to play Jazz.

    Last edited by GuyBoden; 10-17-2013 at 07:02 AM.

  26. #56
    Here I'm playing the changes over a little number by John Cage.
    Last edited by Kiefer.Wolfowitz; 10-17-2013 at 10:46 AM.

  27. #57
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    North West, England,UK
    Posts
    1,464
    Quote Originally Posted by Kiefer.Wolfowitz View Post
    Here I'm playing the changes over a little number by John Cage.
    That's more than 4min 33sec

    Seriously, I'm interested in hearing you play with your style of tuning.

  28. #58
    This thread is on M3 tuning, not on my playing.

    I believe that there is a subforum devoted to discussions of players worthy of discussion, and I suppose you could open a forum on me if you like, but first I suggest you read my disclaimer in this thread. A better reason to familiarize yourself with the thread would be to read others' previous comments.

    Regarding M3 tuning and jazz:
    At the website of the late inventor of M3 tuning, Ralph Patt provides scores of backing tracks and a dozen or so non-backing pieces on his website, which give you an idea of what a (retired) professional jazz-guitarist can do with M3 tuning. Ole Kirkeby and Patrick Zemb also provide recordings of their playing.

  29. #59
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    North West, England,UK
    Posts
    1,464
    Quote Originally Posted by Kiefer.Wolfowitz View Post
    Regarding M3 tuning and jazz:
    At the website of the late inventor of M3 tuning, Ralph Patt provides scores of backing tracks and a dozen or so non-backing pieces on his website, which give you an idea of what a (retired) professional jazz-guitarist can do with M3 tuning. Ole Kirkeby and Patrick Zemb also provide recordings of their playing.

    Yes, I'm very aware of the late Ralph Patt and his tuning in thirds, I liked his "Vanilla changes" book, back in the day he posted on RMMGJ usenet about symmetrical tunings and jazz things in general.


    Here's a link to a Ralph Patt post on RMMGJ in 2006 you might enjoy, it's got the usual arguments when discussing third and fourth tunings:
    http://tinyurl.com/q685myx


    As a symmetrical tuner myself, obviously I'd like to hear your recorded examples, because words are very limited when trying to explain musical ideas.

  30. #60
    Quote Originally Posted by Kiefer.Wolfowitz View Post
    I don't wish to repeat myself. I've already acknowledged that all tunings have advantages. In particular, I've acknowledged that P4 allows diagonal arpeggios, when I asked you to explain the importance of that advantage.
    Nor do I wish to repeat myself. But you quoted my point about diagonal arpeggios and then responded by saying that M3 arpeggios were simpler than the P4 diagonal ones. So you were clearly going beyond just saying they have different strengths and weaknesses. That is a truism that applies to every two things. A 82 Escort has advantages that are different from those of a 2014 Ferrari.

    You said M3 was simpler and here was your reasoning and your conclusion: "M3 tuning facilitates position playing on 4-fret segments. To raise a note one octave (from strings 6-4) simply shift the finger by three strings. This is simpler than the diagonal shifting for P4."

    That is what I was disagreeing with.

    We weren't diagreeing about triads, so I have no idea why you mention them now.
    Last edited by jster; 10-17-2013 at 02:25 PM.

Join our Facebook Page

Get in Touch


Jazz Guitar eBooks
How To Get a Jazz Guitar Tone?
Privacy Policy

 

 

Follow us on:

Jazz Guitar Online on FacebookJazz Guitar Online on TwitterJazz Guitar Online on YoutubeJazz Guitar Online RSS Feed