Friendly fretboard organization? Is it possible?

[pamosmusic]

I experience none of these difficulties precisely because the fretboard map is dirt simple and patterns don't change from string set to string set.

hmmmmm … proof is in order here.

My experience is generally that electric bass players have similar struggles to guitar players even though the instrument is tuned all in fourths.

I think for most people the problem isn’t that the strings are somewhat unevenly tuned, but rather that the interaction of frets with those strings means that the register overlaps several times over the range of the instrument. Notes doubled several times in places … notes reachable in some places are no in others, an arpeggio from one finger looks different than an arpeggio from another.

[pauln]

Speaking of tunings... on one extreme end there is the trivial tuning (E-E-E-E-E-E) so in a sense this is literally the most simple tuning possible. Reserved possibly for stunt playing and droning effects. I thought about going for it but I figured if I try really hard enough I could achieve the mostly same way of playing with my major thirds tuning (with its multiple E's as well).

Now on the other extreme end.. the most complicated tuning... I'm not sure though there's probably multiple candidates. Would be interesting to find out

What you call major third tuning must be properly called diminished fourth tuning in order to preserve the note names of the intervals without the application of multiple accidentals.

[P4guitar]

It certainly simplifies the intervallic map of the guitar.

Indeed it does. If this was a forum for symmetric tuners, this thread wouldn't exist.

It of course complicates the performance of existing guitar music written in standard tuning which has been around in various forms for a few hundred years*, so that’s a lot of music from 17th century Chaconnes to Guiliani etudes to AC/DC tunes. I can see it being less of an issue for stuff like jazz guitar.

That's not to say it can't be arranged for symmetric tuning.

I personally enjoy the quirks of standard and I enjoy seeing how people use them. Transcribing Holdsworth for example I’m struck by how much he exploits the features of standard tuning.

Holdsworth himself said that if he could start over again, he'd use fourths tuning.

I suppose it depends how much of a tabula rasa iconoclast you are about this stuff, if you are the type of person who decides to play an eight string tuned in major thirds or whatever.

RIP Ralph Patt.

I believe that most things exist for good reasons, but often they aren't the best. As a former engineer, I've always examined designs to see if improvements could be made and if the transition costs were worth it. Obviously, the transition costs were well worth it for me...and that was after almost 40 years of SGT.

I guess I can’t get past seeing it as cheating. Learn the guitar properly you lazy oik haha.

No matter the tuning, or instrument, learn it properly. However if the design complicates things, as SGT does with chords and patterns, it's alright to consider changing it.

But then I also said ‘there is no cheating in music.’

Correct.

*although a lot baroque rep is lute rep and wasn’t written in guitar tuning of course.

Somehow, the SGT people muddled through. Probably us tuning dissidents can do the same.

Lastly, I'm not arguing that anyone tune differently as that is a personal decision. I do suggest that if one is experiencing problems, look at the root cause, not patches.

[AllanAllen]

I gotta say, after I actually learned the major scale across the neck, you know, beginner stuff (see Jimmy Bruno video in reply #2), I don't have a problem with the b string being a 3rd instead of a 4th.

No elephant in the room for me.

[pamosmusic]

Indeed it does. If this was a forum for symmetric tuners, this thread wouldn't exist.

I seriously doubt that.

Even on piano, where it’s incredibly easy to link a key with a note name, people work on knowing the instrument better. Meaning that knowing a C is a C doesn’t do much good if you can’t link it to a C chord, or an Ab chord, or a Dm7 chord, or the sixth of an Eb scale, or the third note in a digital pattern starting on A and on and on.

Knowing or mapping the fingerboard is a lifelong pursuit and there are a lot of challenges with it that aren’t fixed by making the tuning of the guitar more symmetrical … you’re cutting the number of fingerings down but not eliminating the variability by a long shot.

Lastly, I'm not arguing that anyone tune differently as that is a personal decision. I do suggest that if one is experiencing problems, look at the root cause, not patches.

Right but also consider that you might not have identified problem’s only root.

[pamosmusic]

To bring it back to my earlier disagreement with Ragman … I might rephrase his position to say that you can’t really separate proficiency from knowledge. Meaning that a logical layout doesn’t help much without being able to play it …

An example: I basically just don’t even work on drop two voicings on the lowest string set because they’re so much harder than the voicings on the upper string sets. I would hate to have all the other voicings mirror those. Major 7 in first inversion? Hard pass. Half diminished in first inversion? Hard pass.

There are trade-offs for everything.

Im sure its convenient for a lot of reasons, but “P4 tuners don’t have issues organizing the fingerboard” gets a big old lol from me.

[pamosmusic]

An experiment to illustrate the importance of the musical context:

Looking at a Cmaj7 arpeggio in a vacuum, it would seem like P4 tuning would reduce the number of patterns you had to learn by probably 50% or a bit more.

But playing diatonic arpeggios in the key of C in, say, 7th-ish position, it has almost no impact whatsoever on the workload. Regardless of the tuning, you’ll have two fingerings for Bm7b5, two fingerings for Cmaj7, two fingerings for Dmin7 etc.

So it might reduce the workload by a lot during the brief time that you’re learning a shape or pattern, but when it comes to actual application, you’d reach diminishing returns very quickly.

In the event you don’t want to stay in position, patterns are as easily transposable up and down the neck on standard tuning as they are in P4s. The ease of transposing on guitar relies less on the particular tuning and more on the fact of a consistent tuning at all.

again … I’m sure it’s convenient for a lot of reasons. But not a solution to the root cause of the guitar being a gigantic pain in the ass.

[jazznylon]

What you call major third tuning must be properly called diminished fourth tuning in order to preserve the note names of the intervals without the application of multiple accidentals.

Diminished fourths ain't proper either unfortunatedly. Consider the following... E Ab Dbb Gbbb Cbbbb Fbbbbb

Lets face the music.. major thirds tuning is inappropriate

[Christian Miller]

Indeed it does. If this was a forum for symmetric tuners, this thread wouldn't exist.



That's not to say it can't be arranged for symmetric tuning.

Sure… it’s just… harder.

If you don’t play that stuff it’s a moot point

Holdsworth himself said that if he could start over again, he'd use fourths tuning.

Im not surprised. If anyone had a style sufficiently divorced from the past to make it a no brainer it was him. But by that point he’d presumably put in the work pro leane the neck of course (intervallically) so without knowing the original context I’d expect he was expressing the regret that he’d spent so much time mapping it out in standard. Sunk costs fallacy?

And yet - the reality is there are many lines in his playing which work because they are in standard. He’d have had other ones in P4 but he really was VERY clever at using SGT. I’m tempted to post examples…

RIP Ralph Patt.

Indeed

I believe that most things exist for good reasons, but often they aren't the best. As a former engineer, I've always examined designs to see if improvements could be made and if the transition costs were worth it. Obviously, the transition costs were well worth it for me...and that was after almost 40 years of SGT.

If SGT wasn’t working for you… There was presumably some impetus to switch.

The history of stringed instruments is interesting.

No matter the tuning, or instrument, learn it properly. However if the design complicates things, as SGT does with chords and patterns, it's alright to consider changing it.

Of course, its alright to do anything you want so long as it works for you and your music.

Somehow, the SGT people muddled through. Probably us tuning dissidents can do the same.

tbf lute stuff is quite often played in altered tunings.

Re Rennaisance lute rep it’s customary for classical guitarists to retune the G string to an F# to match the interval layout of the top 6.strings of the Renaissance lute. (I can’t be arsed personally, I find it hard to read in alternate tunings, I can see the value for reading the original tablature.)

For baroque lute it’s more of a problem. Iirc baroque lute is tuned to a Dm chord, so super irregular. But for me the thing that makes Weiss, for example, hard on guitar is the lack of diapason bass strings on the modern guitar. A lot of his pieces have stepwise descending basses that were played on the open low strings. It complicates fingerings massively to use drop D which is usual for this music) and it’s crazy how much simpler the pieces look on the original instrument.

Tuning here shapes the nature of the music…

[Christian Miller]

I’ll add that I can understand how P4 would make the guitar intervallically simpler, but I can’t see how it would make it easier to learn the absolute pitches. Slighter harder in fact, because in standard you get a string for free.

EDIT: thinking about it I think you’d end up approaching the problem in a different way.

[P4guitar]

seriously doubt that.

Okay.

Even on piano, where it’s incredibly easy to link a key with a note name, people work on knowing the instrument better. Meaning that knowing a C is a C doesn’t do much good if you can’t link it to a C chord, or an Ab chord, or a Dm7 chord, or the sixth of an Eb scale, or the third note in a digital pattern starting on A and on and on.

I agree. Did I say anything different? More importantly, you're conflating learning music with learning guitar - they're related, but not the same.

Knowing or mapping the fingerboard is a lifelong pursuit and there are a lot of challenges with it that aren’t fixed by making the tuning of the guitar more symmetrical … you’re cutting the number of fingerings down but not eliminating the variability by a long shot.

Examine your statement above because you're contradicting yourself.

Mapping the fretboard IS easier with a symmetric tuning system - that's just a fact.

Right but also consider that you might not have identified problem’s only root.

I never said it's the only problem. I did say it's a big problem that people (mostly) refuse to consider.

To bring it back to my earlier disagreement with Ragman … I might rephrase his position to say that you can’t really separate proficiency from knowledge. Meaning that a logical layout doesn’t help much without being able to play it …

I don't know the discussion between you and Ragman, but is looks like it's conflating learning music with learning guitar - they're related, but not the same.

I assert that a logical layout simplifies the fretboard mapping. Would a layout that complicates the fretboard map be "more logical"?

An example: I basically just don’t even work on drop two voicings on the lowest string set because they’re so much harder than the voicings on the upper string sets. I would hate to have all the other voicings mirror those. Major 7 in first inversion? Hard pass. Half diminished in first inversion? Hard pass.

Yes, there are tradeoffs. But I find through reason and direct experience that I'm playing chords much better thanks due to the tuning.

There are trade-offs for everything.

Agreed. But some systems are easier. To each their own.

Im sure its convenient for a lot of reasons, but “P4 tuners don’t have issues organizing the fingerboard” gets a big old lol from me.

Assuming a "P4 tuner" learned the fretboard, an easier task than those using SGT, organization is much simpler. I never stated there are no issues, that's your strawman.

Looking at a Cmaj7 arpeggio in a vacuum, it would seem like P4 tuning would reduce the number of patterns you had to learn by probably 50% or a bit more.

More, roughly 66% reduction.

But playing diatonic arpeggios in the key of C in, say, 7th-ish position, it has almost no impact whatsoever on the workload. Regardless of the tuning, you’ll have two fingerings for Bm7b5, two fingerings for Cmaj7, two fingerings for Dmin7 etc.

This is incorrect. In SGT, the arpeggios change with the string sets. An AMaj7 arpeggio starting on the low 'E' string is not identical to one starting on the 'A' string or 'D' string.

So it might reduce the workload by a lot during the brief time that you’re learning a shape or pattern, but when it comes to actual application, you’d reach diminishing returns very quickly.

My experience is different. What is your experience with P4 tuning?

In the event you don’t want to stay in position, patterns are as easily transposable up and down the neck on standard tuning as they are in P4s. The ease of transposing on guitar relies less on the particular tuning and more on the fact of a consistent tuning at all.

This is somewhat disingenuous. You're leaving out the other dimension, across the neck. Patterns change as one moves them across string sets. See above.

again … I’m sure it’s convenient for a lot of reasons. But not a solution to the root cause of the guitar being a gigantic pain in the ass.

One still has to learn music, but one can learn less "guitar".

[Christian Miller]

I think the reasons most don’t consider p4 are not trivial for your average hobbyist all round player.

It obviously suits some musicians who have a very clear idea of what they want to do and p4 will get them there faster. Conceptual players otw, I would say, people who want to get the application of theoretical ideas on the fretboard as frictionless as possible.

Fwiw I think it is a good tuning for jazz guitar, but probably depends on the flavour of jazz guitar to some extent.

[jazznylon]

I find this video on 4ths tuning interesting

I'm not planning on switching since I'm content with my tuning but I find it interesting to see top players discuss various aspects of their tuning.. the pros and cons.. etc

[pamosmusic]

This is incorrect. In SGT, the arpeggios change with the string sets. An AMaj7 arpeggio starting on the low 'E' string is not identical to one starting on the 'A' string or 'D' string.

If you’re playing in position, you won’t be starting every arpeggio on the same finger. So Bm7b5 from the first finger, Cmaj7 from the 2nd, Dm7 from the 4th, Em7 from the 1st, Fmaj7 from the 2nd, G7 from the 4th, Am7 from the 1st, Bm7b5 from the 3rd, Cmaj7 from the 4th, Dm7 from the 1st, Em7 from the 3rd

So the only repetition of chord quality and starting finger, that doesn’t also repeat in standard tuning, is when you get to Dm7 on the third string.

So I’m saying that when you get into a situation that requires you to start on different fingers and in different places, the difference is kind of marginal.

My experience is different. What is your experience with P4 tuning?

Well, I have been using the bottom four strings of a guitar for most of my life, but your point is taken.

[pamosmusic]

I think the reasons most don’t consider p4 are not trivial for your average hobbyist all round player.

It obviously suits some musicians who have a very clear idea of what they want to do and p4 will get them there faster. Conceptual players otw, I would say, people who want to get the application of theoretical ideas on the fretboard as frictionless as possible.

Fwiw I think it is a good tuning for jazz guitar, but probably depends on the flavour of jazz guitar to some extent.

Inclined to agree with all this.

But I do imagine this thread would still exist on the hypothetical P4JGO.

[P4guitar]

If you’re playing in position, you won’t be starting every arpeggio on the same finger. So Bm7b5 from the first finger, Cmaj7 from the 2nd, Dm7 from the 4th, Em7 from the 1st, Fmaj7 from the 2nd, G7 from the 4th, Am7 from the 1st, Bm7b5 from the 3rd, Cmaj7 from the 4th, Dm7 from the 1st, Em7 from the 3rd

So the only repetition of chord quality and starting finger, that doesn’t also repeat in standard tuning, is when you get to Dm7 on the third string.

So I’m saying that when you get into a situation that requires you to start on different fingers and in different places, the difference is kind of marginal.

I think you're missing an important point, in SGT each given arpeggio shape changes as one goes ACROSS the fretboard. A SGT CMaj7 arpeggio on four adjacent strings starting on the root looks different depending on which string the root is positioned. In symmetric tuning, they look the same no matter the string. That's a huge difference. This is why given interval stacks across strings look different in SGT and the same in symmetric tuning, i.e. in SGT a D chord on the top four strings changes when it moves down to the A or E strings.

[pamosmusic]

I think you're missing an important point, in SGT each given arpeggio shape changes as one goes ACROSS the fretboard. A SGT CMaj7 arpeggio on four adjacent strings starting on the root looks different depending on which string the root is positioned. In symmetric tuning, they look the same no matter the string. That's a huge difference. This is why given interval stacks across strings look different in SGT and the same in symmetric tuning, i.e. in SGT a D chord on the top four strings changes when it moves down to the A or E strings.

Not missing it. Just saying that it’s one dimension of the problem of learning the fretboard, and kind of a marginal one in the end.

If you’re not starting all your arpeggios on the same finger, the advantage starts to disappear. So voiceleading through chord changes becomes much the same regardless.

It doesn’t reduce the number of fingerings a person might need for, say, a major scale. So if someone wants to learn a lick in a few different positions, the workload isn’t reduced.

All I’m saying is it isn’t a silver bullet and doesn’t reduce the actual workload by 2/3 once you start applying the patterns to actual music.

[ragman1]

Meaning that a logical layout doesn’t help much without being able to play it …

Yes, more or less. Although I suppose it's not entirely logical because of the B string :-)

[P4guitar]

Not missing it. Just saying that it’s one dimension of the problem of learning the fretboard, and kind of a marginal one in the end.

Not marginal, fundamental.

If you’re not starting all your arpeggios on the same finger, the advantage starts to disappear. So voiceleading through chord changes becomes much the same regardless.

I have no idea why you say this. To me it's simple geometry, the patterns are much reduced with symmetric tuning compared to SGT. What does voice leading have to do with this?

It doesn’t reduce the number of fingerings a person might need for, say, a major scale. So if someone wants to learn a lick in a few different positions, the workload isn’t reduced.

Sorry, but this is incorrect.

All I’m saying is it isn’t a silver bullet and doesn’t reduce the actual workload by 2/3 once you start applying the patterns to actual music.

This is incorrect also. I made no claims that symmetric tuning is a "silver bullet", but I do claim that given chord shapes and note patterns are REDUCED by 2/3rds - again, simple geometry.

[pamosmusic]

This is incorrect also. I made no claims that symmetric tuning is a "silver bullet", but I do claim that given chord shapes and note patterns are REDUCED by 2/3rds - again, simple geometry.

I mean …. Okay …

Indeed it does. If this was a forum for symmetric tuners, this thread wouldn't exist.

I experience none of these difficulties precisely because the fretboard map is dirt simple and patterns don't change from string set to string set.

I guess maybe I was mistaken, but hopefully I could be forgiven for thinking that you were saying P4 tuning solves all problems of fingerboard mapping.

[P4guitar]

I mean …. Okay …
I guess maybe I was mistaken, but hopefully I could be forgiven for thinking that you were saying P4 tuning solves all problems of fingerboard mapping.

I forgive you.

[Litterick]

I started tuning in fourths last year. It really helps improvisation.

[P4guitar]

I started tuning in fourths last year. It really helps improvisation.

Do you find it simplifying chord forms and note patterns? By simplifying, I mean reducing the number of forms you have to memorize?

[pamosmusic]

I forgive you.

I'm not there yet

[P4guitar]

I'm not there yet

Sorry.