-
Honestly :
For people playing Straight Jazz- it really makes a LOT of sense to go all Fourths.
UNLESS- you like to explore full Piano type Voicings on the Guitar with 2nds and even minor seconds ..
and closed voiced chords like me.
Also one of the few things I have over Jazz Guitarists is I Play 'Rhythm Guitar'- much stronger Harmonic Rhythms often and the Big Voicings help that - I use smaller voicings in conjunction- but also the Exact Voicings if distinctive become part of the Composition in Pop and in what I do - where Straight
Jazz compers might Voice a Standard differently on different occasions.
I am playing a Modern R&B Style -but the more Jazz I Iearn the better it sounds- and I use a lot dense voicings that are long stretches which would be impossible in P4
So P4 Tuning really makes a LOT of sense except for the versatility of ' Standard' or' Spanish' Tuning for closed voices.
But the visual recognition and uniformity of P4 must be great.
Ironically I am also experimenting with Quartal Voicings with secondary parts but in Standard Tuning.
I have always experimented with Voicings and that still just seems like hunting around the Fingerboard as I have always done or " building chords"-
But the Jazz Influence is rhythmic lines and solos and also using Tension Release and some standard formulas to get to new Chordal Regions and Modulations etc.
It was suggested to me long ago to go to P4 by a brilliant Keyboard Player / Arranger who is a grad of
Eastman School of Music - he is always 'right' and
except for ' big , unique voicings ' P4 wins every time.
For Jazz Players who need to learn the neck in all positions and instantly transpose and do melodic and harmonic sequences all over - P4 WINS.
For Composers interested in Exploiting Voicings
Standard Tuning ' wins ' IMO.
For Improvisers where standard Voicings are used- P4 ' wins' .
P4 Turns the Fingerboard into a Piano with 4ths in one direction ( across the strings ) and chromatic on any given string.Really makes sense !
Standard Tuning - Turns the Guitar[ into chromatic on any given string and across the strings makes little sense actually ] -
Standard Tuning Turns the Guitar into a- Guitar. lolLast edited by Robertkoa; 05-18-2017 at 10:21 AM.
-
05-11-2017 07:46 PM
-
I have a six string bass and when I got it I tuned it like a standard 6 string which is all 4th (high C and F string). Playing by ear, patterns were easy because of the uniform tuning but if I tried to think about notes, read music etc. it was garbage - I just have too much time invested. I am fine with standard alternate tunings but I just couldn't wrap my head around it so now I tune it like a guitar.
I think the big problem is that if you are a working musician and get called for a musical or something then you can't play the parts if you need barre chords and open chords.
I think that if this was many years ago I might have been able to do it but my muscle memory is too strong and it is too close to standard tuning. I switched from 4ths to fifths on upright bass and it didn't take too long, and I can switch between the two tunings so it is not just that it is another tuning to learn, but I guess just having one fret difference is somehow too strange for my brain. It also would be a drag not to have the third from G to B because that is the only place to reach some very tight voicings. So in terms of single note playing it would have some advantages in terms of simplifying the fretboard but it would have serious down sides in terms of harmony.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
-
For 'instant' ( or nearly instant as in ' in the middle of a phrase...or secondarily ..after a pause between two phrases ) Transposition of a Line or ' smaller ' moveable chords ..
You really can't beat P4 Tuning...
BUT - most of my Piano Chords would go away and
that would be bad...
But IF someone mostly plays 3 and 4 Note Voicings anyway...P4 makes total sense to me.
Or IF you are one of those mysterious Youtube Players who never play any chords....
Am I correct that P4 breaks down somewhat not only for Closed Position Voicings- but also for full 5 and 6 note Chords ?
Is this correct ?
My Harmonic Concept is very sophisticated and Advanced: haha:
" I paid for all 6 strings and I am going to use them dammit ."
Actually though I often like big full chords and even if you play a 175 or L5 you can use a series / parallel switch so the low end doesn't get muddy on 5 and 6 Note Chords ..if you like them.
Guessing that this is why Ted Greene liked Telecasters despite the obnoxious bridge Pickup sound ( lol).- No muddy sound on Closed Voicings and full 5 and 6 Note Voicings (?).
I am wild guessing that Ted Greene favored the versatility of EADGBE
For Solo Guitar or even Pianistic Type things I have not played P4 enough to know...barely tried it because many of my favorite Voicings were unreachable...
But guessing that plucking low strings independently from the higher voices in Chords requires wider stretches than EADGBE and 'more fingers' ?
But much of the 'Spanish' Classical Guitar and Flamenco especially seemed to come from substituting the index finger Barre for the Nut...
AKA the 'CAGED' chord shapes thing- but that was just the more Basic Spanish Guitar Ètudes- ..
Where did EADGBE Tuning come from- looks like the
Idea of moving the first position chords anywhere on the Neck ?
Of all People I am surprised that Holdsworth did not use P4 Tuning.
If my hands were large - I would be more likely to use
P4...
I think IF you can comfortably reach 6 Frets -
EADGBE is still the most Versatile for Voicings- even though more complicated than P4.
BUT - I could be wrong on this - so would like to hear and learn from others on this point because it will be very interesting and enlightening...
So for me P4 seems MUCH more Logical but less Versatile for Rhythms and cool Voicings, Solo Guitar
and 'Comping' that blurs the line between Solo and Comping - i.e. using Guitar like a Piano for Writing/ Comping Fingerstyle with Pick and Fingers or NeoClassical no pick Style etc etc.
Seems like even for Counterpoint Classical or mostly up to 4 part Structures - P4 wins.
Closed Voicings ..5 and 6 part Voicings/ Doublings with ' Big Chords ' EADGBE wins.
OR - Am I missing something ?
This Thread really gets to the Basics of 'why do we use EADGBE Tuning' .Last edited by Robertkoa; 05-29-2017 at 12:26 PM.
-
-
Well it's the heritage and history of the instrument. The reason why I haven't adopted 4ths tuning is that it doesn't of course suit the specific guitar centric stuff that makes up what I am expected to play on gigs beyond jazz improvisation.
P4's I could see working great for bop, contemporary jazz, fusion (of course) and even swing, but I don't think it works out for guitar oriented music like Blues, Bossa, Gypsy Jazz, Country etc. It can be done, but if you do a lot of this stuff, why? And for me, I like to reference these open string things being a fan of Gilberto, Bill Frisell etc.
So: if you aren't playing specific guitar parts of records (such as you might need to for say a functions band) than P4 makes perfect sense.
By tuning the guitar in P4's you are effectively trying to make the instrument more transparent and keyboard like, like a piano.
A lot of UK guys seem to use it - Ant Law, Tom Quayle, Alex Hutchings (IIRC), Kevin Glasgow.... Kevin BTW aside from being a rather extraordinary electric bassist also has a very nice line in smoky blue note vibes, which he plays on his P4 tuned guitar.
Needless to say P4 makes the guitar immediately accessible for bass players used to 5 and 6 string instruments.
As an aside, P5ths tunings has a venerable history with jazz guitar - ranging from tenor guitar to Carl Kress's hybrid tuning.Last edited by christianm77; 05-29-2017 at 01:40 PM.
-
Yes, I agree with you, playing covers with P4 tuning is a pita.
Originally Posted by christianm77
However I found that most of the traditional bossa nova voicing works really well with this tuning. I did not checked out with open strings, but maybe changing the key of certain tunes you can get good voicings.
-
I think this is all very interesting. I read the other thread too where they guy is calling standard tuning ugly and taking a supremacist stance regarding symmetry - I didn't know people can be so passionate about a tuning.
I am fascinated with alternate tunings even though I stick mainly to standard for jazz. Songwriting I have gotten some weird ones that sound cool and let me write differently but when it comes to improvisation, reading notation and applying theory I prefer standard. I also tuned my upright bass in 5ths for a number of years and if I still had two uprights I would still have one in 5ths.
I think that the thing that draws me to alternate tuning is being able to get different sounds from the instrument. That is the reason I have never gotten into 4ths - it is too close to sound different to standard and it loses the close voicings you can get with the third in the tuning. Tuning in straight 5ths is very hard on guitar but can sound really different. Tuning in 3rds gives you the ability to play very tight voicings across all strings. The real advantage of 4ths is the math and not the sound (I think) and it doesn't seem worth the limitation of losing so many chords, taking away theater work and other standard chord paying gigs etc. - that is, if one is using one tuning as their main tuning. There was a guitar teacher I had in college (for the one year I was a guitar major before switching to bass) who was the fretted instrument guy for the Philadelphia Orchestra and he could play and sightread on any fretted instrument in any tuning. He had an amazing mind and I revered him - still do. If I could read well in any tuning then fourths might seem more attractive.
I am very curious to hear high level playing from fourths guys now - I am going to Google around when I have some extra time. I could be totally wrong about this and they sound very different than standard tuning guys. Having an open F and C would be nice for chord voicings since they will be more usable that E and B in a lot of flat keys thatbwe have to play in often. But if the main advantage is to make things easier, people have been dealing with having a third in their tuning for a long time and it is something that you get over eventually...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
-
I agree. I discern no difference sonically with P4 tuning. Mostly it serves to simplify the guitar, which is not itself a bad thing. How many hours do we spend dealing with the G-B string interval? This is probably time that could be spent on other things.
Bear in mind the fact that you only need to learn one set of fingerings for each voicing and you can see how when learning drop 2's for instance, the workload is slashed by 2/3rds. That's a pretty compelling case for using the system if you are interested in moving away from standard guitaristic grips towards a more keyboard oriented style of playing.
It would have suited Allan. It would also suit Pasquale.
But - it wouldn't suit Birelli. It wouldn't suit Bill Frisell or Peter Bernstein.Last edited by christianm77; 05-30-2017 at 05:49 AM.
-
I found that with standard tuning I tended to forget certain drop2 voicings (for example) because I had 3 different fingerings for the same voicing. This way I tended to play certain voicings in certain string groups. Now with the simplified P4 fretboard a I use it as a hole (I mean using al the string groups) because it is easier to work with 4 shapes of drop2 in P4 tuning than the 12 shapes I had in standard. Other thing is that the same same means diffent kinds of chords if you change string group (it is really annoying). Example: the same shape of the Cmaj7 drop 2 root position on strings group 6543 is a CmMaj7 drop2 root position on strings group 5432. It is a really pita. Now I´m playing in p4 for about 6 months, and trying to forget the useless shapes that means the same voicings in standard. Originally Posted by christianm77
-
This is surely the main benefit you'll get when switching to P4. I made this short video to proove it. Just learn one chord shape and you're ready to fake it!Mostly it serves to simplify the guitar, which is not itself a bad thing.
-
The minor seventh chord is the best case scenario, what about other chords? I guess you have to find new fingerings, you can't use the same shapes you use in standard tuning or you have to stretch your fingers a lot
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Birelli came from the manouche school, so agreed it wouldn't sound in the tradition, but it would be quite acceptable. I have to strongly disagree that it wouldn't work for what Frisell or Bernstein do - it would work very well indeed. Originally Posted by christianm77
-
Chords are just fine in P4, it's just that one must find slightly different voicings. Originally Posted by MilesPG
-
Birelli is building on the traditions of guitar playing be they Gypsy Jazz, Rock, George Benson etc. He is not a 'conceptual' player per se, he is drawing on the heritage of the instrument. Originally Posted by P4guitar
I know one guy who used P4 for Gypsy Jazz. He changed back after a couple of years.
Re Bernstein and Frisell:
If you check out in detail Frisell's way of playing scales legato by overlapping fretted and open strings notes, and Bernstein's very distinctive chords that combine open and stopped notes, you are not looking at such a pianistic, 'even' conception of the guitar.
That's not to say it's impossible to use open strings in P4 or that if they changed to P4 they would be anything less than stellar, but I very much associate those players as wringing musical possibilities out of standard tuning. Moving to P4 would not simplify matters for them, they would have to find new ways of doing what they do.
On the other hand, guys like Pasquale, Allan have/had a pianistic systematised approach to voicings etc. using P4 would actually simplify things in this case for the reasons we have discussed.Last edited by christianm77; 06-20-2017 at 08:37 PM.
-
I have to say that because you don't play P4 you're just making things up, you don't know what you're talking about. Originally Posted by christianm77
Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk
-
Charming. OK I'll make it specific: Originally Posted by P4guitar
Firstly I am talking about the necessary step of the player making the switch to the new tuning, not the benefits of the tuning per se.
In terms of Peter Bernstein, lets take some of his actual voicings:
0 11 0 13 13 12 - E7 alt
x 0 3 4 5 x - A7alt
4 5 4 5 4 4 - D7alt
3 x 3 1 0 0 - G7 alt
OK, hopefully you can appreciate immediately that these voicings, excepting the D7, are non transposable, and that these are big, strummy voicings. PB has a library - a rather big one - of pretty unique voicings that like this are specific to a certain key. This is very different to learning moveable drop 2 or drop 3 shapes in string groups (although I'm sure PB has looked into that.)
OK, we adapt to P4 (E A D G C F)
0 11 0 13 12 11 - Fine
x 0 3 4 4 x - Fine
4 5 4 5 3 3 - I dunno about you but this is a tricky one for me
The fourth is unplayable
Two voicings are no longer available, and the other two require minor reworking. So - the point! - if you are PB and you move to P4 you are going to have to relearn your voicings - basically learn a bunch of new shapes.
That's my point really - changing the tuning doesn't make life easier in this specific situation - it creates work.
(In contrast, if I was mastering Barry Harris maj6-dim scales in moveable drop2 voicings, switching to P4 would instantly slash my workload by 2/3rds. And - if I have learned the drop2's on string group 6 5 4 3, it's actually no work at all.)
So, perhaps you are happy having to reinvent and adapt your repertoire of cool open string voicings in order to simplify transposable fretboard harmony. And a musician of PB's abilities would no doubt move forward quickly with something like this if he felt it worth doing. But why bother in this case? His style has grown up with the vagaries of standard tuning.
Now obviously - if PB had started day 1 using P4 tuning, he would still be PB, and he would still play awesome open string voicings, just different ones. The open strings in P4 are more useful if spend a lot of time in flat keys (not so much if you play with violinists.)
But - everyone(?) starts learning the guitar in standard, and this is unlikely to change.
If I was a P4 player I would be uncomfortable in the extreme teaching beginning students in P4. So as a working player I would need to be on nodding terms with standard as well, unless I was lucky enough not to need to teach. (For instance, I think Tom Quayle can also play in standard at least well enough to demonstrate.)
There is certainly a strong argument to be made that P4 is the best tuning for jazz.
But - the guitar education world is not set up for P4, the history of the instrument doesn't use P4. Therefore to move to P4 requires a switch at some point. This is easiest for players who use primarily transposable voicings and scale positions etc and not many open strings - i.e. many but not all modern jazz and fusion players.
(BTW all the lute and viol family instruments are tuned with a variant of the P4 with a M3 scheme since the late middle ages AFAIK... That's a LOT of history dude.)Last edited by christianm77; 06-20-2017 at 10:25 PM.
-
(TL;DR - I think you think I am saying you can't do open string shit in P4. This is obviously untrue. It's more a matter of adapting a pre existing style based on open strings - much harder.)
-
Once the standard Spanish tuning is ingrained in one's chord grips and scale fingerings, it becomes a lot of extra work to relearn everything. That's what has stopped me. There is an undeniable logic to the P4 (or P3) tunings, though, in the way that chords lay out on the different string sets. However, a lot of the sounds I really like would be unplayable on P4 tuning (but there are probably other sounds available in P4 that I would like that are not as available in the Spanish tuning, so it might be a wash). In any event, at 57 it is not likely I will be relearning everything on the guitar...
-
Also- I can't imagine that the Inventors of ' Standard ' or EADBGE Tuning could have possibly envisioned
the voicings I am using now....and they are mostly very normal - not odd dissonant stuff -just more like a Piano.
EADGBE is a PITA but I am pretty sure it gives me the widest range of movable voicings over 6 frets ( rarely 7) compared to any other Tuning.Last edited by Robertkoa; 06-21-2017 at 12:46 AM.
-
Standard tuning grew out of the old lute and viol tunings from the 16th century, although in the position of the major third may differ from instrument to instrument. Originally Posted by Robertkoa
(Playing 7 course lute for instance is like adding an extra top string and tuning the whole thing down a major second.)
If you think of the music of that era, it becomes plain that standard tuning is well suited to it. Most of the music of that era was played in open position.Last edited by christianm77; 06-21-2017 at 05:55 AM.
-
Long ago then...that's the surprise I was talking about ...it's ( EADGBE ) probably the most versatile for modern movable voicings..similar to what a Pianist might play. Originally Posted by christianm77
They are not widely used on Guitar but sound really good.
Holdsworth used some of them - but there are 'normal' less specialized than he used available.
In P4 many are unplayable because ( unless you are from Cygnus 5 ) you will run out of fingers or on others you need to go 7 frets which is too far with small hands IMO.
I love the symmetry of P4 and it sounds the same - but not as versatile for big voicings with 2nds ,minor seconds and closed position stuff....
I am sure there are many distinctive voicings available in P4 but almost sure there are not as many as EADGBE - you can see this when you start with root position Closed Voiced minor 9th Chords.
Also in EADGBE/ PITA you have one finger major triad and one finger minor triads available .( mini Barrè added on to what you are playing on lower strings etc.).
I am talking about getting more out of the Guitar in a General way ,not necessarily what has been done before so may not apply to Traditional Jazz etc.
Were the Lutists secretly Jamming on Modes over Min 11th and Major 7flat five chords ( with Devil's interval ) after the Priests left ?
Was CST actually fully developed in 1689 ?
** Expanded PITA Tuning - every time you pick up the Guitar the major 3rd might be in a different spot between stringsets - Perfect for those who need even MORE of a challenge to learn the Fingerboard ...I don't think I will try this one.Last edited by Robertkoa; 06-21-2017 at 08:35 PM.
-
Ok, sorry. I had just come in from "100F in the beating sun" yard work and I was testy...and I'm still testy because I have to go back out there in a few minutes Originally Posted by christianm77
...but I'm so tired of players, who have less time in standard than I do, and no time in P4, telling me how things work.
Well you didn't state it that way so it was ambiguous - no big deal. And I would agree that there are transitional costs, but with a positive ROI. Originally Posted by christianm77
That said, it was this quote from your earlier post that "triggered" me.
This is the same in P4 other than the open notes may be different. Originally Posted by christianm77
Using terms such as "pianistic" or "even" only serve to obfuscate. Music is music, and the guitar isn't a piano, regardless of tuning, and it can never do the range of voicings a piano achieves easily.
Fine, only two problems Originally Posted by christianm77
1. I can do all of those, except I would do an Ab7alt instead of your G7 alt. Furthermore I can move your G7alt voicing up the neck with no open strings.
2. I never argued that PB or anyone else should switch or that there aren't transitional costs.
Open strings are fixed notes that only work in certain situations, regardless of tuning. P4 simply has a 'C' and an 'F' instead of std's 'B' and 'E', hence its open voicings have to be different.
Here's my issue with the critiques from the non-P4 players: they don't know what they're talking about. They pick some tricky voicing to demonstrate the limitations of P4 but never test their assertions, as you demonstrated above. Worse, they never ask what tricky voicings are in P4 that std makes more difficult. They simply can't see both sides of the equation because they haven't walked both sides of the street.
Brainwashing? Religious belief? I don't know.
You could have just stated that at the outset and we'd be in complete agreement. Where we would probably differ is my assertion that the added initial work/transitional cost has a positive ROI down the road. Originally Posted by christianm77
Correct. Originally Posted by christianm77
Correct. But I will also point out that like almost all jazzers, PB doesn't play open string voicings all that much. In fact, like everyone else, he mostly plays dyads and triads. Your examples were the exceptions. Originally Posted by christianm77
I have never and would never argue that someone should switch. They have to calculate their own tradeoffs for themselves. I did and it paid off for me, but it might not for thee.
What do you think of Mexican folk music bajo sexto instruction which is 10 string P4 tuning or folkies learning DADGAD? Should their teachers be uncomfortable for teaching heresy? Originally Posted by christianm77
P4 simplifies the map which makes learning easier; that's what seems to go so unappreciated.
I agree with that. Originally Posted by christianm77
The "It's always been done that way" argument. Originally Posted by christianm77
And frankly, I don't care for the "guitar education" world as I think they do a disservice to their students, both in the tuning department and in racket of university education...but that's another topic.
-
He rarely uses open string chords in ensemble. He uses them a *lot* in solo playing. Originally Posted by P4guitar
Ok, sorry. I had just come in from "100F in the beating sun" yard work and I was testy...and I'm still testy because I have to go back out there in a few minutes ...but I'm so tired of players, who have less time in standard than I do, and no time in P4, telling me how things work.
Well you didn't state it that way so it was ambiguous - no big deal. And I would agree that there are transitional costs, but with a positive ROI.
That said, it was this quote from your earlier post that "triggered" me.
This is the same in P4 other than the open notes may be different.
Using terms such as "pianistic" or "even" only serve to obfuscate. Music is music, and the guitar isn't a piano, regardless of tuning, and it can never do the range of voicings a piano achieves easily.
Fine, only two problems
1. I can do all of those, except I would do an Ab7alt instead of your G7 alt. Furthermore I can move your G7alt voicing up the neck with no open strings.
2. I never argued that PB or anyone else should switch or that there aren't transitional costs.
Open strings are fixed notes that only work in certain situations, regardless of tuning. P4 simply has a 'C' and an 'F' instead of std's 'B' and 'E', hence its open voicings have to be different.
Here's my issue with the critiques from the non-P4 players: they don't know what they're talking about. They pick some tricky voicing to demonstrate the limitations of P4 but never test their assertions, as you demonstrated above. Worse, they never ask what tricky voicings are in P4 that std makes more difficult. They simply can't see both sides of the equation because they haven't walked both sides of the street.
Brainwashing? Religious belief? I don't know.
You could have just stated that at the outset and we'd be in complete agreement. Where we would probably differ is my assertion that the added initial work/transitional cost has a positive ROI down the road.
Correct. But I will also point out that like almost all jazzers, PB doesn't play open string voicings all that much. In fact, like everyone else, he mostly plays dyads and triads. Your examples were the exceptions.
Yeah I didn't think we were fundamentally in disagreement. Actually, I can really see the advantages of P4.I have never and would never argue that someone should switch. They have to calculate their own tradeoffs for themselves. I did and it paid off for me, but it might not for thee.
I mean it really depends on the student. If an adult student comes to me wanting to play folk fingerstyle guitar I'd be remiss not to mention DADGAD. Actually, I'd be remiss not to recommend a different teacher haha.What do you think of Mexican folk music bajo sexto instruction which is 10 string P4 tuning or folkies learning DADGAD? Should their teachers be uncomfortable for teaching heresy?
For a 10 year old starting the instrument, it's going to be standard tuning. That's just the way it is.
I was toying with the idea of giving it a whirl again actually.P4 simplifies the map which makes learning easier; that's what seems to go so unappreciated.
Sure, but that said, there's a weight of history behind standard tuning.The "It's always been done that way" argument.
Do you make a living in music? If so, teaching is likely at least a part of your income.And frankly, I don't care for the "guitar education" world as I think they do a disservice to their students, both in the tuning department and in racket of university education...but that's another topic.
If not, then this stuff doesn't matter.
-
A practical question about P4 tuning:
EADGCF?
DGCFBbEb?
I am thinking in terms of string tension, breaking strings, ease of play, etc.
-
Only two skinny strings change up a semitone, hardly any tension or playing difference at all. You might have to make a subtle adjustment on your truss rod...or maybe not. Originally Posted by Cunamara
I never break strings (12/52's) and I'm embarrassed to admit that one of my guitars, my practice guitar, hasn't seen new strings for almost 5 years. I almost hope something will break so I'll get off my ass and give it a new lease on life.
On the other hand, if you're going for that sweet Ted Greene sound, tune down to D - you'll definitely have to adjust your truss rod then though.
Reply With Quote
Moffa Mithra
Today, 08:31 AM in For Sale