Tuning theory

[Dave Stagner <dstagner@icarus.net>]

On 5 Nov 1996, Michael Peters wrote:

> Dave about the NST:
>  
> > I find it kind of interesting that people would switch from one tuning
> > to another (standard to New Standard), yet remain basically monogamous
> > in their choice.  I use a number of different tunings, each with their
> > own strengths and weaknesses.  Part of the motivation of NST is to
> > break out of the rut, but I'd be afraid of falling into a new one.
>  
> You're right about the NST as a potential new rut, but after my 
>experience
> of learning NST, I'm a little sceptical about my ability to learn a dozen
> more tunings. How long does it take you to get familiar with a new 
>tuning?
> (A VG-8 would probably make it easier to experiment ... oh well)

Actually, if I start to know a tuning too well, I start to avoid it.
Also, there are similarities to consider between tunings.  Two of my
long-time favorites have been open G (DGDGBD, probably the second most
common tuning on earth) and DADGAD, but I've been avoiding open G
lately because I fell into a rut.  Now I'm playing a lot with
double-dropped D (DADGBD), which is halfway between the two.  

When Mr Fripp advising switching tunings in order to break old habits,
I took it to heart.  Not knowing a tuning well has two effects.  One
is playing with intent, thinking about what you play rather than
flying your hands on autopilot.  The other is that there are new
sounds just waiting to be discovered, especially chord voicings.  A
lot of what I do is finding a lucky accident and learning to repeat
it.  

These days, I think of tunings basically as sets of intervallic
relationships between adjacent strings, and across the fretboard.  I
think of octaves and fifths for drones, of 4ths, 2nds, and minor 3rds
from string to string (I rarely use tunings with major 3rds.  Don't
like 'em).  After a while, a tuning is no longer something you
memorize scale patterns and chords shapes for.  Scale patterns are
string-to-string only, not across the fretboard.  For example, CGDGCD
and DADGAD have the same sorts of string-to-string relationships and
interval sets, just in different places.  But they *sound* very
different, because we've moved the intervallic relationships to
different strings, and different strings have different sounds. 

The difference in tone from string to string is much more an issue for
acoustic guitarists.  Many electric players (Frip and Holdsworth come
to mind) try to capture a consistent tone across the fretboard.  I'm
trying to do the opposite... accentuate the unique voices of
individual strings, and the tonal differences of various attacks (open
strings, natural and artificial harmonics, nail versus flesh, etc).  

I suppose I'm more interested in texture than melody and harmony.
That's why I like ambient and looping music... it helps sounds to
exist on their own, rather than existing only relative to other
sounds. 

-dave

By "beauty," I mean that which seems complete.
Obversely, that the incomplete, or the mutilated, is the ugly. 
Venus De Milo.
To a child she is ugly.       /* dstagner@icarus.net */
   -Charles Fort