Why is the guitar like it is and not otherwise?
June 7, 2019 9:51 PM Subscribe
The modern-day six-string guitar's apparent lack of internal logic has always frustrated me. What technical or historical issues have lead to it being created this way?
Specific questions:
- Why does the modern basic tuning start on E and not (say) C? Were certain keys favoured over others? (Contrast the difficulty of a B chord to an A chord.)
- Why in this basic tuning is there only a third between the fourth and fifth strings but a fourth between every other pair?
- Is there any sort of system to what notes are doubled in a "basic" chord fingering and what are not?
General historical overviews or systematic approaches to the guitar are more than welcome - these specific questions are also meant to represent the sort of thing I'd like to read about.
Specific questions:
- Why does the modern basic tuning start on E and not (say) C? Were certain keys favoured over others? (Contrast the difficulty of a B chord to an A chord.)
- Why in this basic tuning is there only a third between the fourth and fifth strings but a fourth between every other pair?
- Is there any sort of system to what notes are doubled in a "basic" chord fingering and what are not?
General historical overviews or systematic approaches to the guitar are more than welcome - these specific questions are also meant to represent the sort of thing I'd like to read about.
Here's a pretty good article about it from Fender. The short answer though is: a guitar is tuned EADGBE because it's easier to play when it's tuned that way.
posted by colfax at 4:33 AM on June 8, 2019 [8 favorites]
posted by colfax at 4:33 AM on June 8, 2019 [8 favorites]
There were and are plenty of alternative tunings for guitar in use for centuries. Your question also addresses how musical systems became “standardized” at all. Prior to the 18th century for example, there was no fixed standard pitch even for European art music.
So one answer (famously addressed by Max Weber on *The rational and social foundations of music*) is the “rationalization” of diverse regional, local, traditional practices into “standardized” and increasingly global systems of notation, measurement, and, crucially, mass production. Meanwhile musical styles and genres cement particular tunings, but overall mass production, nationalization, and standardIzation of recorded music in the 20th c played a huge role. At the dawn of the recording age you can hear a riotous range of tunings and techniques and even absolute pitch is nowhere near as stable as it became (which is also a function of the limits of early recording technology, and keeping all the motors involved spinning at exactly calibrated speeds, something that improves as the electricity grid improves, for an example of how multifactorial these systems are.) And then instrument manufacturing and marketing and teaching systems revolve around these forces too.
Even so, as a professional guitarist I’d remind you that many many musical styles do not necessarily rely on standard tuning and if anything there’s been multiile resurgences of interest in non-standard tunings. They never went away — indeed they are standard — in blues, country, rock, etc.
posted by spitbull at 10:35 AM on June 8, 2019 [9 favorites]
So one answer (famously addressed by Max Weber on *The rational and social foundations of music*) is the “rationalization” of diverse regional, local, traditional practices into “standardized” and increasingly global systems of notation, measurement, and, crucially, mass production. Meanwhile musical styles and genres cement particular tunings, but overall mass production, nationalization, and standardIzation of recorded music in the 20th c played a huge role. At the dawn of the recording age you can hear a riotous range of tunings and techniques and even absolute pitch is nowhere near as stable as it became (which is also a function of the limits of early recording technology, and keeping all the motors involved spinning at exactly calibrated speeds, something that improves as the electricity grid improves, for an example of how multifactorial these systems are.) And then instrument manufacturing and marketing and teaching systems revolve around these forces too.
Even so, as a professional guitarist I’d remind you that many many musical styles do not necessarily rely on standard tuning and if anything there’s been multiile resurgences of interest in non-standard tunings. They never went away — indeed they are standard — in blues, country, rock, etc.
posted by spitbull at 10:35 AM on June 8, 2019 [9 favorites]
You might enjoy John Troutman’s (deservedly much celebrated) recent book *Kika Kila,* it documents the huge global influence of Hawaiian slide guitar on world music, and especially American popular music, in the early to mid 20th c. The open tunings Native Hawaiian cattlehands developed to turn the Mexican guitar (imported with cattle in the 19th c) into an instrument capable of playing traditional Hawaiian sliding melodies with a bar and held on the lap are the origins of the modern pedal steel guitar.
posted by spitbull at 10:40 AM on June 8, 2019 [2 favorites]
posted by spitbull at 10:40 AM on June 8, 2019 [2 favorites]
An interesting counter-example might be the recent surge in popularity of the “Guitjo” or “Banjitar,” a design that’s been around for a century but lately showing up all over country music since Keith Urban started playing one and selling like hot cakes as interest grows in the banjo (thanks Rhiannon Giddens!) again (this is the fourth or fifth great banjo revival). A Guitjo is a banjo with 6 rather than 5 strings, tuned like a guitar rather than a standard open banjo tuning, thus making it immediately playable for a guitarist as a side instrument and vastly expanding the number of possible players of the instrument. So that’s the power of standardIzation at work, and of the mass market driving instrument design and popularity.
posted by spitbull at 10:46 AM on June 8, 2019 [2 favorites]
posted by spitbull at 10:46 AM on June 8, 2019 [2 favorites]
Sort of like the guitjo there are tenor guitars that have 4 strings tuned in 5ths like a banjo. They were fairly popular in the 20's & 30's when guitar was replacing banjo in jazz rhythm sections.
posted by wps98 at 4:16 PM on June 8, 2019 [2 favorites]
posted by wps98 at 4:16 PM on June 8, 2019 [2 favorites]
As far as the standard guitar tuning, I'm pretty sure it has to do with barre chords. A straight 5ths tuning gives you a highly dissonant minor 2nd interval between the high & low strings (F over E), where as including one fourth gives you an octave. Useful in jazz, but not something people want to hear you strum by the campfire. Putting the fourth interval where it is gives keeps the same tuning on the bottom four strings making it easier to switch between instruments.
posted by wps98 at 4:27 PM on June 8, 2019 [1 favorite]
posted by wps98 at 4:27 PM on June 8, 2019 [1 favorite]
Perhaps but the most common “non-standard” open tuning used in rock (an open G tuning, used for example by Keith Richards in most of the classic Stones songs) is popular because it makes barre chords even easier.
posted by spitbull at 4:35 PM on June 8, 2019 [1 favorite]
posted by spitbull at 4:35 PM on June 8, 2019 [1 favorite]
I play a Cmaj pentatonic tuning (5th - ish) c, g, d, a, e, g. Increases the range and allows for a fresh look at the fretboard. Not really answering the question, but an indicator that others have questioned the utility of standard tuning.
posted by j_curiouser at 4:58 PM on June 8, 2019 [1 favorite]
posted by j_curiouser at 4:58 PM on June 8, 2019 [1 favorite]
" Is there any sort of system to what notes are doubled in a "basic" chord fingering and what are not?"
I mean, aside from what it's possible to finger? Take an E Major open chord. It makes obvious sense to leave the two E strings open to sound the root. This leaves four strings for potentially four fingers. But as you go through the notes of the triad, there are only so many instances. In first position, the only place you get a G# is on the first feet of the G string, and that, in turn, limits your other fingering options. You're pretty much stuck with E-B-E-G#-B-E by default. How else would you do it, really?
You might say, well, you could play x-x-2-4-5-4, but that's just a open D Major chord shaped barred at the second fret. There are only a handful of open chord shapes, and if you think about it, even the ones there are are the same form: a C Major chord is just a G Major chord moved over a string, and an A Minor is just a C Major where the third finger moves from the A string to the G string. The G/C shape goes 1-3-5-1-3-(5), the E/A/D shape goes 1-5-1-3-(5)-(1), and the Em/Am/Dm shape does the same but with the minor third. The only reason that's s rule is because if you tried to play a G that goes 1-5-1-3-3-5, you'd need seriously long and dexterous fingers. On the other hand, no pun intended, the standard shapes can even be played by people who don't even have a whole five fingers, such as Tony Iommi.
posted by kevinbelt at 7:25 PM on June 8, 2019
I mean, aside from what it's possible to finger? Take an E Major open chord. It makes obvious sense to leave the two E strings open to sound the root. This leaves four strings for potentially four fingers. But as you go through the notes of the triad, there are only so many instances. In first position, the only place you get a G# is on the first feet of the G string, and that, in turn, limits your other fingering options. You're pretty much stuck with E-B-E-G#-B-E by default. How else would you do it, really?
You might say, well, you could play x-x-2-4-5-4, but that's just a open D Major chord shaped barred at the second fret. There are only a handful of open chord shapes, and if you think about it, even the ones there are are the same form: a C Major chord is just a G Major chord moved over a string, and an A Minor is just a C Major where the third finger moves from the A string to the G string. The G/C shape goes 1-3-5-1-3-(5), the E/A/D shape goes 1-5-1-3-(5)-(1), and the Em/Am/Dm shape does the same but with the minor third. The only reason that's s rule is because if you tried to play a G that goes 1-5-1-3-3-5, you'd need seriously long and dexterous fingers. On the other hand, no pun intended, the standard shapes can even be played by people who don't even have a whole five fingers, such as Tony Iommi.
posted by kevinbelt at 7:25 PM on June 8, 2019
Doubling the third seems to me to increase your chances of the chord sounding bad if the guitar is a little out of tune. But the basic low position C major and G major chords do it.
posted by thelonius at 8:30 PM on June 8, 2019
posted by thelonius at 8:30 PM on June 8, 2019
Here's a paper (pdf link) from 2015 from Júlio Ribeiro Alves at Marshall University: The History of the Guitar. Which may contain more info than you really wanted about the development of the guitar, but even on a casual read it does support or clarify some of the ideas made above:
- There have been many different tunings of the guitar and its predecessors used over the centuries. A version of the current tuning (ADGBE, low to high, no low E string) has been used since at least the 1500's.
- Some early composers and players definitely suggested using different tunings depending on whether the piece played required strumming or single notes. Which then suggests that factors in developing different tunings may have included considerations of string tension for easier playing, to reduce or prevent strings breaking or damage to the neck or body, and volume of the instrument. Quoting the paper (this section is referring to the vihuela, an instrument used during the Rennaissance): "At other times, and in this case it was probably a more decisive factor, the player would subject the tuning in order to find the best way to overcome the limitations imposed by the instrument itself and by the quality and/or tension of the strings available. This factor was given attention by Tyler, who mentions:
On the other hand, it was probably as difficult to find good, plain gut strings of sufficient quality to be used as pairs of unisons in the bass of the vihuela, as it was to find them for the lute, and perhaps few players could afford the luxury. Wound strings did not come into use until the mid-seventeenth century."
Were certain keys favoured over others?
- Echoing spitbull, the development of "standard" tuning for the guitar is part and parcel of a whole centuries-long process of standardizing music in general. So yes, at various points in history all sorts of different theories waxed and waned about which key signatures were preferred and which were not and why. Whether those theories lasted or not, they almost certainly influenced later composers and players - as in, while a performer from 1700 might not believe in or even know about a particular composer's reasons for choosing to write a piece using a particular tuning back in 1650, if the piece remained popular then the later performer would use that tuning.
- Also, as per the linked paper, the guitar and its predecessors were particularly influential and common in Spain, Italy, and France. (You would occasionally see a guitar referred to as a "Spanish guitar" well into the mid-20th century.) And each of these countries had their own sets of prominent composers and players with their own theories and practices, and their own folkloric and formal music traditions and histories, and a great deal of cross-pollenization with other countries and cultures. (Spain, in particular, was heavily influenced by Arabic culture, and the oud is definitely considered a root instrument for the guitar.) The point being that if the guitar had originated and been primarily developed in, say, Northern Europe, we might have wound up with an entirely different standard tuning.
- Reading between the lines somewhat, the later part of the paper seems to suggest that the guitar saw a resurgence (partly due to new construction techniques allowing instruments to be louder and clearer and more durable) from about 1750-1900, and that a sort of "critical mass" of composers and players of the time chose to write & play pieces using the EADGBE tuning, which in turn led to that tuning becoming the "standard."
(My own personal suspicion is that this tuning strikes a compromise of sorts in that it is "easier to play" in the sense that one can switch relatively quickly and easily from chords to single notes within the same chord and/or key - it may not be the ideal tuning for either chording or single notes considered separately, but it does both reasonably well.)
Is there any sort of system to what notes are doubled in a "basic" chord fingering and what are not?
I'm not sure I'm quite understanding your question, here - which notes are doubled is a consequence of how the guitar is tuned.
Why in this basic tuning is there only a third between the fourth and fifth strings but a fourth between every other pair?
To some extent, this is because (as part of the aforementioned centuries-long history of developing and standardizing music) Western music eventually settled on using a basis of twelve-tone equal temperament, "which divides the octave into 12 parts, all of which are equal on a logarithmic scale, with a ratio equal to the 12th root of 2 (12√2 ≈ 1.05946). That resulting smallest interval, 1⁄12 the width of an octave, is called a semitone or half step." This means that the strings are tuned at the intervals they are in order to make chording & fingering simpler within that harmonic framework.
Echoing kevinbelt, you could try an experiment with your own guitar (I have one in my lap right now to make sure I'm doing this right) - go ahead and raise the top two strings to all fourths, giving you a (low to high) EADGCF tuning. Now try to play, say, an "open G" chord. In standard tuning, you have your second finger on the third fret of the low E string, index finger on the second fret of the low A, ring or pinky finger on third fret of the high E. This gives you GBDGBG, low to high. But in your experimental "all fourths" tuning, second finger G is good, index finger B is good, open string D & G is good, and then . . . if the 5th string is open C, how do I get a note that's part of a G major chord? I can take my ring finger and put it on the second fret, giving me D, which is kind of uncomfortable as it's kind of tucking my ring finger behind my first and second finger, but it's doable, and then . . . nuts, the high string is an F, so I guess I can try to put my pinky on the second fret to get a G, or I can try to flatten my ring finger enough to hit the 5th and 6th strings second fret, and, ow. My fingers don't really bend that way.
And you can forget about barre chords - an "all fourths" tuning means the top two strings are basically unusable in that situation.
The modern-day six-string guitar's apparent lack of internal logic has always frustrated me. What technical or historical issues have lead to it being created this way?
The TL:DR is that the guitar was mostly not intentionally designed in order to be logically consistent, it organically developed the way it did over centuries of trial and error, via a wide variety of theories (some crackpot, some brilliant and still relevant), practices, and cultural influences and fashions.
posted by soundguy99 at 10:14 AM on June 9, 2019 [4 favorites]
- There have been many different tunings of the guitar and its predecessors used over the centuries. A version of the current tuning (ADGBE, low to high, no low E string) has been used since at least the 1500's.
- Some early composers and players definitely suggested using different tunings depending on whether the piece played required strumming or single notes. Which then suggests that factors in developing different tunings may have included considerations of string tension for easier playing, to reduce or prevent strings breaking or damage to the neck or body, and volume of the instrument. Quoting the paper (this section is referring to the vihuela, an instrument used during the Rennaissance): "At other times, and in this case it was probably a more decisive factor, the player would subject the tuning in order to find the best way to overcome the limitations imposed by the instrument itself and by the quality and/or tension of the strings available. This factor was given attention by Tyler, who mentions:
On the other hand, it was probably as difficult to find good, plain gut strings of sufficient quality to be used as pairs of unisons in the bass of the vihuela, as it was to find them for the lute, and perhaps few players could afford the luxury. Wound strings did not come into use until the mid-seventeenth century."
Were certain keys favoured over others?
- Echoing spitbull, the development of "standard" tuning for the guitar is part and parcel of a whole centuries-long process of standardizing music in general. So yes, at various points in history all sorts of different theories waxed and waned about which key signatures were preferred and which were not and why. Whether those theories lasted or not, they almost certainly influenced later composers and players - as in, while a performer from 1700 might not believe in or even know about a particular composer's reasons for choosing to write a piece using a particular tuning back in 1650, if the piece remained popular then the later performer would use that tuning.
- Also, as per the linked paper, the guitar and its predecessors were particularly influential and common in Spain, Italy, and France. (You would occasionally see a guitar referred to as a "Spanish guitar" well into the mid-20th century.) And each of these countries had their own sets of prominent composers and players with their own theories and practices, and their own folkloric and formal music traditions and histories, and a great deal of cross-pollenization with other countries and cultures. (Spain, in particular, was heavily influenced by Arabic culture, and the oud is definitely considered a root instrument for the guitar.) The point being that if the guitar had originated and been primarily developed in, say, Northern Europe, we might have wound up with an entirely different standard tuning.
- Reading between the lines somewhat, the later part of the paper seems to suggest that the guitar saw a resurgence (partly due to new construction techniques allowing instruments to be louder and clearer and more durable) from about 1750-1900, and that a sort of "critical mass" of composers and players of the time chose to write & play pieces using the EADGBE tuning, which in turn led to that tuning becoming the "standard."
(My own personal suspicion is that this tuning strikes a compromise of sorts in that it is "easier to play" in the sense that one can switch relatively quickly and easily from chords to single notes within the same chord and/or key - it may not be the ideal tuning for either chording or single notes considered separately, but it does both reasonably well.)
Is there any sort of system to what notes are doubled in a "basic" chord fingering and what are not?
I'm not sure I'm quite understanding your question, here - which notes are doubled is a consequence of how the guitar is tuned.
Why in this basic tuning is there only a third between the fourth and fifth strings but a fourth between every other pair?
To some extent, this is because (as part of the aforementioned centuries-long history of developing and standardizing music) Western music eventually settled on using a basis of twelve-tone equal temperament, "which divides the octave into 12 parts, all of which are equal on a logarithmic scale, with a ratio equal to the 12th root of 2 (12√2 ≈ 1.05946). That resulting smallest interval, 1⁄12 the width of an octave, is called a semitone or half step." This means that the strings are tuned at the intervals they are in order to make chording & fingering simpler within that harmonic framework.
Echoing kevinbelt, you could try an experiment with your own guitar (I have one in my lap right now to make sure I'm doing this right) - go ahead and raise the top two strings to all fourths, giving you a (low to high) EADGCF tuning. Now try to play, say, an "open G" chord. In standard tuning, you have your second finger on the third fret of the low E string, index finger on the second fret of the low A, ring or pinky finger on third fret of the high E. This gives you GBDGBG, low to high. But in your experimental "all fourths" tuning, second finger G is good, index finger B is good, open string D & G is good, and then . . . if the 5th string is open C, how do I get a note that's part of a G major chord? I can take my ring finger and put it on the second fret, giving me D, which is kind of uncomfortable as it's kind of tucking my ring finger behind my first and second finger, but it's doable, and then . . . nuts, the high string is an F, so I guess I can try to put my pinky on the second fret to get a G, or I can try to flatten my ring finger enough to hit the 5th and 6th strings second fret, and, ow. My fingers don't really bend that way.
And you can forget about barre chords - an "all fourths" tuning means the top two strings are basically unusable in that situation.
The modern-day six-string guitar's apparent lack of internal logic has always frustrated me. What technical or historical issues have lead to it being created this way?
The TL:DR is that the guitar was mostly not intentionally designed in order to be logically consistent, it organically developed the way it did over centuries of trial and error, via a wide variety of theories (some crackpot, some brilliant and still relevant), practices, and cultural influences and fashions.
posted by soundguy99 at 10:14 AM on June 9, 2019 [4 favorites]
I always enjoy an opportunity to promote Tim Brookes's book Guitar, which, if I recall, covers this subject, as well as many related subjects. I really enjoyed it.
posted by Dr. Wu at 1:10 PM on June 9, 2019
posted by Dr. Wu at 1:10 PM on June 9, 2019
It's a fascinating question.
There is on the internets a hilarious essay by an audio recording engineer with perfect pitch, who is personally offended by the B string and the annoyance it causes to his ears. I read it on a random link here on Metaflter many years ago, you'll need more patient search skills than me to find it.
posted by ovvl at 5:52 PM on June 10, 2019
There is on the internets a hilarious essay by an audio recording engineer with perfect pitch, who is personally offended by the B string and the annoyance it causes to his ears. I read it on a random link here on Metaflter many years ago, you'll need more patient search skills than me to find it.
posted by ovvl at 5:52 PM on June 10, 2019
« Older Former CS major thinking of getting back into tech... | Easy slideshow from iPhone album? Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
The first thing I thought of is that the four strings on a bass (both upright and guitar style) are the same notes (different octave) as the lowest four strings on a guitar (EADG) and so I've always thought that was intentional. I don't know the history of the guitar so I can't expand on that theory with any authority. My guess is that the next interval being a third (B), then the fourth (E) was so that the lowest/highest strings could be the same note allowing for pleasing harmonies. Otherwise it would have ended up being EADGCF causing a lot of dissonance between the E and F strings since they're only a half step apart. Dropping C to a B (and subsequently the F to an E) also creates a minor triad in the top three strings (GBE) which is Emin6. Basically, the tuning was probably most pleasing to the ear and there are definitely other tunings available.
FYI, Bass, Cello, Viola, and Violin aren't all tuned the same. Bass, as I said is EADG which means it's the only one of the four tuned in fourths. Cello and Viola are both CGDA and Violin is GDAE (incidentally, reverse of the bass). I do know viola players who have specialized instruments that allow for a fifth string so that they have CGDAE and can essentially play an instrument with the range of a viola+violin.
posted by acidnova at 1:09 AM on June 8, 2019 [3 favorites]