Guitar tuned in perfect 4ths: Chords and Voicings

[Uil Loi]

Hello everybody, I've cleaned up a bit the various docs I've created for myself over the past years while learning to play the guitar tuned in 4ths.

There's very little existing material on this tuning and this represents a fairly exhaustive overview of the voicing available for 4-note-chords.

http://goo.gl/iUnk0X

I hope this is useful to others out there, and please let me know if you notice any blatant mistakes.

Cheers

[Bill Williams]

Neat - thanks, it doesn't seem as complicated as I had expected.

[Uil Loi]

On Tuesday, April 22, 2014 11:48:14 PM UTC+2, Bill Williams wrote:
> Neat - thanks, it doesn't seem as complicated as I had expected.

thanks. it's actually a lot simpler than standard tuning ... that's the point.

[Steve Freides]

Why tune in 4ths? I mean, hell, I can answer that - because any pattern
can be moved across the entire instrument - at least that's the usual
answer.

I'm also an upright and electric bass player, and for a while, I played
a 6-string electric bass tuned B-E-A-D-G-C, which did have that
advantage, but the guitar is so much more of a chord instrument - seems
to be a solution in search of a problem to me, no offense intended.

-S-

[thomas]

If you want a symmetrical tuning, major thirds is so much better than fourths.

[ple...@nospam.us]

On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 18:58:16 -0700 (PDT), thomas
<drthoma...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>If you want a symmetrical tuning, major thirds is so much better than fourths.

Well, they will never be in tune.

[Uil Loi]

On Thursday, April 24, 2014 1:23:11 AM UTC+2, Steve Freides wrote:
> Why tune in 4ths? I mean, hell, I can answer that - because any pattern
>
> can be moved across the entire instrument - at least that's the usual
>
> answer.
>
>
>
> I'm also an upright and electric bass player, and for a while, I played
>
> a 6-string electric bass tuned B-E-A-D-G-C, which did have that
>
> advantage, but the guitar is so much more of a chord instrument - seems
>
> to be a solution in search of a problem to me, no offense intended.
>
>
>
> -S-

Hello, no offense taken :-)
I think my point was that P4 is also a good tuning for chords.

Some things become easier, some things become harder, but it greatly reduces the number of shapes and fingerings *for the same voicing*.

E.g. normal drop2 voicings have 3 different shapes on normal tuning (depending on which strings they are played), but just one on P4, which is identical to the shape on normal tuning on the first four strings. So there's nothing new to learn for drop2 shapes.

[Uil Loi]

On Thursday, April 24, 2014 3:58:16 AM UTC+2, thomas wrote:
> If you want a symmetrical tuning, major thirds is so much better than fourths.

I've heard this many times, but I suppose there should be an agreed meaning of "better" before agreeing on such a thing.

Some voicings become easier, others become harder, but I don't see how one can show that some voicing are objectively better than others.

It's a matter of style and taste. If you like lots of ♭2nds in your voicing you could even move to all minor thirds ... why not?

I've played 10 years with normal tuning and 10 years with P4, and the change has been fairly simple since all scales and arpeggios are identical on the first four strings, and simply "extended" on the top two strings.

Moving to M3s would change everything.

[Tony Done]

Ralph Patt is an advocate of that tuning for jazz type chords, and
details can be found on his web page.

--
Tony Done

http://www.soundclick.com/bands/default.cfm?bandID=784456

http://www.flickr.com/photos/done_family/

[thomas]

P4 means giving up a number of the key jazz voicings that involve close intervals. I don't see any advantage to it over standard tuning.

[Garvin Yee]

Obviously Stanley Jordan would disagree with you, but then, he
frets with both hands, so it's not a good comparison!

But I would assume since most people still fret with only one
hand mainly, that this is why P4 tuning has not really caught on.....


--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/34735015@N03/sets/72157623566520134/

http://fineartamerica.com/art/all/garvin+yee/all

[Uil Loi]

On Friday, April 25, 2014 4:19:50 AM UTC+2, thomas wrote:
>
> P4 means giving up a number of the key jazz voicings that involve close intervals. I don't see any advantage to it over standard tuning.

♭2nds are of course playable with P4, but I'd like to see, if you have such a list, what are these key vocings that are are not playable with P4.

I've heard the argument many times, but very few people actually made the hard work of checking available voicing in both tuning.

There are of course differences, but every time I checked they were quite exotic voicings, and the other (stardard or P4) tuning still offered very good choices.

I think you can make a strong argument against P4 for rock or country (no easy barre major or minor chords), but it's actually the opposite for jazz where those barre chords easily give you ♭9ths and ♯5ths.

I think P4 is not popular because it's just a bad tuning for the most popular styles, but I don't think that argument translates to jazz.

[thomas]

My problem with P4 would be the long LH stretches required to play close intervals inside the basic voicings, or close 4-note voicings in general. They may be within the realm of possibility, but the difficulty level increases substantially compared to standard tuning. It's already very difficult in standard. I give you JS's "Moonlight in Vermont" as an example.

[Uil Loi]

On Friday, April 25, 2014 5:30:49 PM UTC+2, thomas wrote:
> My problem with P4 would be the long LH stretches required to play close intervals inside the basic voicings, or close 4-note voicings in general. They may be within the realm of possibility, but the difficulty level increases substantially compared to standard tuning. It's already very difficult in standard. I give you JS's "Moonlight in Vermont" as an example.

Hello thomas, I don't know ... basic voicings (e.g. drop2) are all easily playable in P4.

"Moonlight" voicings are not "key jazz voicings" on the guitar, they're usually considered extreme stretches. There are some pretty nice voicings in P4 that are not playable in standard tuning for the same reason.

[Jonathan]

Are there any well-known players (or unknown players) that use this tuning that I can check out on YouTube?

Thanks,
Jonathan

[Uil Loi]

On Monday, April 28, 2014 12:52:17 PM UTC+2, Jonathan wrote:
> Are there any well-known players (or unknown players) that use this tuning that I can check out on YouTube?

hello, the best known is clearly stanley jordan, of 8-finger-tapping fame, but here he gives a quick overview with standard left hand technique:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcHid5cucLo#t=162

a youtube search for "perfect fourths tuning" will find quite a few players out there experimenting with this.

As I said, this tuning makes "rock/country chords" quite hard, so it will never be very popular since most players start with those simpler styles.

[rharr...@comcast.net]

After centuries of standard tunings and a wealth of literature, and fantastic players who play in standard tunings, I see no reason to alter the status quo.??

Just me.

[thomas]

There would be a reason to change tunings if it gave a significant advantage. But I don't see a significant advantage for P4 over standard. You lose access to a lot of standard vocabulary and don't really gain much in return.

[Uil Loi]

On Monday, April 28, 2014 10:08:33 PM UTC+2, rharr...@comcast.net wrote:
> After centuries of standard tunings and a wealth of literature, and fantastic players who play in standard tunings, I see no reason to alter the status quo.??
>
>
>
> Just me.

somewhat true and IMHO somewhat sad coming from a jazz player. With such a wealth of great literature and players there was no real reason to move beyond baroque, really.

[Uil Loi]

On Monday, April 28, 2014 10:16:21 PM UTC+2, thomas wrote:
> There would be a reason to change tunings if it gave a significant advantage. But I don't see a significant advantage for P4 over standard. You lose access to a lot of standard vocabulary and don't really gain much in return.

Hello, I don't want to argue, but I'm interested in your points.

1) why don't you consider, for example, the reduction of drop2 fingerings by a factor of 3 to be an advantage? Notice that musically nothing changes, whoever listens couldn't tell the difference, but you need to memorize 3 times less "shapes"

2) I don't see how with P4 you lose access to standard "vocabulary". You lose access to some standard "fingerings", sure, but not to the sounds. Some difficult and not very common stretches became impossible, sure, but you gain some other uncommon sounds. Most jazz vocabulary doesn't come from the guitar anyway ... you make is sound as if jazz was designed around the guitar standard tuning ...

[thomas]

On Tuesday, April 29, 2014 3:36:12 AM UTC-4, Uil Loi wrote:
> On Monday, April 28, 2014 10:16:21 PM UTC+2, thomas wrote:
>
> 1) why don't you consider, for example, the reduction of drop2 fingerings by a factor of 3 to be an advantage? Notice that musically nothing changes, whoever listens couldn't tell the difference, but you need to memorize 3 times less "shapes"
>

It appears to me that the symmetricity is an advantage only for beginning jazz guitarists (i.e., people who have not yet mastered the standard fingerboard both by sight and by ear). As an experienced player, the lack of symmetricity in standard tuning does not inhibit me at all, and I'm far from an advanced technician. Until P4 can consistently produce greater technicians than Gambale, Holdsworth, and McLaughlin, then I don't see any basis for claiming a technique advantage.

> 2) I don't see how with P4 you lose access to standard "vocabulary". You lose access to some standard "fingerings", sure, but not to the sounds. Some difficult and not very common stretches became impossible, sure, but you gain some other uncommon sounds. Most jazz vocabulary doesn't come from the guitar anyway ... you make is sound as if jazz was designed around the guitar standard tuning ...>

I think you raise two separate points here, both important:

First, I disagree that there is a Platonic distinction between fingerings and sounds on the guitar. Guitarists like certain sounds because they are easy/fun/sexy to finger. Such sounds are part of our cultural heritage. I would not want to give up the cowboy grips and related hammer-on licks that are so integral to many styles of American music--including jazz.

Second--and I defer to your greater experience with P4 here--I don't see what additional vocabulary becomes available with P4 that you can't get on standard. Perhaps you can enlighten me? I get that there will be an extra half-step or so of potential range in your open voicings, but beyond that I don't see anything I can't get now.

[Steve Freides]

Actually, I think the OP here has given ample reason, and the Stanley
Jordan video gives further justification. I'm going to stick with my
standard tuning but it's been interesting, especially the
above-mentioned video. I.e., everything is a compromise, and tuning in
4ths has its own strong and weak points when compared to standard
tuning. Whether or not they're worth it to anyone is up to them.

-S-

[Uil Loi]

On Tuesday, April 29, 2014 10:47:34 PM UTC+2, thomas wrote:
> It appears to me that the symmetricity is an advantage only for beginning jazz guitarists (i.e., people who have not yet mastered the standard fingerboard both by sight and by ear). As an experienced player, the lack of symmetricity in standard tuning does not inhibit me at all, and I'm far from an advanced technician. Until P4 can consistently produce greater technicians than Gambale, Holdsworth, and McLaughlin, then I don't see any basis for claiming a technique advantage.
>

interesting points, but

1) P4 will never be as popular as standard tuning, since it's a bad tuning for folk/rock/country lacking easy six-string major and minor chords. Less popular => much smaller demographic base to get such talented players, which would be talented in whatever tuning happened to be there.

Actually Gambale happens to use a non-standard "gambale tuning" sometimes for "chordal" tunes.

And I find this quote: "I went to an Allan Holdsworth clinic recently and he was asked, if he had to start all over again, what he'd do differently. He said, "Well I'd tune the guitar in fourths, like bass players do, for a start. That'd make life easier!"". So I don't really think your point is valid.

2) It really depends on what you mean with "mastered the fingerboard". Having enough "grips" ready to improvise putting any melody note on top of any chord type with some variety and decent voice leading is a lot of work.

P4 easily reduces that by a factor of two.

Less shapes also implies more efficient muscle memory, since you don't need to learn different position for identical sounds. In P4 there's a one-to-one relationship between "shapes" and "sounds", and that's ideal for any improviser. I'm no Ted Greene but I can tell you as a fact that with the limited time I have in my life for this, I've been progressing much faster with P4, and I did spend 10 prior years with standard tuning.

>
>
> > 2) I don't see how with P4 you lose access to standard "vocabulary". You lose access to some standard "fingerings", sure, but not to the sounds. Some difficult and not very common stretches became impossible, sure, but you gain some other uncommon sounds. Most jazz vocabulary doesn't come from the guitar anyway ... you make is sound as if jazz was designed around the guitar standard tuning ...>
>
>
>
> I think you raise two separate points here, both important:
>
>
>
> First, I disagree that there is a Platonic distinction between fingerings and sounds on the guitar. Guitarists like certain sounds because they are easy/fun/sexy to finger. Such sounds are part of our cultural heritage. I would not want to give up the cowboy grips and related hammer-on licks that are so integral to many styles of American music--including jazz.
>

P4 has different "easy & sexy" cliches. I like playing a basic drop3 dominant7 chord 5th on top (voicing: R ♭735), and then lower the top note to ♭5. It is very awkward on standard tuning.

If your point is "things are good because they are common", then yes, P4, or any other change, is not a good idea.

>
>
> Second--and I defer to your greater experience with P4 here--I don't see what additional vocabulary becomes available with P4 that you can't get on standard. Perhaps you can enlighten me? I get that there will be an extra half-step or so of potential range in your open voicings, but beyond that I don't see anything I can't get now.

I'll make another post when I find the time. Cheers and thanks for the discussion.

[Uil Loi]

BTW, I had never looked this up before, but Allan Holdsworth likes P4 apparently, but didn't switch because it was "too late" (e.g. had invested too much in the standard tuning)

"I haven't experimented with open tunings very much. The only ones I've worked with are regular guitar tuning and straight fourths across the neck - I always thought that was a good tuning for guitar, anyway - and I also use fifths because I used to play a little bit of violin and I liked that fingering."

"I went to an Allan Holdsworth clinic recently and he was asked, if he had to start all over again, what he'd do differently. He said, "Well I'd tune the guitar in fourths, like bass players do, for a start. That'd make life easier!""

I think it makes sense for his style.

[Uil Loi]

Found an interesting p4 player on youtube:

http://youtu.be/AvduG8A0y4A

http://youtu.be/tDTjRQB_hPg

[Uil Loi]

lovely guitar here
http://youtu.be/eEp9n-qygJo

[Tim McNamara]

I remember reading (I think) a George Van Eps interview in which he said
he gets up every morning and gives thanks to whomever put the major
third in the standard Spanish tuning.

4th is probably a viable tuning, perhaps easier to learn from the get-go
than to try to change after playing standard tuning for nearly 35 years.
As you said in an earlier post, the odds are very good that no one in
the audience would detect the difference.

I doubt that I'll be trying it due to limited time, but I am reminded of
a Red Mitchell story in which he converted from tuning his bass in 4ths
to tuning it in 5ths (I think this is C D G A); the legend I heard was
that he basically locked himself away with his bass for a weekend or a
week or something like that and emerged a 5ths player. He always looked
like a happy, kindly man in photos and videos. I guess my point is that
with concentration and determination, changing one's tuning is possible
even after mastery is gained- but would it be easier to completely
change tuning from the low to high strings rather than changing the
tuning on just two of the six strings?

Nothing to do with 4ths tuning, but here's Joe Pass and Red Mitchell
playing Softly:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mV79lV7QGF4

Sorry for the thread hijack. I return you to the discussion of 4ths
tuning.

[Jonathan]

Wow! That second guy is amazing. One of the most fluid chord melody players I have ever heard.

[Tim McNamara]

That's Matt Raines. He sells a line of self-named guitars on eBay that
he has made in China. Dude's got chops. There are a bunch of videos on
YouTube promoting his guitars, comparing them to other guitars, etc.
He's very fond of 7 strings.

[Jonathan]

Is he the dude that was bashing Eastman Guitars?

[Tim McNamara]

On Fri, 2 May 2014 11:30:02 -0700 (PDT), Jonathan

<gosto.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, May 2, 2014 12:54:08 AM UTC-4, Tim McNamara wrote:
>> On Thu, 1 May 2014 07:28:03 -0700 (PDT), Jonathan
>> <gosto.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Wednesday, April 30, 2014 3:05:24 AM UTC-4, Uil Loi wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Found an interesting p4 player on youtube:
>> >>
>> >> http://youtu.be/AvduG8A0y4A
>> >>
>> >> http://youtu.be/tDTjRQB_hPg
>> >
>> > Wow! That second guy is amazing. One of the most fluid chord
>> > melody players I have ever heard.
>>
>> That's Matt Raines. He sells a line of self-named guitars on eBay
>> that he has made in China. Dude's got chops. There are a bunch of
>> videos on YouTube promoting his guitars, comparing them to other
>> guitars, etc. He's very fond of 7 strings.
>
> Is he the dude that was bashing Eastman Guitars?

He's been critical of them in his comparison videos on YouTube stacking
various guitars up against the ones he sells. I've never seen a Raines
guitar in person; they could be great value for the money or they could
be crap. At least he knows how to play guitar which gives him at least
some advantage over some guitar labels.

[cjenki...@gmail.com]

Tuning in 4th's straight across makes sense on so many levels....If I could do it all over again I'd switch without a second thought. I find very little logic in the maj 3rd, I've seen a person start from scratch with 4th's and find the benefits far outweigh the liabilities.

[Tim McNamara]

On Sat, 3 May 2014 12:00:25 -0700 (PDT), cjenki...@gmail.com
<cjenki...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Tuning in 4th's straight across makes sense on so many levels....If I
> could do it all over again I'd switch without a second thought. I find
> very little logic in the maj 3rd, I've seen a person start from
> scratch with 4th's and find the benefits far outweigh the liabilities.

I've never looked into it seriously because I am too lazy to retrain my
muscle memory. But from the comments I have read here it sounds like it
simplifies a lot of fingering issues. There are no doubt some down
sides, because there always are, but the individual question is whether
the benefits outweigh the negatives.

[thomas]

On Saturday, May 3, 2014 3:00:25 PM UTC-4, cjenki...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Tuning in 4th's straight across makes sense on so many levels....If I could do it all over again I'd switch without a second thought. I find very little logic in the maj 3rd, I've seen a person start from scratch with 4th's and find the benefits far outweigh the liabilities.>

If P4 is so much better than standard, then why don't you switch? We all know the answer, which goes to my central point -- the main advantage of a symmetric tuning accrues to beginners. The more chops you get, the less advantage there is to P4. If there were a real advantage to P4 beyond the beginner stage, then the serious players would all be switching.

PS: If I were to consider a symmetric tuning, I'd make it Major thirds, not P4, because of the better selection of chord voicings.

[Tim McNamara]

More information on 3rds tuning including scale and chord forms:

http://www.ralphpatt.com/Tune.html

[Steve Freides]

Here's a guy

Alexander Vynograd:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5VkklI7xwE

who plays an 8-string classical guitar with a high A and a low A, but he
tunes what's normally B to C instead, thus

A-E-A-D-G-C-E-A

and he plays with his chin, too - and he does this all fantastically
well.

-S-

[cjenki...@gmail.com]

well, i wont switch because ive played in standard tuning for 30 years at this point in my life......i know how to find what im looking for in standard tuning and dont want to compromise that. i think the real reason most guys won't switch is by the time they realize the liability in standard tuning they have too much time invested and that cuts the potential benefits you might say. the whole point is that symmetrical tuning offers a faster way to absorb essential information...

[Uil Loi]

On Sunday, May 4, 2014 3:13:17 PM UTC+2, Steve Freides wrote:
> Here's a guy
>
>
>
> Alexander Vynograd:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5VkklI7xwE
>
>
>
> who plays an 8-string classical guitar with a high A and a low A, but he
>
> tunes what's normally B to C instead, thus
>
>
>
> A-E-A-D-G-C-E-A
>
>
>
> and he plays with his chin, too - and he does this all fantastically
>
> well.
>
>
>
> -S-

amazing player

[Uil Loi]

On Sunday, May 4, 2014 12:51:50 AM UTC+2, thomas wrote:
>
> If P4 is so much better than standard, then why don't you switch? We all know the answer, which goes to my central point -- the main advantage of a symmetric tuning accrues to beginners. The more chops you get, the less advantage there is to P4. If there were a real advantage to P4 beyond the beginner stage, then the serious players would all be switching.
>

If you're as good as rosenwinkel (who also uses non-standard tunings sometimes) you have no reason to switch. it would be absurd.

If you put 10 hours a day for 20 years into your music and your guitar, then the difference between P4 and standard won't make much of a difference.

I think I'm simply saying that, given the same time investment, you might have a better chance to become a better player with P4. It's a very limited claim.

Also notice that I've never seen the claim: I've spent 10 years with P4 and then went back to standard tuning, but I've seen the opposite. But surely I'm not selling anything. I've done it myself, and I'm happy it's been working for me. Your mileage might vary and do whatever works for you.

[Bill Williams]

> amazing player
Indeed, and why stop there - that chin-fretting opens up a whole new world of possibilities!

[Gerry]

On 2014-04-24 08:17:55 +0000, Uil Loi said:

> On Thursday, April 24, 2014 3:58:16 AM UTC+2, thomas wrote:
>> If you want a symmetrical tuning, major thirds is so much better than fourths.
>
> I've heard this many times, but I suppose there should be an agreed
> meaning of "better" before agreeing on such a thing.
> Some voicings become easier, others become harder, but I don't see how
> one can show that some voicing are objectively better than others.

True. I like fourths tunings for the symmetric aspects, but for better
or worse my brain has been configured with a 3rd in the middle, so the
symmetrical bonuses would provide a liability.

The thirds tuning has the same qualities of symmetry that would be
wasted on my brain, but it provides easier access to tighter voicings.
That's the reason a 3rds tuning would always be preferrable to me over
a 4ths tuning: I get 2nds and minor seconds more easily.

> It's a matter of style and taste. If you like lots of ♭2nds in your
> voicing you could even move to all minor thirds ... why not?

And it's a question of balance, of course: As your ease of access to
m2nd's increases, your access to 4ths and 5ths diminishes.

> I've played 10 years with normal tuning and 10 years with P4, and the
> change has been fairly simple since all scales and arpeggios are
> identical on the first four strings, and simply "extended" on the top
> two strings.
>
> Moving to M3s would change everything.

In 10 years I think it would become "fairly simple" as well.
--
Those who wish to sing always find a song. -- Swedish proverb