As for your question? Seriously.

If I wanted to study with Jerry Byrd, and thought as I do today, that tuning ET was the right way for me to tune?

Yes. I'd humor him, and tune whatever way he insisted. I'd do what I wanted when out of his sight.

That's just me though.

I've never cared how the guys in Nashville tune either. Even the recordings I like are mostly "work tapes" for cover tunes.

In my never ending admission of ignorance, up until the last couple years, I never took it seriously that anybody tuned any other way.

Silly me.

The way I tune, "ET" or the standard Conn Strobe, or Korg, has always worked best for me. Call it "Stetched" "Mesopotamian", whatever you want. I get the needle to stop right on the dot in the middle. I DON'T tune beats out. I never have. I didn't do it when I played guitar in the early 60s. Nor did I for banjos. I used the "Nat Wilson Method" I got with my banjo in '63.

After it's all said and done the way Buddy Emmons, Lloyd Green, Bruce Bouten, JDM,JCD, Don West, Or Bobbe Seymour tune or tuned haven't had diddly squat to do with the thousands of gigs I've worked. What I get from them is new ideas for playing, and new songs and licks to try to imitate, and incorporate.

Learning to use my hands, I paid Buddy Charleton for. I got every penny back times a hundred. Even if I had to humor him a little bit.

I've gotten every job I ever wanted music wise, in the last 25 years, and have been fired twice. Neither time for "tuning issues". Fancy that..

And yes, again Terry, count me in for tuning "straight up 440".

As for "tuning" the banjo, I seriously doubt it....

[This message was edited by Dave Grafe on 11 January 2005 at 08:36 AM.]

------------------
If You Keep Pickin That Thing, It'll Never Heal!
;)

quote:

---

Klaus, have you actually measured your cabinet drop and found none? Some explanations for cabinet drop involve imperceptible slack in the changer as part of the cause.

---

I'm somewhat happy that I wrote "virtually" no cabinet drop in my first posting.
Ofcourse now I messured it with my old Boss TU-8 tuner (dial) and discover that I actually HAVE 'round 1/2 cent of drop (messured on the D and high E strings), which I blame on the changer mechanism as you mentioned.
It's nothing that I can hear under normal circumstances though, but to say that this machine has no drop at all would be an exaggeration. Sorry

All'n'all I think that I'll stay with "Straight up", "ET" or whatever until further notice.
Though this discussion probably will go on forever it'll always be interesting.
Bottom line must be; Find out whatever works for you and stick with that.

------------------
Klaus Caprani

MCI RangeXpander S-10 3x4
www.klauscaprani.com

I tweaked the tuning a tad after the Steel got to room temp..

The club owner set up the stage mics and monitors..

The band started to play..The owner had the monitors so loud I couldn't hear the N400 behind me..He couldn't figure out how to get the levels down so Matt( Tele) and I were getting cooked by the "FORCE BE WITH YOU" sound coming from the monitors, and the owners ego would not let anyone else yank at the knobs..

So I really don't know if I was in tune or not..

I didn't really care !

I suspect I'm not the only one this has happened to..and I know I certainly won't be the last..

Happy 441 or 442 , whatever it takes..

professional music at it's best...

t

[This message was edited by Tony Prior on 11 January 2005 at 03:36 AM.]

------------------
HookMoore.com
Allen Moore

With that logic, I really don't see why you wouldn't want to take advantage of the steel guitars ability to compensate for those tuning problems.

But, I guess I can't say I've ever been bothered much by tuning straight up. I've never had a problem with listening to 6 string electric or acoustic guitars play. But it just seems like you should take advantage of the mechanism if it allows you to play more in tune.

If I ever get out there to Oregon again (was in Portland once), I'll drop by one of your gigs for those beers. I'm sure the intonation of the steel player will be acceptable, not to mention the paving on the surrounding roads.

I would still like to encourage this debate to get to the level of empirical science with some samples of JI and ET playing. For this we need true JI and true straight up everything, not Es-to-440-something and 3rds-tinkered-with.

quote:

---

A fretted bass, or guitar, has a compensated (that's "slanted") bridge, to allow for the variance in string gauges, tensions, whatever. With a steel, you're dealing with a straight bridge, imaginary frets, and a straight bar. It only stands to reason, then, that SOME compensation must be done

---

Fretless instruments such as cello, violin, etc. do not have "compensated" bridges but the bridge is set by hand. These instruments are theoretically tuned "straight up" -- the player compensates for string tension and harmonic intervals by ear, from experience with the particular instrument and through the subtle to liberal use of vibrato.

Valved brass instruments are another case entirely - if one tunes each individual valve they will be out of tune when used in combination with any other valve - the player compensates constantly, again by ear and from experience with the instrument.

The woodwinds each have their own intonation idiosyncracies. Again, the player must take care to play each note in tune with the ensemble.

There is a common notion in classical circles that tuning flat is superior to tuning "straight up" but most orchestra conductors would like nothing more than to shoot those who perpetrate this myth. The redeeming aspect of this practice is that those who can't play in tune are at least not playing sharp, a sin which cannot be ignored.

The subtleties of tuning reflect a mathematical conundrum that really has no simple solution - virtually all musical instruments except the keyboards and the harp must be played by the musician in such a fashion as to be in tune with themselves and the others of the ensemble. There are as many ways of achieving this end as there are musicians playing instruments - even piano technicians have their own individual preferences for tuning intervals.

Makes for good conversation, though....

------------------
Dave Grafe - email: dg@pdxaudio.com
Production
Pickin', etc.

1978 ShoBud Pro I E9, 1960 Les Paul (SG) Deluxe, 1963 Precision Bass, 1954 Gibson LGO, 1897 Washburn Hawaiian Steel Conversion

The info that I have is that different piano tuner people tune differently. Perhaps this is the reason that concert pianists often have their own tuner person tune the piano.

The tendency to "stretch tune" the piano makes high octave notes NOT exact multiples (Hz)of their low octave counterparts, but the all notes in between are per that curve (not tweaked off individually ala JI for a given key).

The mid range notes on the piano have several strings each, not all tuned to the same fundamental frequency. Reece, ..are you saying that we should or should not tune to these?

So we have stretched octaves, and multiple strings at different fundamental frequencies for given notes; sounds like someone WANTS beats for the piano.

One of the pulls on my tuning gives the notes D,F,A,C,E,G,B,D,F,A,C etc = CM13 coming and going. If I tweak tune the E, then the root of my Em7/Em9/Em11 chord is off as is the 7th of my FM7/FM9/FM9b11 etc. Tweak tune any of the notes and mess up the associated chords.

It seems that the term JI is applied to anything that is NOT ET, ..used that way, JI becomes a variable (non constant; hence saying JI has a random meaning. Does that mean that we are back to charts (of which there have been a variety) and the variables of different instrument structures?

[This message was edited by Gene Jones on 11 January 2005 at 02:56 PM.]

Dave, I can't quite agree with this, although I didn't exactly state myself correctly originally--could have been the Vicodin kicking in, not sure...
The pitch of a string of a given diameter can be raised in only two ways,---make the string shorter, or make it tighter. When a string is fretted, or played with a bar, it is being shortened. The fundamental frequency of that note changes, thus the position of the first harmonic(the octave) moves back toward the bridge. This is, as you point out, further complicated by the downward pressure on the string. So not only are we shortening the string, by fretting it, we'e also increasing the tension, by stretching the string toward the fretboard. Now if all the strings were the same diameter, we'd be in good shape. they're not, and the fundamental frenquency, and thus the location of those harmonics, is a function of mass per unit length of the string.
That slanted bridge on an acoustic guitar is a compromise, at best. On most of my acoustics, the bridge material has been removed on the third string, as it is the smallest wound string, and that doggone first harmonic is way up toward the peghead.
We've done better with electric guitars, with individual saddles for each string. Look at an old Gibson Tune-A-Matic bridge sometime. The saddles are slanted to one end, rather than coming to a point in the center. We've probably all had to reverse one or two of those saddles to shorten, or lengthen, a string enough to get it in tune.
And Fender wisely switched bridge saddles when Leo and them came up with the Stratocaster, making each string adjustable, instead of two strings per saddle, as the Telecaster was built.
AND, string gauges in those days were a LOT bigger than the lights we use today. So, again, using string mass as a function of that fundamental, we can say, for all intents and purposes, that we've changed the scale length over the years.
As far as the unfretted instruments are concerned, it is up to the individual playing the instrument to make pitch corrections on the fly, keeping in mind that, as I said before, THOSE folks don't have to play chords! MAN, ain't fiddle players got it made???
So I doubt if we'll ever see total agreement on this tuning thing. Tension, string length, and string mass are ALL parts of the formula for determining the fundamental of a string, and thus the location of the harmonics. Change any of the three, and the fundamental frequency, and the location of those harmonics, changes.
Sorry for the long post---anybody wanna go fishing?

edited for lousy spelling---IT'S THAT VICODIN AGAIN!!!

[This message was edited by Stephen Gambrell on 11 January 2005 at 12:26 PM.]

quote:

---

there is only one just intonation, anything else is tempered.

---

Mr Doggett. I am to assume that if the chord an orchestra is playing is a "C Chord", then violinists, harpists, glockenspieliers, and others are not allowed to play their open E strings, or notes without muting them immediately..

I have stated before that fiddlers that follow vocals flat are a total PITA. I can imagine them trying to follow the pennywhistle around in an orchestra. It's not an "election". People wonder why Buddy Rich went nutso once in a while..

This reminds me of some of this "new math". 1 and 1 is whatever you want it to be by virtue of who is adding it, and that there is still a question of the validity of E=mc2.

There is either a twelve note musical system, or there is not. If there is a 13 note system, or a 43 note system, then there is a 3 jillion note system. All of a sudden nobody's out of tune. Yeah well I'm not buying it. Electronic keyboards, well intoned guitars, and other instruments that we all have to play with go with 12 semitones. Neatly arranged.

Nobody has seemed to catch that "vibrato" is a multinote affair, or that MANY of us play half fret notes ALL THE TIME. I play a definite half fret chord hit very hard and slid up to the fret many times a night, or go down a half fret and slide into a chord. I don't know many players that don't.

This thread was titled "anybody else tune straight up 440?"

Lets let this partial record stand to some poor kid that's searching for "players that 'tune straight up' to their tuners." because he's given up on the 43 note system, or the Mr Thusandsuch Tuning Chart and he didn't have the money to buy the latest Rubegoldbergation Changer on a 6000$ guitar..

The count so far: 15 that tune straight up 440 (or close enough).

About 7 that don't but answered the post anyhow. Two or three of them pretty famous. I am among their fans, playing wise, to be sure.

Considering the power of dis- or detracting arguments, and the caliber of those making them, I'd say that there is indeed some hope for those of us that like to hear chords that don't have flat notes in them. Some of us for decades.

Also for those just starting out that need to be able to "believe" that they are capable of being TOTALLY IN TUNE before they can have the confidence to proceed full force with the important parts of playing. Like PLAYING.

It's a large closet.

I think a few more of us are going to come out before it's over...

(... muffled thumps and struggling sounds....)

D.D. you tear me up..

Steve, you're exactly right. Maybe it is the Vikes...

EJL

Eric, there is not. You are describing a microtonal note sysytem when you speak of starting a chord a haf-free below, or above, the intended fret. You call 'em quarter-tones. Every time you get chicken skin when B.B.King bends a note, it's not the note he started from, or the note he ends up, that causes the reaction. It's the microtonal intervals, creating tension, that elicit a reaction. Different chords evoke different emotions(seems like there was a thread about this), and dissonances and tensions resolving themselves, that create music. In India, a twelve-note scale would be thought quite limiting, as would be the case in several Oriental musics.

"New math is the same as old math, they just don't call it that anymore."
----Archimedes

[This message was edited by Stephen Gambrell on 11 January 2005 at 08:49 PM.]

However the twelve "basic" notes, for me all fall within the exactitude of the ET scale as represented by the Conn, Korg, Seiko, tuners, and tuning forks. I try my best to play the chords I play that way. That way I find far less 15+ cent disagreement with the electronic keyboards and well tuned and intoned guitars I play with.

No reason at all that a steel player, BB or anybody can't "jump out there" with quarter or eighth tones. We do it all the time. JH anybody?

Indian and Oriental "scales" are often less "advanced" than we squareheads think they are. Often from what I've read, they were "arbitrary". Though indeed, like "ET" they were easy enough for constant listeners to expect to hear in their "correct form".

Indian ragas were not nor could they be played as chords. I'd be interested in finding out how the drone strings were tuned.

Believe it or not I once thought of learning Sitar, but I didn't feel like being chained to a tree for ten years. I know... It's not too late....

It's nice to know that we're on the same page on something..

EJL

Glad you showed up. Even if you don't tune ET.

I don't know. I imagine it sags. More now than before.

My Marrs IS on the bench, after the traditional nine month incubation and I'll soon have much less "droop" to deal with.

It's getting so where I have to douch my changer with penetrating oil before a gig., and sit and warm it up before it changes true. It's worn out beyond my belief. It's had a hard life.

If I tried some more of those dicked with tunings I'd just have more nightmares.

Here's another.

I have a Korg Tuner New G12. Both arrows light up when you're "dead on".

I play an E into it. Both arrows light up.

I play a B into it at the same time. Both arrows light up.

I play a an E, G# and B into it. In order to get them both to light, I have to lower the G# ten cts, and raise the B 5cts. then the needle is in the middle.

The chord that ensues?

I think it sounds flat, and it is not totally "beatless". The tuner "thinks" it's in tune.

I'd sure love to get an oscillator tune that would show the combined waveforms of played chords with motion. That would be very interesting.

I also wish I had time to fill your hard drives with megabytes of my half baked theories. You'd probably get a kick out if it too.

But alas.

In the meantime.

I'll continue to tune straight up, and will never run out of reasons for doing so.

I could even make up some new ones.

You're nodding your head, aren't you...

quote:

---

Now if all the strings were the same diameter, we'd be in good shape. They're not, and the fundamental frenquency, and thus the location of those harmonics, is a function of mass per unit length of the string

---

I can't tell if we are agreeing or not, but the first harmonic (one octave above the fundamental) is ALWAYS exactly twice the frequency and generated by the vibration of exactly one-half of of the fundamental string, regardless of mass. The second harmonic (one fifth above the fundamental) is three times the frequency and one-third of the string length. The third harmonic vibrates at four times the frequency using one-fourth the length, and so on ad infinitum.

This is why the steel guitar with no added tension from pressing the strings to frets is in tune with its bridge AND nut equidistant for both low and high strings and the bar held EXACTLY parallel with both. On a PSG, adjustments for tuning variances due to different string mass is made in the pedal and lever tuning systems.

The set-back third string point on some guitar bridges is, as you mention, due to the use of wound strings in that position, which change pitch with tension at a different rate than unwound ones. Proper setup of an adjustable bridge involves matching the fretted notes to the open-string first, second and third harmonics by moving the bridge forward to shorten the string from the mathematically correct length to the point where the string is in tune with itself across the fretboard, compensated for the change in tension. This point will change with a different string size, tension and hieght from the fretboard.

YO, that's enough, there are lots of excellent books available on the subject and I gotta go practice.

Best -- dg

[This message was edited by Dave Grafe on 12 January 2005 at 12:36 PM.]

------------------
www.ottawajazz.com

[This message was edited by John Steele on 12 January 2005 at 02:00 PM.]

1. It really doesn’t matter how you tune, it matters only if you sound in tune to yourself and the rest of your band. I don’t think anyone in the audience can tell the difference between JI and ET. They would certainly be aware of poor intonation.

2. Last year at the Texas Steel Guitar Jamboree there was standing room only when Buddy Emmons performed his sets. I didn’t hear anyone dissing Buddy for being out of tune. As a matter of fact, Doug Jernigan and I were sitting together at his booth and when Buddy finished Doug looked at me and replied, “Buddy can still do it can’t he”? I had to give Doug a big AMEN on that. After Buddy’s Saturday night set my friend asks Buddy Emmons if he was actually tuned straight up. Buddy replied, “Every note”, or something to that effect. At that same Jamboree, I'm sure more that a few of the performing players tuned JI. They all sounded in tune to me. Like I said before, if you sound "in tune", you are "in tune".

3. When these type tuning discussions appear on the forum, someone always states that piano’s aren’t tuned ET. One day I took my Korg tuner down to the most exclusive music store in Tallahassee. I asked the manager if I could check out some of the pianos for my own education. He gave me the green light. Every Piano I checked was tuned ET. It’s true that a piano tuner stretches the tuning a little sharp going up, and a little flat going down, but everything in the same octave is ET for all practical purposes. I guess what I’m trying to say that if you make an “E” chord on the piano, the G#’s will not be as flat as the Newman chart. If you play with an electronic key board, I can assure you that it will be tuned ET.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OK Explain this and I'm not complaining.
I tuned all three necks to an A 440 tuning fork in my room in St.Louis. When I got up on the bandstand I was 1/2 tone flat and spent 5 minutes trying to get all three necks
1/2 higher in pitch. Do you know how embrassed I felt? How come? Why was the band 1/2 tone higher than each string on my triple neck?

You've got me in a weak period where my ProIII has got enough holes in the intonation to throw a cat through. It's something that's been building for the last half year, and My Marrs is on the bench as I type, THANK GOD. ( And Jeff).

Until things in my changer and brass swivels started going to hell I had a lot less trouble going out and "setting" all my changes before the first set.

Jeff's going to send me enough swivels, and a couple bearing clamps etc that are egg shaped on my old PIII, that taking it apart, machining the tops of the fingers uniformly and adding a long awaited vert or two, it'll be the same old warhorse, with a straight front. ( I'm putting a Marrtian front angle iron axle point on it and straighten the front apron bow.)

Until recently, I never had any cabinet drop more than 2 0r 3 cents. Now I won't tell you how much I find.

Yes I only tune one pedal at a time, and I know there is definitely a sag at this point.

I'll let you in on a little secret.

It's not in how you tune if you're "close".

It's in how much confidence in your intonation you have, and how much conviction you play it with. It's actually a player's "power of suggestion". You can believe it or not. I notice it in other's performances more than mine, but I know the feeling when I've got it, and when I'm 'not sure'. I can tell when a guy is playing with hesitancy.

It's like when you knock your tenth string out with your left hand, and hear your octaves off. You tune it back "by ear", but never really "nail" that octave til you get it on the meter. At least I'm thataway.

If I had all these dickedwith changes, It would put a crack in my confidence.

If somebody put me behind a sho~bud that I believed was tuned "straight up", whether it was or not, they'd find that I would play with enough conviction to believe that I was "in tune", and that would be that.

If I believed that it had all these "dickwiths", and I had to start taking "special little nuances" into account, I'd be like a cat with a wad of pitch stuck on his tail.

That's what has allowed me to be able to play things with the amount of conviction that I have.

That's why I believe that "new players" need to be able to start out with TOTAL confidence that all they have to do is learn how to PLAY, and not how to get all these little columns on a chart to line up, and be careful of this little thing ands that little thing. And to get their left hand to do what their ears want it to immediately.

When people like Mr Grafe come out to hear me with the band, I try to play as many big fat wide voiced chords, open, and without vibrato, and I like getting their feedback.

After all these 50000 or more words, I'm admitting that it doesn't really matter how I tune, but I must be confident that if somebody's "out" that it's not me. The beauty of MODERN electronic keyboards that are very close to dead on with my electronical tuner, is that I can prove that I can play in tune with them, AND guitars. ANd still sound that way to myself, and my peers.

I really do believe that I don't need nor like to hear thirds that are 'beatless'.

I got that way playing guitar some twenty years into it. Fifths had better be almost beatless, and octaves better be. That's why 6 string "power chords" are root/fifths.

Sixths are like ninths. Junk chords. Sevenths are a sign of laziness, and ignorance of the lydian mode.

( ducks....)

EJL

PS.

MAN I'm going to like seeing that brand new Professional with white JW pickups, white metal fretboards, and a nice semicircular set of hearts diamonds clubs and spades on the front under the lacquer. It'll be nice to have my first vertical kls, too.

Maybe it'll even sound good...

Maybe somebody above made it that way. Maybe somebody told God, "hey. he'll fall apart if you put his guitar out of tune". Maybe God said, "OK, here. watch this". And then he smiled when you played.

I have no reason to doubt that you did tune it straight to a fork.

I doubt that anybody dicked with your rig.

There are a lot of things that have happened to me that I just can't explain. That's why I can understand things like that.

Tuning three necks of a guitar as fast as you could touch them was just a small glimpse of what you've had to do in your life from what I've read, and you've done it.

Would that I could do a tenth of it.

Ain't life grand? So many overwhelming things that are defeats to some, and victories to others..

Anyhow, Mr C, that's my stab at it.

b0b's argument above is extremely compelling.

Three issues need to be clearly resolved by the musician: a) tuning objective and b) instrument characteristics and c) entropic tolerance.

Here we stand. A thousand posts later, and a damn good compendium of all the arguments for and against.

I think that's it mostly.

I find "straight up" a little easier to defend.

Then I play however I want.

Now where did I put my chart..

Harpsichords were tolerated for awhile centuries ago, partly because they were quiet, and had very little sustain. They were played mostly as a rhythm instrument, much the way acoustic guitars comped in jazz bands before electric amplification. When pianos were invented and could play their ET notes loud, they were banned from the regular orchestra, and are still only rolled out for the occasional piano concerto. Horns of course have their mechanical valves and pads tuned ET in their manufacture, but the musician is free to play JI with the lips and ears.

None of this stuff was accidental. Conductors, composers, musicians and instrument makers paid exquisite attention to these problems over the centuries, and worked these compromises out. Recently, with the availability of cheap, handheld chromatic ET tuners, and the ubiquitousness of ET tuned guitars and pianos, ET has come into fashion in guitar/keyboard based bands, to the point that there are now ET-fascists. Many of these players don't even realize that ET has been considered an out-of-tune compromise by classical musicians for centuries.

There is nothing wrong with tuning ET if your instrument requires it, or if you need to do so to play along with ET instruments (which is not always necessary). But there is also nothing wrong with tuning and playing JI if your instrument allows it. ET is not "in tune", and JI is not a "dicked-with" compromise. ET is in fact an out-of-tune compromise, a necessary evil, compared to the older and more natural JI intervals. ET is like looking at the fingers of your hand and saying, "Oh look, they are not all the same length. Let's take a meat cleaver and lop them off to equal length. Ouch! Now, look, they are all perfect."

Again, if you have to make this synthetic equal-tempered compromise because of the limitations of your instrument, fine. But it is simply wrong to get all holy about being perfectly in tune compared to the poor ignorant JI players who still tune by ear. The natural world is JI. ET is a manmade compromise, like striaght lines and right-angles. While it may be perfect in a mathematical sense, it is not perfect harmonically or musically.