Talk:Stringed instrument tunings

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Missing info: octave

For example, the viola and the cello are not tuned alike, nor are the bass guitar and the bottom four strings of its 6-string cousin... not sure how best to put this into the tables. __Just plain Bill 01:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, what's the convention for this? Hint: there are systems of writing note names indicating which octave they're in that actually predate Wikipedia. Who'da thunk it? (I'm saying this out of ignorance, as I know the system exists but don't know the details.) +ILike2BeAnonymous 01:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Cute. Of course a cello's lowest note is C2, where the viola's is C3. The question is more about how to fit this information into the table so it's readable and doesn't add confusion. When someone adds the Theorbo or even the Twelve string guitar, things could get hairy. __Just plain Bill 12:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
OK, I went and tried something on cello, viola, and violin. Comments? _Just plain Bill
I say do it to it. The worst part will be all the guitar tunings, with 6 notes, which look like they'll still fit in their cells nicely; the absolute worst will be archlute, which may require a couple of lines. +ILike2BeAnonymous 18:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How to show courses?

I just put octaves on the double bass, and guessed the keynote D of the mountain dulcimer is an octave below a violin's open D, based on string length. Not sure about the octave of the upper "D" course, but I've always twisted that one around depending on what mode the tune was in. Work in progress here...

I'm OK with listing strings lowest-to-highest pitch, since that seems pretty common, even though strings are conventionally numbered high-to-low (e.g. the G string of a violin is number IV.) Not so sure about how to deal with courses of paired strings (or more; there's a saz on the mantel here with eight strings in 3 courses, 3-2-3) particularly when the courses are not tuned in unison, or when not all courses have the same number of strings, such as that saz or the Appalachian dulcimer.

For now, I'll suggest we use something like "G3 D4 A4 E5" for a mandolin, with each course the same number of strings tuned in unison, "D3 A3 (D4)x2" for the plucked dulcimer, and something like "(E2 E3) (A2 A3) (D3 D4) (G3 G3) (B3 B3) (E4 E4)" for the 12-string guitar.

I'll wait a day or two before going much further with this. My knowledge of Latin and Asian instruments is limited, so I intend to leave those entries alone. __Just plain Bill 03:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Using parentheses to group courses is a good idea (e.g., (A2 A3)). I noticed that in the dulcimer example you continued using this for unison pairs; why not use this always for consistency (so mandolin would be (G3 G3) (D4 D4) (A4 A4) (E5 E5))? Sure, it takes up more space, but it makes the whole thing more ... orthogonal. Whaddya think? +ILike2BeAnonymous 03:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Also, while [someone's] at it, it would be good to add a note at the top of the article explaining the nomenclature: that strings are listed from low pitch to high, and explain the octave numbering for those unfamiliar with this notation. +ILike2BeAnonymous 03:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

We were typing together, it seems. Here's what I was going to add:

Another way to show the 12-string might be "E2,3 A2,3 D3,4 G3,3 (or 3,2) B3,3 E4,4" if that's the way you tune such a thing. It's still a pretty bulky notation, and not as readable as the other one above. (I firmly believe that presentation should not get in the way of speedy comprehension.)

But you're right, the parentheses help a bit. I'm still going to wait a day or few, in case other comments come in. __Just plain Bill 03:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I added 12-string git-box in the "new" notation: (E2 E3) (A2 A3) ... etc. It doesn't look too bad, if I don't say so myself. One thing: I put non-breaking spaces ( ) between the pairs so they stick together. Could also use a comma, but I think the less cluttered, the better. Want to take a crack at changing all the other entries (at least the ones you're sure about the octave)? +ILike2BeAnonymous 20:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
... and furthermore: Another proposal: if we're going to use the (n1 n2) format for notating multiple-string courses, how about omitting the parentheses altogether on instruments which have only single-string courses, in the further interest of not cluttering things? (So 6-string guitar would be simply E2 A2 D2 G2 B3 E4). +ILike2BeAnonymous 21:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
That works fine for me. Did the ones I'm reasonably confident of; don't know a lot about banjos, could make some reasonable guesses, but won't for now. __Just plain Bill 03:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] another nit: aren't some ukes tuned "down and up?"

OK after this one I'll give it a rest for the night. Where an instrument's strings are not tuned in ascending order, to me it seems OK to list them from "bass" to "treble" side, as guitar or violin strings go from left to right when viewed from the front with the headstock or scroll upwards. __Just plain Bill 04:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Yep. And apropos your edit comment, maybe it should be pointed out that, technically speaking, a ukulele is tuned "My Dog Has Fleas"—right? +ILike2BeAnonymous 08:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Wiseacre.  ;-) __Just plain Bill 15:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Formatting the table: bullets vs. spaces, etc.

I'm quite happy with your use of the Acoustical Society of America Octave Designations, but I have to admit to being a little annoyed at the manner in which you're setting formatting policy for this page. I see little or no discussion regarding the way it should or shouldn't be laid out. As the creator of this particular page, I'm certainly not looking for personal glory, just a little more respect in this matter. The removal of the bulleted entries seemed to be a little petty, when in my opinion the entries are lot less cluttered, rather than using endless parathenses which make the columns unnecessarily wide. I was tempted to revert the page again, but feel it's an exercise in tit-for-tat futility. Also, I fundamentally disagree with you over the labelling of entries involving Europe as an origin. Certainly this isn't as specific as other entries, but it does give sufficient information about the approximate region, rather than leaving no idea at all about where an instrument originated. Comparing it with the relevancy of the world as a destination is spurious in the extreme. tagrich1961 (Tobe A. Richards) 22nd July 2007

I favor a single-character separator between courses; saves 7 characters for a 6-course instrument, which helps readability a lot. Separator characters don't provide as much info as the note/octave character pairs (or triples where there's an accidental sign) and hence don't deserve as much ink. Bullets work just fine for that.
I also favor keeping "Europe" where no more specific country applies. The violin wasn't invented in the Americas, for example. Was there an "Italy" at the time of its invention? More questions than answers. Ancestral fiddles came from Asia (somewhere, whatever the locals called that place at the time) but the form we now know as a violin came from Tuscany or cis-Alpine Gaul or somewhere around there. Maybe. I don't know, so I won't put that in the article. Unless someone else beats me to it, I'll be happy to put the bullets back, though. __Just plain Bill 03:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Before anyone makes any drastic changes to the formatting of the whole enchilada, could someone humor me and provide a sample of what this might look like, here on this "talk" page? It would be nice to see what it looks like before committing to it. (Be sure to include some multi-string-course instruments.) Just a couple-few rows of the table would be plenty.
One small objection I have to using bullets is that they're a little more difficult to use for others who might edit who may not be familiar with those characters. (I'm assuming they're in the big box of special characters on the editing page; are they? And of course there's always copy-and-paste.) Not necessarily a show-stopper, but something to consider. +ILike2BeAnonymous 06:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Firstly,apologies for getting slightly hot on the collar about the formatting. I guess we're all pretty passionate about stringed instruments or else none of us would bother editing it lol! But I do feel bullets might be a space saver compared with parantheses - that was my sole reason for implementing them. If you look in the character box just below the editing panel, you'll find the bullet symbol beside the down arrow character ↓. I would agree to a certain extent the bullet symbol isn't quite as easy to find as the 2 paratheses characters, but as you so rightly point out, good old cut and paste is a quick and easy option for any editing Wikipedians. The only reason I chose the bullet is because it's fairly visible and a tidy character. We could just leave a space, but I think the eye has a little trouble always seeing a clear division between the courses/strings, particularly for viewers with less than 20/20 vision. Oh I nearly forgot, I believe you asked for an example of the bulleted entries. Obviously, this isn't in table format, but it probably doesn't really matter. E2•A2•D3•G3•B3•E4 or E2 • A2 • D3 • G3 • B3 • E4. Personally, I think I prefer the second version with the spaces inbetween, as it looks a bit less squashed, but I'm quite open to other opinions on this.
The Europe issue is a tricky one, but if we use it provisionally with any entry without a clear origin (always supposing it is from Europe!), that would seem a good half-way house option. I profess to knowing more about fretted than fretless instruments, so the violin family aren't really in my area of knowledge anyway.
This page, as I may have mentioned, is obviously going to be a constantly evolving affair, so some entries will hopefully, as time goes by, acquire more specific information. For instance, if we haven't got specific information about the octave designations regarding the tuning of the strings/courses, but do have the note names of the courses, this I would say would be better than leaving it totally blank. But obviously, the correct octave designations are the best way to go if we know them.
If either of you or any other wouldbe editors have any other ideas about adding additional information, diagrams etc. that's something further we could discuss. Anyhow, if we can arrive at a consensus over the formatting issue and get it out of the way, we can concentrate on the more interesting issue of adding entries. One final thing I did consider adding to the tables was a column for scale length, but I wasn't sure if this would make the table width too unwieldy. If not, this could make a useful sister page, possibly with other constructional information (?). tagrich1961 (Tobe A. Richards) 23rd July 2007
Since you didn't really provide the examples I was looking for, I went ahead and did it myself. Here are two representative entries, in the current format (using spaces and parentheses) and in a prospective new format using bullets (•) as separators, both with and without parentheses to enclose courses:
Instrument Tuning Strings & Courses Alternative Names Origin Notes
Requinto A2 D3 G3 C4 E4 A4 6 strings/6 courses Latin America Standard tuning
Ronroco (G G) (C C) (E E) (A A) (E E) 10 strings/5 courses Ronrroco Andean Region Standard C6 tuning (tuned an octave below the charango).
Requinto A2 • D3 • G3 • C4 • E4 • A4 6 strings/6 courses Latin America Standard tuning
Ronroco (G G) • (C C) • (E E) • (A A) • (E E) 10 strings/5 courses Ronrroco Andean Region Standard C6 tuning (tuned an octave below the charango).
Ronroco G G • C C • E E • A A • E E 10 strings/5 courses Ronrroco Andean Region Standard C6 tuning (tuned an octave below the charango).
One thing you'll notice is that the new format takes up more space overall than the old one for single-string courses (but less overall for multiple ones if parentheses are omitted). So what do folks think of this? +ILike2BeAnonymous 17:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
My feeling is that there are likely to be a large number of double coursed instruments spread throughout the table, so I probably unsurprisingly favour the bulleted format. Putting aside the width aspect of it, I personally find them easier to read. tagrich1961 (Tobe A. Richards) 23rd July 2007
The bullet character being difficult for some to find is a non-issue IMO. It could just as easily be a splat (*) a bang (!) a pipe (|) or any other suitable character. In a variable-width font the pipe would probably be the slimmest character. For instruments with only single-string courses, why not just use a space, the way it was earlier? The bottom two entries below have no regular spaces, with the "advantage" that the Tuning column (which carries the main info content here) will not shrink and break into a new line as the window shrinks or the text size gets bigger. Comment?
Aah, don't like it; too squished. See my addition of a line with spaces around the vertical bar characters. Still don't really like it, though. +ILike2BeAnonymous 23:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
OK, how about with sneaks instead of pipes? Line after your addition. Compact is OK, squished is not so great. I'm growing fond of the "no linebreaks in the column that is the reason for us being here" idea. __Just plain Bill 23:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
"Sneaks"? Where does that usage come from? Er, but no; don't like them. By the way, just popped in to say I endorse your idea of simply spacing single-string courses w/spaces. +ILike2BeAnonymous 23:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Pipe is unix-speak from the seventies or so. Sneak, bang, splat are all IBM-speak from around then as well. Once worked with a good old boy of that generation. Still thinking about the other stuff. __Just plain Bill 23:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
<— Don't want to commit myself too early, but it's looking like bullets may be the best option, visually and graphically speaking, to delimit multi-string courses. I wonder what that other editor has to say about all this? +ILike2BeAnonymous 23:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I just added a couple of lines with diamonds and bullets, but no spaces between courses. Tobe? __Just plain Bill 00:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for the late reply - I very cleverly managed to put my back out - thus the delay! Firstly, I think we're all agreed on using a non-squished format, so whichever we choose, there should be a space between the bullets and/or courses or whatever. I first used the bulleted format on a similar table in the frettedfriends database and it seems to work ok, so if you both agree on that method, that might be the way to go, certainly with the double/triple course instruments. For single courses, I'm not overly worried either way, we can use spaces or bullets with spaces. The main concern of mine is readibility and obviously continuity should other editors become in involved. Incidentally, if either of you are particularly interested in fretted instruments, I run a discussion group on the net. It's called frettedfriends (one word) and is one of the Yahoo Groups. At present we have 2000+ members from around the world, so as you can imagine, most fretted instruments get discussed. Incidentally Bill, I love your terminology - splats, bangs etc. wonderfully descriptive! :-) __tagrich1961 14:06, 25th June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! Descriptive and monosyllabically compact is why I keep using them. More of a fretless orientation here, tnx for the invite as well. I wonder how you & others feel about using nonbreaking en spaces for the white space in the Tuning column, so it doesn't collapse at various view sizes. Bullets work OK for me. __Just plain Bill 15:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Formalizing the proposal somewhat:
  • Use bullets and spaces for multi-string courses
  • Use spaces only for single-string courses
  • Use non-breaking spaces (&nbsp;) throughout to prevent line breaks
Just got an idea; would it be worthwhile to find someone to code a template that could do this formatting automatically? Say something like {{stringcourse|single|A2 D2 G2}}? That would relieve editors of a lot of drudgery (copying & pasting, hunting for special characters, etc.). +ILike2BeAnonymous 17:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Sounds fine to me! Code writing isn't in my sphere of knowledge, so if you think you can find a code writer to simplify things, it sounds a good idea. __tagrich1961 14:06, 25th June 2007 (UTC)
The deed is done. I could probably code such a template, but having a sense of the amount of work involved with all the ifs, ands, and buts I can think of right now off the top of my head (not counting the ones that would be bound to show up after debugging started) I'd rather not. Just doing the editing was easier.
Kindly see what you think of the arch-lute and dulcimer entries. They were the only odd ones for the moment. __Just plain Bill 23:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Instrument Tuning Strings & Courses Alternative Names Origin Notes
Requinto A2 D3 G3 C4 E4 A4 6 strings/6 courses Latin America Standard tuning
Requinto A2|D3|G3|C4|E4|A4 6 strings/6 courses Latin America Standard tuning
Ronroco G2 G2|C3 C3|E3 E3|A3 A3|E4 E4 10 strings/5 courses Ronrroco Andean Region Standard C6 tuning (tuned an octave below the charango).
Ronroco G2 G2 | C3 C3 | E3 E3 | A3 A3 | E4 E4 10 strings/5 courses Ronrroco
Requinto A2_D3_G3_C4_E4_A4 6 strings/6 courses Latin America Standard tuning
Ronroco G2 G2_C3 C3_E3 E3_A3 A3_E4 E4 10 strings/5 courses Ronrroco Andean Region Standard C6 tuning (tuned an octave below the charango).
Ronroco G2 G2 * C3 C3 * E3 E3 * A3 A3 * E4 E4 10 strings/5 courses Splat-delimited
Ronroco G2 G2♦C3 C3♦E3 E3♦A3 A3♦E4 E4 10 strings/5 courses spaceless diamond-delimited
Ronroco G2 G2•C3 C3•E3 E3•A3 A3•E4 E4 10 strings/5 courses spaceless bullet-delimited
Octaves on the ronroco are place-holders here, since I have no idea what they really are.
__Just plain Bill 23:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


One little fly in the ointment (isn't there always?) comes up with the entry for archlute. Here it is, before and after I edited it to remove the parentheses:

Instrument Tuning Strings & Courses Alternative Names Origin Notes
Archlute (F F • G G • A A • B B • C C • D D) E F G C F A D G 20 strings/14 courses
Archlute F F • G G • A A • B B • C C • D D • E F G C F A D G 20 strings/14 courses

In order to make this whole scheme more orthogonal, I think the second format should be used (at least in those rare cases of instruments with both single- and multiple-string courses). But I'm wondering whether it's clear to others which strings go with which this way: is it obvious that all the strings after the last pair of Ds are single-string courses? (I'm still thinking about a template to automate the insertion of these tunings.) +ILike2BeAnonymous 03:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

That works. It leaves the dulcimer with parentheses. With a single bullet, that one is unclear: no typographic distinction between the two single strings and the double course. Did the archlute that way to keep things consistent... for now it looks like we still have one oddity, that, I can live with. __Just plain Bill 04:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Helmholtz Octave Designations

One thing I haven't brought up is whether to include Helmholtz designations in the table. Personally, I think this would make it too cluttered and probably isn't strictly necessary. I did include them in the diagram as I know a number of players prefer them over the ASA system, but it's a simple enough matter just to refer to the diagram, should people wish to use this system. Also I find them more difficult to read. tagrich1961 (Tobe A. Richards) 23rd July 2007

That works fine for me; not fond of graphic clutter. __Just plain Bill 22:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Octave Designations Notation Diagram?

I'm pretty busy at the moment, but I wondered what you both thought about me adding a notation staff/stave diagram to compliment the piano version, displaying the octave designations in notation as well? My reasoning being not everyone can visualize the pitch on the piano, but a lot of interested parties are familiar with notation. __tagrich1961 14:06, 25th June 2007 (UTC)

Go nuts, sez I. Multiple avenues into the information are a good thing in my book. Grand staff seems appropriate. Bigger project than I want to lay hold of just now... __Just plain Bill 00:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Irish zouk octave courses?

Seems odd to me the way they are now shown:

Instrument Tuning Strings & Courses Alternative Names Origin Notes
Irish bouzouki G3 G2 • D4 D3 • A3 A3 • D4 D4 8 strings/4 courses zouk Ireland Irish tuning (octaves)

Not knowing any better, I'd probably string one like this:

Instrument Tuning Strings & Courses Alternative Names Origin Notes
Irish bouzouki G2 G3 • D3 D4 • A3 A3 • D4 D4 8 strings/4 courses zouk Ireland Irish tuning (octaves)

So a down-pick hits the lower octave string first. I'll go ask an Irish traddie on a forum I inhabit, and if anyone here knows for sure in the meantime, kindly either fix it in the article or say so here and I'll do the editing. __Just plain Bill 00:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. Enough folks there believe that the thin string goes on the bass side of the octave courses that I'll leave it alone here. __Just plain Bill 23:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Generally, the high octave strings would be on the outside (i.e. 8th and 6th strings), but this isn't a hard and fast rule. A bit like the 12-string guitar, some players prefer the high octave inside and others, out. I play the Irish zouk, but I prefer the instrument strung with unison pairs. It's all personal preference, really. __tagrich1961 23:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lowest to Highest or Left to Right Courses?

I've been thinking about this and I'm wondering if it might be a better idea to indicate that all entries will feature left to right tunings instead of specifying lowest to highest. The reason I say this is because there are exceptions to this where there could be some confusion. The main one being the mountain dulcimer and it's European cousins which are strung in the reverse direction with the melody or high pitched courses to the left or nearest to player's body. Then you also have instruments with re-entrant tunings where there might also be some confusion, such as the ukulele and charango. Anyhow, let me know what you think. I did make a small amendedment to the introduction to cover anomalies, but I'm not sure if this is really necessary if we stick to one rule throughout. __tagrich1961 20:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)