Classical Guitar

Can anyone explain to me the particular reason for the guitar's standard tuning i.e E A D G B E? What are the origins, and the significance?

In particular, is there any specific reason why the tuning could not maintain a constant interval across all the strings of ascending fourths? Wouldn't it make more sense for the tuning to be: E A D G C F? In this way, all scales and chords would maintain a more regular pattern across all the strings, and the fretboard would be less complicated to map. Wouldn't it?

Please enlighten my ignorance in this matter...

Kind regards,
Muchi

What a great question and yes, surely mapping the chord shapes over the neck would be much simpler and regularised if it were tuned in regular intervals like the violin or the cello. I too have no idea what the historical reason for standard tuning is and I look forward to the subsequent posts.

I have no idea why, where or when we standardised on EADGBE.

However, lots other tunings are in use in the folk/blues world - e.g. DADF#AD. Dick Gaughan used a very interesting low C (?) tuning to emuIate the sound of bagpipe drones on one of his songs - I don't remember exactly how it was. I haven't come across the variant you mention but that is just me.

On a practical level, sets of strings are put together with an assumption about how they will be tuned. If you go far away from the standard tuning then it may be necessary to buy strings individually to match the required tuning.

Historically the major third has been between 3rd and 4th strings (renaissance lutes and viola da gamba). I think it's quite natural that the open top strings contain notes that are close relatives to the open basses. Without such configuration, there would be no easy keys to play.

-Jouni

My understanding is that the combination of ascending 4ths, with a central 3rd, creates the best balance between interval size between adjacent strings and easily accessible (and common!) chords. If the strings were tuned to, say 5ths like the modern bowed strings, it would create unacceptably wide stretches between adjacent strings to hit those nice intervals like 3rds. This is not a problem on the violin and viola because their necks are shorter than the guitar's. With the cello, the neck is narrower than the guitar's, although in the same length range, so again adjacent string fingering is not compromised.

One problem with making all the intervals ascending 3rds is that it would reduce the compass of the guitar by almost an octave.

The central 3rd also helps facilitate certain fingerings, e.g., a c major chord in 1st position while the 4th between the 1st and 2nd strings gives the high "E" octave above the bass 6th string.

String retunings are common enough that there is a special term for them: scodatura.

geo

scodatura

"scordatura" - from the Italian word meaning "mistune".

What everyone else has said is correct.

I remember asking myself the same question, and this being back in the days when the internet was two tin-cans with a string strung between them, I didn't have the privilege of the expert advice above. So I tried it myself, and I recommend that you do too -- it leads to a very interesting exploration of the fretboard that you may find generally useful.

~~~

I don't want to prejudge what you may discover, but you will certainly find that certain common "easy chords" become considerably difficult. Consider E and A. In the diagram below on the left there are the "normal" shapes, and on the right the corresponding shapes that I find most logical under the proposed tuning.
The two shapes under the proposed tuning are clearly more difficult.

Still, there will be chords that are easier, right? One can play a full six-string F without need for a barre chord for instance, which is a considerable simplification. Alas, try playing an F#? The proposed tuning, where it yields simpler chord shapes in open position, does not yield simpler "transportable" shapes (that is, shapes that can be played further up the neck).

EAdgbe' is a glorious compromise that works quite well for a great many keys. For a given key one may be able to find a tuning that is arguably better, but this comes at a cost, other keys will become correspondingly more difficult.

Good luck.

I learned in my History of the Guitar class, that the tuning was settled on with intervals of 4-3-4 for the four course guitar. As the instrument gained more low strings they continued to use fourths. It is the best way to accommodate most chords in the idiom of the guitar.

Triadic harmonies with one or more voice doublings in the upper voices are easier to play with the standard guitar tuning (or lute tuning) given that we only have 4 fingers to deal with 6 strings. In open position you get the octave and fifth for an E chord and you get the fifth for an A chord. For movable chord forms this becomes a significant issue as you will need some kind of barre for chords with 5 or 6 notes in them.

As for non-triadic harmonies or atonal music in general, who knows? Maybe another tuning system works better.

There's a teacher at the store I work at who has developed a whole system based around eadgcf tuning and he sat me down and explained it to me. Basically, he uses it as an easier method to map out the fretboard, making scales and chord shapes easier to remember. It's a good mnemonic device for kids who only want to have to learn one way to play a scale or a G chord, but I think it robs you of the need to actually LEARN the fretboard if you can just rely on your trusty patterns.

Plus, I don't think some of the chords that he was crowing about sounded all that good in the upper positions. :^P

AJD wrote:There's a teacher at the store I work at who has developed a whole system based around eadgcf tuning and he sat me down and explained it to me. Basically, he uses it as an easier method to map out the fretboard, making scales and chord shapes easier to remember.

I'd be fascinated to know which chord shapes, my "experiments" didn't yield nice chords, and certainly not nice "families" of chords.

Scales being easier? Possibly. What would be the point if all the music that exists is written with standard tuning in mind. I've never heard anyone say of a guitarists "he can play some great scales".

This tuning in fourths is one of possible turkish oud tunings; but this kind of music is more mode oriented and uses much less chords. Playing melodies in certain modes is probabely easier in such a regularised tuning, but somehow the center of tonal gravity is weeker if you dont have something to rest on.

I sometimes tune my guitar in any weird tuning (within the range of the strings still playing reasonably well) in order to break some habits of coming back again and again to certain chord progressions and to surprise myself with what comes up then...

best wishes
Robert

like its sair before... its because of the barre-chords.... that EADGCF tuning is great for improvising.... you just have one fingering for a chord/scale.... some guitarists use that......


cheers ronny

Hello muchi,

I had wondered the same thing a while back. Boy! There were quite a few responses. I vaguely have an idea now, but don't ask me to explain to you. Instead, I'll just point you to that thread.

http://www.classicalguitardelcamp.com/v ... =4&t=35656

Thanks to everyone for all your suggestions, and thanks Dewalt for your link to the other thread - lots of good info there, too!

It's all beginning to make a lot more sense to me now, especially having experimented with some possible alternate tunings, none of which I found to be quite as all-round practical as the standard tuning.

The E A D G C F tuning is really good for Jazz-style improvisation if one sticks to small cluster-chords, which can then be played with standardized shapes all over the neck. It also gives a standard predictability to all scale shapes - which is lovely to work with (more like a piano's keyboard). However, it makes more full voicings of chords almost impossible, and as such renders most of the standard classical repertoire into extreme difficulties.

On the other hand, the Standard Tuning seems to be brilliantly conceived to allow the greatest possible flexibility on the instrument. Although it may require more diligence in coming to grips with the fretboard's layout - it rewards with greater harmonic possibilities.

Cheers,
Muchi