Tuning experiments

A documentation post, just so that I can remember it right.

A lot of experimentation right about now, as I try to figure out a few directions.

The Ovation is now strung with the Aerial Boundaries tuning, as follows:

• C2, 059w
• C3, 036w
• D3, 032w
• G3, 022w
• A3, 020w
• D4, 013p

These are from my hodgepodge collection of acoustic bronze strings, and if this tuning turns out to be useful for further study I may look into optimizing gauges and tensions.  Of particular interest here is the octave interval on the fifth and sixth strings, which Hedges uses to dramatic effect with his percussive playing.  This actually has me thinking about a generalized tuning employing the same concept but in reverse;  that is, C3-C2-G2-D3-A3-E4, whereby the sixth string can be thought of as an octave effect for the fifth string, and the instrument in general then logically becomes a five-string guitar tuned in perfect fifths.  I'm chewing on that one at the moment.

The other experiment is currently on the SoloEtte, and is an open Bb5 as follows:

• Bb1, 059w
• F2, 047w
• Bb2, 036w
• F3, 022w
• Bb3, 016p
• F4, 011p

Again, bronze acoustic for the wound strings. I'm deliberately interested in lower tension for improved tapping, and am thinking of some modifications to the SoloEtte to make it a general-purpose instrument for several of the directions I'm contemplating.

Thus far in a few brief experiments, this is indeed an interesting tuning approach.  Since the intervals alternate between a perfect fifth and a perfect fourth, there is not the same sort of consistent general-purpose "logic" that there is for an all-fifths or all-fourths arrangement, and I think you'd have to approach improvisation as though this were its own beast.  Now...within that limitation, there are some nice aspects to it, especially for including effective drones on both ends of the fingerboard.  (I hadn't intended that, deliberately, but with a little improv, that's what I started to do.)  Harmonics are kinda cool, too, especially the straight-across root-five-octave that you have accessible to any three adjacent strings.

More experimenting.  For now, thoughts are documented.  :-)

How to render me totally speechless.

Just do this:


I have seriously got to get my hands on the score for that.  Fortunately, Antoine Dufour seems to make that distinctly possible.

Things That Change Your Life, #8

(There's not an actual list, understand...but if there were, this would probably make the top ten.)

Michael Hedges, Aerial Boundaries.  A series of recent accidents led me to find the below video, and I still get the serious chills every time I see it.  Spontaneous wet-eye syndrome is sometimes not avoidable.

I had run across Hedges' 1984 album of the same name some years before I saw him play live, and I had never questioned the idea that he would have (of course!) recorded multiple parts, overdubs, and done a bunch of "studio magick" to arrive at the incredibly beautiful array of sounds that you hear on the recording.

So, around 1989 I go to see him in a tiny little auditorium at Stanford, which was kinda "home turf" for him, and he walks on stage with a battered-looking, simple dreadnought guitar...and plays the entire piece live, not ten feet away from my unbelieving eyes.

It would be another dozen years before it even occurred to me that I could also make music instead of just listening to it, but nonetheless I walked around in an absolute daze for almost a week after that.

It's of course quite possible that others were doing what he did before he burst on the scene in 1981, but it does not seem out of place to compare his impact, his influence, to people like Paganini, Django, Hendrix, Jaco...in the sense that, before him, it just never occurred to most people that you could do things like that on an acoustic guitar.  You know, on purpose.  Now, of course, almost thirty years later, we have the evolution of that art in various forms, and if it seems more "normal", less "impossible" it's because our ears have been bent over that time.

Hedges left us too soon, in 1997, and my own path had been leading me toward other things even before that.  Now, almost randomly, I run across his path again, this time as an aspiring player.  I now understand the mechanics of how to make some of these sounds, and one could say that much of his technique is demystified and eminently approachable.  But this in no way dampens or lessens the awe in which someone can hold his work, which is not just technique but also music.  Perhaps it might for someone who only knows of a world in which these ideas have always been there, but not for me.  As I hear some of the same sounds starting to come from my own hands, my admiration and appreciation is actually increasing.

I didn't realize quite how much I had been influenced, at a completely primal level, by this artist (and certainly this piece), until very recently when I saw the video.  Everything came back in a flood--have you ever felt an actual detonation in your metaphysical self?--and I could see that many of the things I have been moving toward over the last few years have been leading me back that way already.  Apparently it was time for me to see this.  Now, of course, the question is:  what do I intend to do with it?  (Indeed.)

Here you go.  The sound quality is not the best, the sync between video and audio is far from perfect, and the audio level is quite low.  Ignore all that.  Turn it up--you'll be rewarded.



Dang.  Still can hardly believe it, after all this time.  :-)

Inspiration.

Just to document one of the prime sources of inspiration for the next instrument project.

If you haven't seen this before, watch your jaw.  I still get goosebumps.



Michael Manring, "Selene".

Banjo, iterated.

Well, I managed to get the fingerboard insert glued down on the kit banjo. A mixed bag, at least on first analysis. I should reserve judgment and continue tinkering before drawing too many permanent conclusions.

I do believe the neck is straighter and flatter than it was. The trouble is that the rim of the resonator still intrudes on practical action height, and I still get buzzing up the neck.

There are things I can try, both in the realm of the minor tweak and the substantial change, to remedy this. One thing I might try is tightening the drum head more significantly, and/or substituting a taller bridge. (I suppose it's also possible to reduce the neck angle and go for a shorter bridge, and see if that works.) I could also simply relieve wood from the resonator rim, which seems like a gruesome change, but would be worth it if it works.

On the plus side, the action (at least below the octave) is better than it was, and I got the chance to restring the fifth string so that the cut end is not at substantial risk of putting a hole in my thumb during normal playing. I did end up going with a fifths tuning this time, to wit:

• 5th: 09p, tuned G4
  
• 4th: 32w, tuned G2
  
• 3rd: 26w, tuned D3
  
• 2nd: 18p, tuned A3
  
• 1st: 12p, tuned E4

The strings are still a bit Frankensteined (4th is nickel-wound, 3rd bronze) but I am already much happier with the 5ths tuning, appreciating both the expanded range (std G tuning on a banjo is D3-D4, where here I'm G2-E4) and regular shapes and scales.

Next steps: play this a little bit, mostly below the octave to stay away from the buzzing, and contemplate this "steeper neck, taller bridge, shallower nut" or "shallower neck, shorter bridge, deeper nut" question. Learn more about the right hand.

It's a tinkerer's project anyway. So, tinker.

Possible tunings for a 4-string...

The brain is chewing on things. In this case, the next instrument project, which is an absolute jumble of ideas at the moment, but with some starting to gel. I'm after a fretless, solid-body instrument with lots of sustain, and with some Michael Manring-esque instant detuning options. Pretty much every moving part is being considered, but that's the overarching goal.

Today's chewing is over the actual string tuning options. How can I get the most flexibility out of the simplest system? With a theoretical detuner for each string at both the bridge and nut end, yielding three possible "open" notes per string, permutations get daunting. But hell, let's take a stab, right?

I set an arbitrary box: could I get a tuning that would allow me to use both open fifths and open fourths? How about an additional option of the Guitar Craft intervals?

I pretty quickly came up with two possible options--there may be others, but the current exercise is: what might be possible with these?

Option 1:

String	Low note	Middle	High note
#4	G1	A1	B1
#3	C2	D2	E2
#2	A2	B2	D3
#1	D3	E3	G3

Option 2:

String	Low note	Middle	High note
#4	G1	A1	B1
#3	D2	E2	F2
#2	A2	B2	C3
#1	D3	E3	G3

Well now, these two options present quite a few obvious possibles. They both permit open 5ths (GDAE), open 4ths (BEAD), Guitar Craft intervals (AEBD), multiple power chord voicings (interestingly, rooted on G, D, A, and E), multiple major triad voicings, even more minor triad voicings, multiple sus4 voicings, at least one major seventh voicing, and a couple of minor seventh/major sixth voicings. Option #2 also has an obvious available dominant 7th voicing which does not seem available in #1. (I haven't ventured past seventh forms yet, but there's obviously other things there too.) Melodically, something might be significant about the first option's consistency; within each string's tuning profile, the only "intervals" that are not major seconds are the upper intervals on the top two strings, which are minor thirds. On the other hand, the second option has the two interior strings featuring a whole and a half-step. I'm thinking about the possibilities of chasing harmonics around, melodically, and it seems to me that a variety of possible intervals just might be too fun to pass up.

So, at least initially, it seems that either of these options would keep me busy for quite a while, and the latter option may prove to be slightly more flexible than the first. Now that it's documented, I can mull on it for a while, and see if it might be worth the effort of trying to get a detuner on both ends of each string.

I suppose it would be much simpler if I didn't keep trying to take every fixed point I can see and cast off its moorings. I can hear ya: isn't fretless enough? Well, sure it is. Hell, just listen to the available corpus of great music: twelve-tone, standard tuning is enough.

But it's not the point. Face it, I'm just a pain in the ass. :-)

A little attention to the banjo

It's unfortunate that the rather nifty design feature of the Musicmaker's kit banjo, wherein you can replace a short section of the fretted fingerboard up by the nut (the first three frets) with a fretless insert, seems to require just enough tolerance slop that I cannot achieve a consistent action up the neck. (I'm not necessarily faulting the design; it's quite possible that other instances of the kit may be more forgiving, or that a more competent luthier than myself--probably not saying much--could feng shui things to work out just peachy...but I have been unable to do it well.) The retaining screw invariably seems to drive the end of the insert up right by the nut, causing enough angle that the frets fall away precipitously from the strings right from the get-go. An acceptable action at the first fret becomes conspicuously high even by the third, and the whole insert seems to be higher than the main fingerboard, even with a little thickness-sanding.

Here's the thing. I like my action low, and certainly play better that way. I also like to play all over the neck, so the action at the octave and above is something I pay a lot of attention to. In short, I realized that I would play the banjo a lot more if it had an acceptably consistent action, and also that if I wanted a fretless banjo, I'd just build myself a fretless banjo. (That latter is not at all a bad idea, by the way. :-)

For me, the best way to achieve this (certainly on my budget and time!) was to glue the fretted insert in place, and dispense with the fretless insert altogether. So, yesterday I spent a little time thickness-sanding the insert, to pare down the "step effect" it seems to have over the remainder of the board, spent a lot of time sighting down the neck to make sure I had it right, and glued and clamped the insert in place. I'm hopeful on this, but we'll see how we end up after things dry completely.

Next step: string up with some new strings, and take a new look at how the adjustable neck angle (another nifty feature of the design), nut and bridge heights might be tweaked to get the action I'm looking for. I suspect it will at least be as playable as it was before, and for that it was worth the risk. Better, of course, is what I'm hoping, but we'll see.

I also think I'm going to try open fifths on this set of strings. I just haven't been able to get into the NST intervals the way I was hoping, although the attention thereto has certainly helped my understanding of the NST guitar. It's just different, somehow, when the m3 interval on top is in addition to at least one four-string group in fifths.

Thoughts for next instrument project

The following series of not-quite-random thoughts about the next instrument project:

• 4 strings, maybe 5. Something appeals about being able to cover a string with each finger, as on the mandolin. A fifth string may be useful, but I'll have to ponder the pros and cons.
• Range. With 4 strings and a basic fifths tuning, a range of C1 to A5 is possible; with a baritone scale, this might come off better a little higher, but the point is with 4 strings and a 3 octave fingerboard, one is not exactly wanting for range.
  
• Three octave fretless fingerboard. (After watching this absolutely magical performance, a lot of these thoughts are geared around Manring's Hyperbass.) In theory, a 34" scale would imply a fingerboard of at least 30" in length, a 30" scale would imply 26.5", and a 28" scale, 25" (each of these figures leaves room for the finger to "make" the third octave note). This obviously has implications for things like magnetic pickup placement and the incorporation of such items as a Fernandes Sustainer, which seems to require two pickups to produce the feedback loop. It's quite possible that the Ebow is a better option here; certainly Manring makes good use of it with his light-gauge strings...
• Hipshot Extender tuning pegs for each of the four strings. This should give access to detunings of a m2 through a M3, I think. Would choose guitar machines if possible, for their compact size, but bass machines could work as well.
  
• Hipshot tailpiece with "open tuners" for each of the four strings. This is the device that people get for the "B-Bender" effect, but the design of the part seems to be such that, used as a tailpiece with a separate "open tuner" for each string, may give the quick-retuning option on each string from the bridge...with a lot less complexity and expense than a custom bridge. Will have to check with Hipshot or Stew-Mac to see if this concept is sound, but it's very intriguing and would solve several problems simultaneously, not the least of which is the problem of string spacing across four or five strings.
• Saddle question. With a Hipshot tailpiece, the question of saddles arises. I'd certainly want adjustability for saddle height and intonation, plus string spacing and the problem of friction for the string retunings. Schaller seems to make a "rolling" saddle that might work, and there may be options that plug into the Strat/Tele bridges, but this may require some thinking. Ideally I'd end up with a true four-string instrument, with four saddles adjustable every which way, but with a fretless fingerboard the concept of a singular saddle is certainly viable--and may permit additional undersaddle transducer pickup options.
• Nut material should be lubricous, maybe the Tusq material from Stew-Mac.
• Pickup options will require some more thinking as well. Love the idea of placing multiple transducers in the body and neck. Along with a magnetic pickup, will want to blend this and run it through a preamp, with at least some switching options. Will ask around for opinions, since I'll probably end up making some of this stuff myself. :-)
• Woods, and budget. Will keep eyes open for "found wood" options, secondhand quartersawn necks, etc. This will probably wind up being very much a one-off instrument, but that's okay. My plan is to find something in it that I haven't even thought about yet.
  

Mandolin video sample

Felt the need to document this somehow. During the same "session" that produced the fretless sample, I also wanted to hear how the mandolin came across in the same recording environment, and wound up recording this.

Annotations:

• No audio or video editing has been done, other than timeline cropping. Prior to what you see here there was a diagnostic sounding of open strings, harmonics, and a few chords. After this there was a very short foray into major mode territory before I got a phone call. :-)
• Video is a webcam (Logitech if memory serves), microphone is a MXL USB.008.
• Recorded with Camtasia Studio.
• There is a really annoying glitch in the recording that surfaces at about 1:05, 2:30, and 3:40. I do not know what it is for sure, but I suspect that it is my evil little Blackberry, trying to find its network. If that is true, I'm not sure why it didn't (seem to) affect the fretless recording from the same session, but if anyone reading this can confirm that's what this sounds like, I'd be happy for the certainty. If nothing else it's a reminder to turn that annoying little beast off when I'm doing something important. :-)
• The synchronization problems between audio and video tracks seem to be less of an issue here than they were for the fretless sample, but there still seems to be a latency in there. More testing, I guess, and I've got a few ideas. If anyone has suggestions, please let fly!
  
• Music: improv, with a G tonic. It appears, in reviewing this segment, that I was on the same vibe here that I was with the fretless. Minor second degree, major third, and most semitones above that at one point or other. Broody, for sure, and mostly intentional. :-) I actually like some of the things that come out, even if I do lose the big downbeat a couple of times and fat-finger here and there. (Need more time for fundamentals!) I'm not sure where a few of those ideas came from; they just showed up when needed, and the romantic in me is pretty happy that I can't fully explain that...

So now it's documented. Next step: recording with Audacity, with this USB.008 acoustic microphone into one channel and plugged in through a DI in a second channel. It'll have to be done piecemeal, but I'll get there.

Fretless video sample

Okay, do please forgive me the problems here. One must begin somewhere, and here I am.

Here's a first-take sample of the kit-built acoustic fretless guitar. There are certainly problems--the audio and video seem to get unsynchronized, there is some audio editing that should probably be done to cure boomy spots and hiss, and of course I'm still learning how to play this beastie. But learning consists of putting darts on the board, and this does give an idea of what the instrument actually sounds like in person.

(Constructive criticism from musicky and audiophile folks is welcome. My learning here is both for KPC project business and my own edification. :-)

Annotations:

• Tuning is Guitar Craft Standard (C2-G2-D3-A3-E4-G4).
• Bass strings are electric flatwounds; trebles normal-tension nylons.
• Music is...aw hell, who am I kidding? Total wanky improv. ("Okay, so here I am ready to play for a test. What should I play? Uh... Okay, the open G sounds good...mmm...minor seconds...mmm...augmented seconds...what was that again?")
  
• Much of the playing is between the third (nylon) and fourth (steel) strings. (That actually was on purpose, and mostly intentional.)
• No audio or video editing has been done, other than timeline cropping.
• Video is a webcam (a common Logitech if memory serves), microphone is a MXL USB.008.
• Recorded with Camtasia Studio. (I'll soon be testing audio recording with Audacity too.)

Again, constructive criticism and comments are welcome. What I learn from this overall process (of audio and video recording and editing) will wind up contributing to our "new to distance ed" video-segment project, from spoken audio to camera recording to background music. Assume I know nothing, and you'll be pretty close! :-)

Fretless update - strings

More on the fretless acoustic guitar project.

So it does appear that tying the nylon strings to the tailblock is going to prove a lot more workable than trying to use the ball-end approach. If nothing else (and after one tie pulling out on me, dagnabbit) I learned the trick to this technique, which appears to be to have the tail of the knot under angular tension, here taking advantage of the rounded upper edge and slight cantilever of my tailblock:


This seems obvious in retrospect, of course, much like some climbing knots, but doesn't necessarily occur to you at first.

It seems like these strings are still stretching after an entire weekend, although they're a lot closer to settled now than they were when I put them on. (As I look at all the little angles, twists and other places where stretching can happen, I suppose this should not be that much of a surprise.) What is encouraging is that the knots are no longer pulling through, and I can get on to bigger and better things, like playing them. What's funny now is to look at the strings and see all the pinch and wind points that represent my learning curve; hopefully the next string change will see a one-shot installation, with an even cleaner playing surface in the end.

Hey, sometimes it takes a time or two, but I do learn. :-)

Here's another take of the soundhole, bridge and tailblock, with the amusing visage of three ball-end steel strings and three tied nylons:


Up at the headstock, you can see yet more string blemishes right off the nut. Sigh. What's interesting in playing is that with the thicker first string there, I find myself wanting the string groove to be located just a hair more inboard--it's very close to slipping off the edge of the board if I get sloppy. If I do end up adjusting the action to accommodate these strings (which I suspect is probable, at some point), I'll probably try to cut only on the inward face of the groove, both here and at the saddle. It won't take much, but I do notice it. More learning!


Finally, note here in side-view yet another lesson: since the nylon strings stretch so much, there is no need to wind two or three times around the capstan before starting to tension the string, as I've always done with steel strings. By the time you're up to pitch and stable, you'll have a lot more winds on that sucker! (Note here that my third string has considerably fewer winds on it than the other two--here's the story: after cutting off the ball end, tying a double-knot on the tailblock and trimming the obvious kink at the other end from the previous attempt, there was only enough string left to even reach the third-string capstan with a little assistance from a needlenose plier. So the winds that you do see are all there from stretch!)


So, my little Frankenstein woodworking project limps along, sounding far better (to my ears, at least) than it has any right to, and I continue to learn little things about luthierie. It's all good. Hell, I'm still a bit dumbfounded that I managed to build something I could not only play, but improve upon noticeably. (Just wait, this will probably embolden me just enough to try something else. Keep your eye protection on! :-)

Interestingly, when I got around to plugging it in, I found a pretty sizable disparity in output between the steel basses and nylon trebles: to wit, the basses sound simply huge, and the trebles are distinctly softer. Acoustically, they sound very even, but this pickup strongly favors the steels. (Probably not much of a surprise there, viz the physics of it.) What's encouraging technically is that if the nylons are softer, they sound very even across themselves (much moreso than the previous difference between wrapped and plain steel strings). I'll do a little experimenting with the tone pot on the onboard preamp to see what I can come up with, and of course there's always the controls further down the signal chain. There should be something workable there.

And the sound! Maybe it's the "my baby" thing talking, but I think there is a personality there, and the sound is as intoxicating as the feel. With a little luck, I'll get around to recording some samples. Fingers crossed!

Fretless update

And verily, today I did place upon the home-built fretless guitar three flatwound basses and three nylon trebles, and wound them up to see what would happen.

This idea came about from discussions with the redoubtable Steve Cornish, who has been incredibly gracious in letting me use the "back room" in his shop for mandolin lessons. I had long liked the idea of flatwound bass strings, especially as they'd be easier on my padauk fingerboard, but then again I had originally conceived this instrument as a nylon-strung project--I even ordered the LR Baggs pickup that was optimized for nylon strings. Steve seemed to think that blending the two types might be worth trying out, and set me up with .050, .040, and .030 flatwounds, and the lightest ball-end nylon trebles he had on hand. I came home, re-sanded the fingerboard with 600-grit paper, oiled it up, and put the strings on. My target tuning was the Guitar Craft standard tuning, C2-G2-D3-A3-E4-G4.

First, the bad news. I don't think I'm going to be able to tune that first string to G4. Just as I got it there, the ball-end pulled completely through the tunnel in the tailblock. Since the string itself was fine, I tried tying a bigger knot in the end, and backed the tuning off by a whole step, just as I've had it for a while now. It still makes me nervous, as I can see it trying to pull through again even tuned down to F4. I suspect I've got a lot to learn about how to work with nylon strings, which--for starters--stretch in a completely different way than steel. Okay, learning curve! I may intensify a search for an appropriate first string as I go along, and I may experiment with actually tying that string as on a classical guitar bridge. I think my tailblock may permit that, and a double loop may resist pulling through better than what I've got now. (Suggestions from nylon-string experts welcome!)

Along with that, I may want to fine-tune the fingerboard and action (nut/saddle) a little bit, since the nylon strings are considerably thicker than their steel predecessors. I'll play it a bit first and see what makes the most sense.

At first glance, my sixth string now does seem a bit floppy, tuned as it is to Bb1. That's low. If I settle on this tuning (Bb1-F2-C3-G3-D4-F4), I may revise the gauges of the flatwounds to be a little beefier. Continued experimentation!

Touch wood, that's it for the bad news--and all of those items should be easy fixes. Now, for the good news.

This is exactly what I wanted this instrument to be.

The feel of these strings is just plain sexeh. (As in, "I'll have what she's having.") The flatwounds are everything I wanted them to be: easy on the board, quiet and smooth under the fingers, and surprisingly lively in the upper registers, with a great "mwah" sound. And I think I am going to really love the nylons, which have a very similar feel under the fingers and a distinct "mwah" of their own, plus a much more balanced acoustic output and sustain than the tiny steel strings they replace. My fingers can actually feel them there; the plain steel strings would dampen so quickly that I found myself rolling up on my fingernail to get a workable note, which certainly ruins any sort of consistent technique! :-)

Slides on the top strings have gone from optimistic to sensuous, with an unexpected personality that I look forward to developing. Playing in the upper registers sounds a lot less "forced", and string-to-string balance looks to be much improved. The whole instrument sounds warmer and I think I am starting to hear a distinct voice in it. Initial testing playing across the boundary--going from steel flatwound to nylon in scale runs--sounded much more even than I would have guessed, and I'm pumped to try this out for a while.

Thus far everything has been acoustic. Tomorrow, I'll add a little electricity and see what happens. :-)

PowerTab editor

PowerTab software (www.power-tab.net) is an editor and playback engine for stringed instrument tablature. It has several drawbacks but the price is right (it's free, or rather what is technically called "card-ware") and it is pretty easy to use. I've used it for years now, for the following purposes:

• Playback: I can control a PowerTab score to play some or all of its parts at appropriate volumes, in MIDI format. This is great for practicing exercises or learning a new part.
• Scoring/Arranging: I can use PowerTab to score up a progression or a song, writing in parts for multiple instruments, and then send the resultant file to partners; in this way we can work on a piece remotely, making our in-person meetings much more efficient.
• Composing: I've written a couple of pieces using PowerTab; having an editor is great for making on-the-fly changes (how would this sound?), and when writing for multiple parts, having the immediate playback option is nice.
  

(A mandolin exercise in the Editor)

The editor does have a couple of drawbacks. The biggest of these is that it is Windows-only. There are also a few editing options that are a bit clunky, and the score "checker", which checks your score for correctness in rhythm, musical direction symbols, etc., can seem a little heavy-handed on occasion. In some instances, the standard music notation (which it displays above the tablature staff) actually notates incorrectly; that is, there are times when that note really should be called D# and not Eb. And finally, there are some limitations and quirks that you might expect with any software, that can seem like they're slowing you down--however, you don't seem to notice those unless you're really using the software pretty fully, which isn't a bad thing!

Those drawbacks aside, PowerTab is quite helpful for personal use (I probably have created 100+ scores at the time of this writing, and I assure you I would not suffer it if it didn't work!), and as a common tool for working on ensemble pieces. For sharing with other musicians who know notation but not tablature, and for those of us who like to try and build our knowledge of notation, having the standard staff above the tablature staff really is nice. It imports from and exports to MIDI, and allows you to set up instruments from 3-7 strings with different MIDI playback patches (e.g., steel-string guitar, nylon guitar, violin, banjo, piano, etc.). You can set up your own chord diagrams and write in the rhythm slash bar rather than in the tablature staff, etc.

I'll try to link back to this post whenever I make reference to PowerTab (certainly if and when I post a score), so that anyone who is interested can get pointed in the right direction. I am starting to use other music software in addition to PowerTab, but it still fills a nice need, and you can't beat the price. :-)

MLK birthday bash

Man, that was fun.

Tonight was the debut of the duet with Steve Bambakidis, and I think it went really well. Got lots of compliments and inquiries, met a few new musicians, and learned a little about the Homer music scene.

It was a pretty last-minute affair. I met Jenny Martin at an adjunct orientation meeting for the college just over a week ago, and took her up on the offer to play at an open-mic type deal celebrating Dr. King's birthday, after meeting with Steve and floating the idea with him just this Wednesday. We garnered the second slot, 7.15-7.30, which meant that Cathy and Sabre could be there, and (as you'll see) that made me really happy. The venue was Alice's Champagne Palace, apparently a staple in Homer (it was my first time there) with a nice corner stage and an affable sound guy who was easy to work with. I was set up in no time and Steve even faster.

Instrumentation was Steve on 4-string bass guitar, straight into the board, and me on mandolin through an old DOD AcousTEC unit, which applied a smidge of delay, chorus and (most importantly) a notch filter for feedback. The AcousTEC then went straight into the board as well.

We came prepared to play three tunes, all substantially improvised. The first was John Coltrane's "Alabama", which is a C-minor vehicle featuring some very rubato, slow brooding statements followed by a beautiful and haunting chord sequence. (Cm9 - Cm7/G - Cm/D - Abmaj7 - Gm7 - Cm ... Abmaj7 - Bb - Cm) This is the tune I first thought of when I thought of doing something for Dr. King's birthday, and introduced the tune and its context with the statement, "this is for those who will not go to the back of the bus". Given that we had covered the tune together perhaps four times previously, I thought it came off rather well, and we were even reasonably together on the ending chord sequence, which has a lot of blank space in it.

The next tune was based on a really neat bass riff Steve started playing the first time I met with him. The riff (which dresses up alternating C and G chords, with a turnaround of D-E-C) is busy enough, and sounds good enough on its own, that my task as decorator is to make sure that what I do does not detract from what he's doing. We developed a cool unison line for one of his thematic statements, and then I improvised chord decorations (mostly light brushes) a couple of countermelodies, and some scattered note-cluster decorations. I hope we continue using it as a staple, as it's really pretty (a nice contrast to my typical gravitation toward minor modes) and I continue to learn about what to do with it the more we play it. It seemed to go over well, although I definitely had some hesitations that I want to work through.

The third "prepared" tune was another Bambakidis bass riff, this one moving from an alternating Dm - G cadence up to a surprise D major, which sounds really good with a back-cycled A7 immediately preceding the D. (Think I remembered that at speed? Ha! I remembered it just about as we finished up.) I did a lot of chord brushing interspersed with some single-note decoration and even a couple of double stops that were mostly intentional. (One harmony that worked particularly well, against the Dm - G sequence, was Bm7 - G/B.) The audience, bless 'em, seemed to be right with us--watching some of the later acts I think that we held their attention more directly than anyone I saw tonight, so there appears to be hope for improvised music in Homer!

At this point we still had some time left and they encouraged us to play something else, so I warned folks we were going to make this one up on the spot, turned to Steve and said, "what about G minor?" He grinned and came up with an ostinato on the spot, and we were off. Cathy later told me that there was more energy in the last "piece" than in the entire rest of our set, and I'm not surprised. (I had just joked with her not two days previously that I seem to have much more confidence in my own playing when I'm not trying to make it sound like anything scripted, and you can hear it.) I started interacting with what Steve was doing and then ranged all over G minor and harmonic minor (love that major seventh), with lots of different phrasings...Steve was right there with me, even coming up into lead a couple times when I would throw in some chords to contrast the single-note stuff.

It was about at this point that I noticed that Sabre was walking (with only a little of Mom's help) right up to the front of the stage to see Dad.

As far as I remember, Steve and I never broke stride as I knelt down and engaged my 13-month old daughter with the same sort of improv that I've done for her since she was born. (No way I could have done that trying to play a scripted tune. No way. But I was fine, improvising. Weird.) Talk about making my day!

We finished up and the audience really seemed to dig it. That was a charge. (Got a lot of approving comments about hearing some "different" music in Homer. This encourages me greatly.)

Subsequent acts included more traditional stuff; my own favorite act of the night was the tap-dancer. She actually gave a little history of tap as she demonstrated it; both Steve and I were really impressed with her presentation, and when I went to congratulate her afterward I jokingly told her that I'd suggested to Steve that we recruit her to work with us as a "drummer"...

...and she was into the idea.

She had not seen us perform, and I made sure she understood that we were doing mostly improv and possibly odd time signatures, so this really surprised me. Steve was floored when I told him this and showed him her card. (I ran into her while she was talking to the director of the Homer campus, who was discussing her teaching tap as an adjunct.) We'll see what happens of course, but I think it might be really cool to have an act featuring mandolin, bass and tap percussion. Improvised.

I guess that qualifies as another "Homer moment".

In all, a highly satisfying evening. Lots of smiles, fewer nerves than I'm accustomed to, that priceless moment with Sabre, and the possibility of working with another improviser. Nice!

I really enjoy working with Steve. He's very gracious with musical space, easy to communicate with, responds well to what I seem to do and enjoys taking risks. He's got the same sort of aesthetic and aspirations, which is a real plus with work and family considerations. And he's a great player too--I think I'm only seeing the tip of the iceberg thus far.

In short, he'd fit in really well with the group of fantastic folks I miss so much back in Colorado. (Dave C, when you get a chance to come visit, I can now say I've found someone here who would be more than happy to work with "those weird Crafty guys". He even seems keen to work with me on Chlorinated Duck! :-)

Here's to as much more of this as I can manage.

Training with diatonic sevenths

Let's face it: training yourself to ingrain a chord library is a bit of a chore. A chore that pays worthwhile dividends, to be sure, but a chore nonetheless. Today, somewhat out of the blue, I realized that I have to add another item to the practice regimen. It came out of trying to re-familiarize myself with diatonic sevenths from the Western major scale on the Guitar Craft tuning's top four strings. I've got a lot less time in these shapes than I do with the shapes of all-fifth-intervals, and that's probably what brought this thought out: I need this skill now, because my constraint of the NST intervals on the banjo means that I don't have four strings in fifths to lean back on. This is exactly what I was hoping to force myself to do here.

My basic chord library--what I try to train myself in as a basic competence--follows a few key constraints:

• Closed shapes only, available to any key.
  
• One shape per chord inversion (so, if I want to master Cmaj7, I construct four shapes, so that I can put any desired note in that chord--C, E, G, or B--in the bass or in the treble position)
• Inner chord tones may be swapped around if fingerings become superhuman (some of 'em are pretty tough!)
• All chord tones represented if at all possible (and in all but a couple of cases, it is!)
  
• Use of a four-string group to cover the chord (three-string chords introduce the structural complexity of "which tone to omit?" which I think will be a useful thing to address after I've cemented the basics)
  

Yep, they're arbitrary constraints, but building a library this way has helped me immensely with comfort with chords, and it's given me a vehicle to alter them methodically. I can recommend it with enthusiasm.

So! When practicing these inversions, I like to walk up the scale playing the diatonic chords (that is, Cmaj7 - Dm7 - Em7 - Fmaj7 - G7 - Am7 - Bm7b5) according to these rules:

• First: Play each inversion of a chord before moving to the next chord. That is, play Cmaj7/C, Cmaj7/E, Cmaj7/G, and Cmaj7/B before moving to the Dm7. I like doing it both starting with the root inversion of each chord, and then starting with whatever inversion is closest to the nut. This builds a sense of how to move from one inversion to another within the same chord, at different spots on the neck (when I use keys other than C major).
  
• Second: Play the I chord of the key (whatever inversion you choose to start with), then the closest II chord, then the closest III chord, etc. When moving from VII to the root, play the next highest I chord inversion. Again, I like to do it both starting on the root inversion of the I chord, and then again with the lowest available inversion of the I chord. This exercise gives you a sense of the chords closest to your original hand position, and it also teaches you how the different inversions interrelate to each other over the entire fingerboard. This is really eye-opening, to watch yourself go through four passes through the key, playing seven chords at a time, and only occasionally needing to move your hand position more than a couple of frets at a time.
  

I started to do this second exercise today, in a different key than C, and realized that I froze up because I had started to internalize the key of C, rather than the abstract shapes determined from inversion and scale tone. Which inversion was I looking for again? Well, drat. More work to do.

So: I am now going to add to that this exercise:

• Third: Play the chords of the scale, ascending, all in the same inversion. This should accomplish two things: first, it should cement how the chords alter the basic shape common to the chord inversion (i.e., which tone goes flat to turn a M3 into a m3); second, it should help you to understand where your next chord should be, ascending or descending, in the same inversion...this may help to develop a sense of where the other chords overlap (in theory, one should always be able to play the chord a diatonic third up in almost exactly the same hand position as the chord you're on...so you can develop a cadence: I chord in root inversion, shift up a whole tone to II chord in root inversion, back down a whole tone to III chord in a different inversion, then up a whole tone to the IV chord in that same inversion, back down for the V chord, back up for the VI chord, back down for the VII chord and then up to the next available I chord...). It's an oversimplification, but only barely. It works in all but a couple of special cases such as "do I alter the chord in order to play it at the nut rather than at the octave, because one of the chord tones would be 'just below' the nut?"

Time to put that into practice. I expect it to be a great skill-builder, and will report back here with a little work.

Banjo revelation: strap height compromise

Viz the posture of holding the banjo, I find that I have competing interests: the banjo three-finger style is ideal with the instrument a little too low for a preferred flatpicking attitude, and so I think I'm going to keep things comfortable for flatpicking and learn my three-finger style (which is bound to be a bastardized hybrid anyway, no matter what I do) with a higher hold. I really like the percussive sound of the instrument with palm-on-bridge muting.

Onward then!

Banjo revelation: training the hand for arpeggios

An unexpected revelation (maybe) about the banjo's picking hand. The first basic "forward-roll" exercise that you find in books is pretty straightforward, focusing on the first three strings, thus:

A little weird to someone trained in flatpicking, but I do find it "physiologically logical" and just need to train myself.

Now...at some point you get to an exercise involving the fifth string, and that's where things started to get interesting for me. Note this exercise:

(all open strings...
T means to play with thumb,
I with index finger,
and M with middle finger)

This plays havoc with something I have taken for granted: that strings constantly ascend as they get farther away from you. My thumb wants to be "responsible" for the bass note in the arpeggio, and while the thumb does play the first note in the arpeggio (which is the bass note), it does not play that note again in the same measure. Amazing how hardwired that concept can be! I suspect I must now be feeling like all those sweep-picking guitarists who have such a hard time learning alternate picking in odd time signatures. (Since I learned alternate picking from the beginning--thank you Guitar Craft--that never bothered me.)

Of interest here, though, is how that fifth-string exercise relates to this one:

Aside from trying to decouple my brain from what it already "knows", I found myself wondering why the second note in the second exercise is picked by the index finger, but the same note in the third exercise is picked by the middle finger. There's got to be a reason for that!

That reason occurred to me when I tried alternating between the two patterns. Ding! I think it's a way of signalling to your hand how it's going to spread for the arpeggio, at least initially. In the first fifth string exercise, your thumb and index finger maintain a constant distance from one another; the whole hand simply moves from "thumb-over-third-string" to "thumb-over-fifth-string" and the middle finger picks up on the first. The three fingers are equidistant from one another, and the whole hand could stay locked that way if desired. In the second fifth-string exercise, the hand spreads after the first note, with the middle finger "staying" on the first string and the index finger picking up the second while the thumb travels all the way out to the fifth. Here the fingers are not equidistant from one another. Does the first upstroke note signal to the hand what to do next?

I'm not claiming to "know" here--among other things it's quite possible that different permutations of the exercise might nullify this concept--but I do know that when I started thinking of it in this way, I immediately got both faster and cleaner. Call it a working theory, and something to pay attention to!

Today's work seemed to confirm as well that the "logic" of the right hand includes assigning the thumb the task of the "1" count. Most banjo music I suppose uses enough notes that this is not ever really a problem, but I am at least theoretically interested in high-speed odd time signatures, and it will be interesting to see how the logic applies. (With flatpicking, the subject of the 1-count always being a downstroke can get contentious, and in Guitar Craft we learn--conspicuously--not to assume that the 1 will automatically be a downstroke. Apparently this was instilled so well that I am scanning the horizon early to see it coming with the banjo!)

Okay, let's try that again later and see if it holds...

Needed: banjo action work

Spent a little time with the banjo at lunch today and came to a few conclusions.

I really like the basic sound of this instrument. Going to have to find ways to incorporate it into the things I'm doing. And, I suspect I'm going to have to learn to play both fingerstyle and traditional banjo picking as well as flat picking, as the sounds are all different and all worth using! Sigh. Now, to find a practice discipline...

It has become clear that I can either keep the design feature allowing for the replaceable fingerboard insert for the first three frets (the replacement insert is fretless), or I can glue one of them down and try to get the action I'm looking for. It's a really cool concept and I give major marks to the innovator that came up with it, but--at least on the banjo I built with the skills I had at the time and now--I am not going to get the quality of action I'm looking for without at least gluing the insert down, and probably thickness-sanding it just slightly as well. Between a slight upbow in the neck (the truss rod is nonadjustable), the extra height of the fretted insert at the first two frets within the tolerances of its tension screw, the disparity in height of the fifth-string nut, and the jut of the body ring, I just don't see a way to get the primary four strings any lower than they are now, and they're too high at the octave and above. (I'm pretty sure I like a lower action than most people, and it's becoming worse the more I realize how much I like how the fretless turned out!)

So! When I can get around to it (no snickering, now), I'll thickness-sand the fretted insert to compensate for the upbow and glue it in place, true that neck up to dead-flat, and dehorn the snot out of it. (Now that things have settled from the original construction, I definitely notice some sharp spots that can be corrected.) Then, I'll re-set the neck to the optimum angle, and will reserve the right to relieve the curve of the body ring if that remains an obstacle. I'll bring the bridge down to the right height so that I've got the action I'm looking for, and I suspect that at that point I will also have corrected the disparity problem of the fifth-string nut height.

Then, of course, I'll have no excuses for how badly I play the instrument, so I'll need to get on that problem too. :-)

Finally, I am still out on the tuning I want to use here. I just went through a re-introduction of diatonic triads and sevenths on these intervals (I'm ignoring the fifth string for now), and while some of these chords are really nice, I don't know if it is worth not having three adjacent fifth intervals for melodic/improv purposes. On an instrument with six strings, like the Guitar Craft guitar for which the tuning was designed, having the m3 at the top of the range while still having two other all-fifth-interval four-string groups to work with, works out well. With only four main strings on the banjo, though, melodic runs that work great on the guitar or mandolin start to feel cramped; you have to shift hand position to complete the second octave. (One of the best features of tuning in fifths is that you have an octave available on two strings within one hand position, and two octaves over four strings within one hand position.)

It's still too early to make a permanent call; first, I do not yet understand the Tao of the banjo, so to speak, and that may suggest a decision by itself. As well, I will have to be careful with tension on the neck viz string gauges. If I go all fifths, I'll have to be careful how tight I try to wind the first string and how big a gauge I use for the fourth. If I do go all fifths, I'll probably try either for G2-D3-A3-E4 (the same as a mandocello, and that's low for a banjo...a traditional banjo usually tunes its fourth string to D3) or possibly a minor third up from that (Bb2-F3-C4-G4) with a really tiny first string. And then the fifth string should be appropriate to that. I kinda like the fifth string a whole tone above the first, and in theory it should be quite possible to do that even with A4, with a suitably small gauge. But that may sound really weird against the open Bb, I dunno. Hey, it's that way with experiments.

Anyway, I'll keep working with the NST intervals for now, and as I learn more about the banjo itself, I'll listen for direction on where all this should go. If nothing else I'll keep confounding the snot out of anyone trying to figure out what I'm doing by watching my left hand, which is always a conversation starter with standard-tuning guitarists. (I decided to keep the mandolin tuning at standard just to throw a monkey-wrench into the works, you know. :-)

String gauge notes

A housekeeping post here--some string-gauge notes on different pieces of paper, in danger of being lost, will instead end up out in cyberspace for the truly geeky to stumble across. :-)


For the Ovation (acoustic steel roundwound)

1. 6th C2: 59-60 wound
2. 5th G2: 45-50 wound
3. 4th D3: 30-36 wound
4. 3rd A3: 20-22 wound
5. 2nd E4: 11-13 plain
6. 1st G4: 9-11 plain

For the fretless acoustic (acoustic steel roundwound)

1. 6th Bb1: 59-60 wound
2. 5th F2: 45-50 wound
3. 4th C3: 35-38 wound
4. 3rd G3: 22-25 wound
5. 2nd D4: 11-15 plain
6. 1st F4: 11-13 plain

For the fretless acoustic (electric steel flatwound)

1. 6th C2: 54-60 flatwound
2. 5th G2: 42-48 flatwound
3. 4th D3: 30-36 flatwound
4. 3rd A3: 18-21 wound or plain
   
5. 2nd E4: 11-13 plain
6. 1st G4: 10-12 plain

For the banjo (acoustic steel roundwound)

1. 5th G4: 9-11 plain
   
2. 4th C3: 20-26 wound
3. 3rd G3: 13-18 plain or wound
   
4. 2nd D4: 9-11 plain
5. 1st F4: 8-10 plain

For the SoloEtte (acoustic steel roundwound)

1. 6th C2: 59-60 wound
2. 5th G2: 45-50 wound
3. 4th D3: 30-36 wound
4. 3rd A3: 20-22 wound
5. 2nd E4: 11-13 plain
6. 1st G4: 9-11 plain

For the SoloEtte (electric steel flatwound)

1. 6th C2: 56-60 flatwound
2. 5th G2: 42-48 flatwound
3. 4th D3: 30-36 flatwound
4. 3rd A3: 16-20 plain
5. 2nd E4: 11-13 plain
6. 1st G4: 8-10 plain

For the Strat (electric steel flatwound)

1. 6th C2: 54-60 wound
2. 5th G2: 42-50 wound
3. 4th D3: 26-36 wound
4. 3rd A3: 16-20 plain
5. 2nd E4: 11-13 plain
6. 1st G4: 8-10 plain

For the Strat (electric steel roundwound)

1. 6th C2: 54-60 flatwound
2. 5th G2: 42-50 flatwound
3. 4th D3: 26-36 flatwound
4. 3rd A3: 16-20 plain
5. 2nd E4: 11-13 plain
6. 1st G4: 8-10 plain