Another tuning thought: what about CGDAEC?

A quick post to document a thought that hit me last night.

What about C2-G2-D3-A3-E4-C4?

Disadvantages:

• First string is lower in pitch than the second;  which could theoretically get confusing.
• Without a fourth interval between the second and first strings, you do lose that beautiful ascending V-I option (especially with harmonics).
• Low C may be optimistic with nylon strings (but is fine for steel).

 Advantages:

• All the fifths relationships of the Guitar Craft tuning (C2-G2-D3-A3-E4-G4).  Two complete four-string groups in fifths, allowing lots of fifths-based scale thinking and chord construction with no need to "skip strings".
• For fingerstyle, a minor triad on the top three strings.  With this voicing, at least some common alterations may present very convenient left-hand fingerings.
• First and sixth strings are two octaves apart.  Lots of people playing standard tuning and DADGAD take advantage of this.
• The first string becomes a simple pivot between CGDAEC (root position Am triad on top 3 strings) and CGDAEB (GAD intervals on top 3 strings).  Or, for that matter, CGDAEC# (A major triad) or even CGDAED (which is theoretically another GAD variation).  Total retuning movement for the first string here is a minor third--very do-able--and well within the range of appropriately-gauged strings.  And, the GAD variations re-capture the ascending V-I arrangement.
• The possibles of using these intervals with partial capoing seem immense, almost intimidating--and yet above whatever capo(s) are placed, I've still and always got five strings in fifths to work with.

Hm.  Velly intellesting.

I will have to try this out.  Since I don't have years of fingerstyle under my belt yet, it may be that I can adapt to this easily enough to take advantage of the benefits.  The more I think about it, the more interesting it seems:  the first string is the only thing that ever "moves", and yet it seems like there are four very individual tunings there. 

Discovered DGAD triads.

So after all the initial thinking about the DGAD concept, I finally got the chance to sit down and find some triads with my fingers, in real time.

On first impression at least:  me likey.

It's pretty logical.  I started with the top three strings (so, GAD) and my primary "learning box":  closed position, advance the chord tone on each string for each inversion.  In only a couple of places did it seem like finger gymnastics started to come into play;  in that regard these triads are conspicuously easier than the Guitar Craft tuning's intervals (a P5 and m3, as opposed to a M2 and a P4 here, on those top three strings).  In the GC tuning, on the top three strings it's actually much easier to produce sevenths than triads.  The availability of a quick "tonally useful" barre on all three strings was also pretty common, and I suspect I'd use that in improvising.

It was also quick.  I've certainly developed a bit of practice at this "discovering triads" thing, but it seemed quick to permute the shapes to cover major, minor and diminished (and even a really convenient V7 right under the root triad with root on top) in all the inversions.  As is my usual wont, I started practicing them "through the scale" in all of the ways I do that:  in C, I would first 1) play ascending C, C/E, C/G, then Dm, Dm/F, Dm/A, then Em, Em/G, Em/B, etc., returning to the nut rather than going above the octave;  then 2) play all the root inversions (C, Dm, Em, etc.) then all the third inversions (C/E, Dm/F, Em/G, etc.) and all the fifth inversions (C/G, Dm/A, Em/B, etc.);  and finally 3) play the ascending scale with the "next available" chord--in C, that is C/G at the nut, then Dm/A (2fr), then Em/G (nut), F/A (2fr), G (nut), Am (2fr), Bdim (3fr), and then the next C in root inversion at the fifth fret...followed by Dm (7fr), Em/B (4fr), F/C (5fr), G/B (4fr), Am/C (5fr), Bdim/D (7fr), leading into C/E (9fr), Dm/F (10fr), Em (9fr), F (10fr), G/D (7fr), Am/E (9fr), Bdim/F (10fr), and concluding with the C/G at the octave.  It flows really nicely.

A little practice with these.  Next, I'll see how things differ when using the DGA strings, rather than the GAD ones.  Different voicings in the same "fret positions"; it will just be the fingerings which may change.

Then, diatonic sevenths, both across three strings and four.  I've already practiced a little bit with permuting the triads directly, as that is often exactly the musical effect I want, but this will deserve more study.

Regarding the CGDGAD tuning which my interest in this topic is built around (see here), it looks like I may want to start thinking more generally in terms of three-adjacent-string chords;  with that tuning I've got four different groups of 'em, and only one with the same string interval throughout.  A lot of possibility but also a lot of stuff to internalize.  The three-string-chord concept will also apply much more directly to the fretless, and there's more possibility of having another left-hand finger available that way.  And as Jethro Burns first taught me, three-string chords are easier to alter on the fly.

More as it comes, but for now I admit: triads make me happy.  :-)

The DADGAD revelation (really, the DGAD revelation)

Dude. It may well be that the rest of the world knows all about this already, but I think I just "got" the huge value of the DADGAD tuning (or at least the DGAD part).

For the investment of selectively ignoring a string and going to the next one, you can

1. think of fifths-based scales normally (!!!),
2. sound multiple open-string harmonics with the first string either representing the root ("GAD" as Dsus, "AD" as D or Dm), the fifth ("GxD" as G or Gm, or even "GAD" as Gsus2), or even the fourth ("AD" as Asus)...ideas can get crazier from there if you dip into the major-third harmonic too, and
3. you get some really nifty options for close chord voicings in the upper register, while maintaining a wider separation in the bass where it does the most good.

I'm looking at some chickenscratch here for a basic tuning of C2-G2-D3-G3-A3-D4, and the head is spinning. Note that in that tuning you have ascending C-G-D-A strings to work with for melody;  you simply skip the third string to do it.  As an example:  if you're centric to D as a tonic, you can begin a scale run at the m7 on the open sixth string, run normally up through the fourth (D) string, skip the third string and pick up the upper tetrachord of the D scale on the 2nd (A) string, and complete the scale either stopped at the fifth fret of the second string, or open on the first. Major or minor, your choice.

Note, too, that in the DGAD sequence you have two pairs of separated fifths available: DxA, and GxD. Why lookee, that's V and I with a G tonic, and I and IV with a D. (Major or minor, again take your pick.)

For fingerstyle (which is really waking me up to some of these ideas), the concept is even more appealing, since notes on these non-adjacent strings can be easily sounded together.  And get this:  if I take that CGDGAD tuning and add a single Hipshot detuner to the third string, bringing it down to F, the open strings (and thus all those gorgeous open-string harmonics) become CGDFAD...and that gives me two three-string blocks with different Dm voicings (DFA and FAD, all in one octave!), not to mention "FA" as the relative major's root-and-third notes.  "FAD" is in fact the exact same intervallic relationship as the standard tuning's top strings, just a whole step lower.  As I've been discovering recently, that's a beautiful and useful voicing.

I've been trying to have it all, of course.  Melodically, because I first learned relationships in fifths (Guitar Craft's "new standard" tuning and then mandolin), I want to have that available for improvising, and four ascending fifths covers that just about as well as it can be covered. 

Next on the importance list is to have useful open-string harmonics for tapping and fingerstyle accents;  the standard tuning's "inverted fifth" that puts the root on top is hugely useful in this regard, and having either the m3 or the sus4 below that root, with supporting open strings below that, is great. 

Third, Michael Manring has really turned me on to the idea of detuning and retuning during a piece;  most people fixate on either the bass and/or treble string for that, but how about turning that idea upside down a bit and having the third string move...between a m3 and a sus4?  I think that just might work*. 

As yet another item in the mix (as if there weren't enough), I'm fascinated by the partial capo concept, which provides open strings for droning and accents but which does not disturb the string intervals for stopped notes.  (So, for example, if for my tuning of CGDGAD I did a partial capo of 220000, I get a true DADGAD on the "open strings", but if I want to improvise, I simply play the notes where they are in CGDGAD.  The only "affected" notes are below the capo.  That's intriguing, and if there does prove to be a drawback there, it would be that by capoing some strings you do change the available open-string harmonics.  Then again, that might prove to be an unexpected tool.) 

And finally, there's quite a bit of music for DADGAD out there;  just between Davy Graham (who seems to have pioneered it as a solution to playing non-Western music) and Michael Hedges (the Aerial Boundaries tuning is a simple but clever variation, C2-C3-D3-G3-A3-D4, almost a "double DGAD" since there are now three pairs of separated fifths, but at the expense of the CGDA sequence I want), I can certainly say that people I respect consider it a serious part of the vocabulary!

At any rate, I may have to string one of these git-tawr things up and give it a serious test.  The idea of a true "standard tuning" that permits logical thinking when improvising, while also permitting flexible changes to open strings and providing useful open-string harmonics, is really attractive, and this idea has more nice features than anything I've seen thus far.

Jeff Cooper had his Scout Rifle;  maybe his quest for the pinnacle of generalization just got under my skin beyond the realm of, er, "simple combustion engines".  I'd be real happy with that explanation.  (I'm not looking for "inventor" status--I'm quite sure that others have been here before--but rather, like Col. Cooper, I'm interested in arranging the best of what others have done, for my own purposes!)


_____________________
*For those who haven't looked into it:  there are considerations of available physical space for the Hipshot Xtender detuners, and it is impractical to simply use detuners on all the pegs of a conventional guitar headstock--they need too much room.  Here, I'm looking at leaving roots alone, and featuring two mid-scale notes instead...although I may also consider a 6th string Xtender, to allow the really nice convenience of pulling the C note up to D;  for scales that feature a m7, that could even be done during playing to go between the m7 and the root.  On a 3-and-3 headstock, one detuner per side should work fine.

Instrument tunings - happy tweaking

Per that last post, it took me longer to get strings on things than I'd expected, and in the interim a couple of things have happened that have made me decide to tweak things a bit.  Lemme 'splain.  (No, there is too much.  Lemme sum up.  Yes, I assure you, the following is a summary.)

Ovation.  I'd planned to change this one's tuning to work on an Antoine Dufour tune, but then I started working on Aerial Boundaries again, and nope, this sucker's staying in that tuning for a little while longer!  And, since Dufour has several pieces that will work with standard tuning and a detuned sixth string (std, drop D, drop C), I'll use a single, other instrument to work on those.  (And now, I've found it, sitting right in front of me.)

Classical.  Steve Bambakidis donated me the beaten-up classical guitar that he had no use for, and I've been trying to figure out what to do with it.  It's rough, but then am I not experimenting?  Anyway, I'd thought I'd tune that up to work on Antoine Dufour's piece "Scratch" (via which I would learn how he approaches fingerstyle, and also learn about not only capoing, but partial capoing), but in stringing things up with a set of nylons, the limitations became obvious.  Neck is far from perfect, action is not at all ideal, the body fret is of course at 12, and there's a lot going on in "Scratch" that definitively takes advantage of steel strings.  And trying to bring a nylon sixth string out of a standard-tension set down to C2 is just...uh...optimistic.  But!  Now with the burrs on the frets cleaned up a little bit, the neck (really) rough-leveled and a new set of strings, and a decent action in first and second positions, what if I just make this instrument a standard-tuning knockabout?  It can serve for guests who want/need standard tuning, and I can use it with all the standard-tuning resources I have for learning standard approaches to fingerstyle/Celtic.  I'll just treat EADGBE as another alternate tuning to learn.  (I might even some day get jiggy with it and try all fourths, EADGCF, because I'm just that way, and you can get all fourths without bending much.  :-)  Anyway, the tuning is now standard and the strings are standard-tension ("High Tension") at 43w-35w-30w-40p-32p-28p.

SoloEtte.  I've not been perfectly happy with the Bb5 tuning on this axe (it's really cool in a few contexts, but it just feels like too much of a one-trick pony), and so this will become the "learn Dufour" instrument, starting with the "Scratch" tuning (C2-A2-D3-G3-B3-E4) and then migrate to the other pieces;  it will be nice to have an instrument that I can work with late at night without upsetting people.  I'm happy with this idea.  Gauges are 59w-46w-30w-22w-12p-10p.

Fretless.  Likewise, I've not been perfectly happy with either the NST tuning on this instrument, nor with the various half-assed options I've worked with so far.  So, until I get the chance to fashion another nut/saddle combination (and as a teaser, there is a whole lot of head noise going on about that concept), I'm going to try out DADGAD, but with a twist.  I'm going to do "CGCGFC", instead, both going down a whole step and swapping out the whole-step interval but keeping the pitches the same.  This little tweak will give me the chance to try out the sus4 tuning concept while still retaining:

• Three adjacent pairs of general-purpose intervals, for scale work in different registers.  (Three of those, strings 6-5, 4-3, and 2-1, are a fifth apart, allowing one-octave-over-two-strings, and one of those, strings 5-4, is a fourth, both leading out of a fifth interval and into another one.
• Top three strings defining the essential sus4 chord for the tuning.
• Root on top.
• Bottom strings defining a power chord.

I think it will be fun to play with this.  Since it's really tough to grab lots of strings at the same time for a chord on the fretless, having good open strings to work with should prove interesting.  We'll see!  (To document:  strings are flatwound steels for the basses--50, 40, and 30 at the moment--and plain steel trebles in 16, 17 and 13 for this experiment.  If this works out, I may be able to get away with using heavier strings.  I'm thinking of something like 56fw-42fw-30fw-18fw-20fw-16p;  that might be really rich in the harmonics!)

Anyway, now I can say that there are two instruments in the house that are in their natural tunings.  That's okay, I haven't lost my mind--yet.  :-)

Current instrument tunings

Because it really is kinda funny.  Eight stringed instruments in the house, eight different tunings.  Only one instrument is in its natural tuning.

Here's where they're at:

• Mandolin:  G3-D4-A4-E5 (natural tuning)
• Strat:  C2-G2-D3-A3-E4-G4 (Guitar Craft standard tuning)
• Fretless:  Bb1-F2-C3-G3-D4-G4 (experiment - 5ths with 4th on top)
• Banjo:  G4-G2-D3-Bb3-F4 (experiment - open Gm7)
• SoloEtte:  Bb1-F2-Bb2-F3-Bb3-F4 (experiment - open Bb5)
• Ibanez dreadnought:  B1-F#2-D3-F#3-C#4-C#4 ("Raindigger" tuning - open Bm9)
• Ovation:  C2-C3-D3-G3-A3-D4 ("Aerial Boundaries" tuning)
• Classical:  C2-A2-D3-G3-B3-E4 ("Scratch" tuning:  partial capo on 3fr, strings 1-5)

I guess we'll see what changes first!  :-)

The genre: 'violent acoustic' guitar

The final thought in that last post got me thinking.   So the genre, for lack of a better term, is either "percussive acoustic" or (per Michael Hedges) "violent acoustic".  Right now at least--these folks are still delightfully new to me--the critic in me would say:

• Andy McKee and Antoine Dufour are the standout composers.  There is certainly some head music in there, but (like Michael Hedges) there is also some music in there.
• Andy McKee and Don Ross can set the groove like no one else.
• Antoine Dufour steals the show for the mind-boggling  (and I do mean ridiculous) technique.
• Erik Mongrain is a mood master, and rates honorable mention on both some compositions and grooves.  He also appears to be a comfortable improviser.  His new "lap-tapping" direction should prove to be really interesting.
  
• Kaki King is the one most likely to throw in the sort of tongue-in-cheek tonal abuse that I love so much.  I think she may be the premier improviser, at least in my sense of the word.
  
• Don Ross is the ambassador, the salesman.  I think he's also been the one most encumbered with comparisons to Michael Hedges, which is unfair.
  
• Andy McKee is the Sam Bush of the genre.  You just can not help but smile when you watch him play.  He writes fantastic songs and he's just plain fun.
  
• Stephen Bennett is like the Jon Anderson of the genre--he's the spirit lifter.  A beautiful aesthetic and apparently a heavy influence on several of the above.
• Preston Reed is the workhorse.  He's been doing this for quite a while, he's solid and really fun to either watch or hear.
  

There are lots of others;  I'm happy to say that the genre is alive and well.  Among the crowd there are many different styles and unique voices, and my brain is still leaking trying to grasp everything that I'm hearing.  It's quite possible that the above comments might change in a few months--what I can say is that if they do, it will only be because of some jaw-dropping music.  :-)

___________________
Of interest:  I'm not yet aware of any fretless players in here.  Yes, I know that frets give the percussive effects a great deal of their identity, but I can assure you that both fretless and nylon strings can produce similar effects.  Kaki King aside, there also seems to be a great deal of room for melodic improvisation in here, and I am curious to see where my love of double-harmonic scales might lead--fretted or fretless.

It's a hell of a time for innovation on the basic instrument.  Keep in mind that Pandora radio has also brought me to Dan Crary during this same time, and as astonishing as his work is (still can't believe I went this many years without noticing it--especially his 12-string work and some stellar compositions), what I just can't stop churning through is the genre Michael Hedges brought to the mainstream.

Wow!

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".

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. :-)

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.
  

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. :-)

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

Fretless revision 1

The fretless guitar has been revised to cure the high spot on the fingerboard. A bit of judicious time with sandpaper has proven fruitful and educational.

The diagnosis was a high spot in the region of "frets" 14-18, for the first and second strings. On careful inspection, the bottom lip of the fingerboard was partly the culprit, it was also partly the general slope of the board above the octave. These tolerances are tight!

The diagnostic sanding (60-grit and 150-grit) was done with strings in place; once all notes were ringing clear, I took strings off and more gratuitously sloped off the end of the board. When satisfied, I finished up with 220, 400, and 600-grit paper. The board is certainly not perfect, you can see that right away, but since this is a bit of work in progress and an experiment to begin with, I'm pretty happy with progress thus far. Before restringing, I did manage to get a couple of photos of the fingerboard, which I'd meant to do before:

Yeah, 600-grit sandpaper is pretty nice. I'd never seen unfinished wood shine before these projects. (It was after these photos that I wiped on the linseed oil.)

Restringing this time was another experiment. The first iteration had a marvelous warm buzz (what Dave Sweeney called the "mwah" sound, which is exactly right), but the top two strings were so light (.012 for the E and .010 for the G) that I thought I should try some heavier ones to see if I could get a little more sound. What I did, so as not to risk overtensioning my little kit's system, was to go to heavier gauge strings all around, and then tune everything down a whole step. So, I used the following for this experiment

• 6th string: .059 bronze wound, tuned to Bb1
• 5th string: .048 bronze wound, tuned to F2
• 4th string: .038 bronze wound, tuned to C3
• 3rd string: .022 nickel wound, tuned to G3
• 2nd string: .014 plain, tuned to D4
• 1st string: .012 plain, tuned to F4

Boy, interesting observations there. First: the .059 for the Bb is floppy, and the instrument does seem to have a hard time responding to it. Curiously, the .054 string seemed to work fine for the low C previously. Quite a difference. Next, those first two strings really do sound better being a little thicker. That point is well-taken. Finally, I noticed that a lot of the "mwah" was missing, at least the first time the strings were brought up to pitch.

I started thinking about this, and it's quite possible that multiple things are at work. First, the thicker strings may simply ride a little higher in the nut/saddle notches, and be enough higher off the board that the natural buzzing is affected by it. Probably it's also that the fingerboard has indeed been relieved by the sanding.

Some of that "mwah" is coming back as things settle in, or perhaps it's because of how I'm playing it. I also have considered the roundwound strings. Ultimately, I am still interested in either flatwound electric strings, or possibly the original idea, nylon. (That would really require some more work on nut and saddle!) But...I wonder how much of this buzzing sound is actually coming from the roundwound strings. I've heard that the "Jaco growl" may have been partly due to his use of roundwound strings, and I'll admit, that's not a bad sound to have available...

One way or the other, it's given me a lot to think about. Current plan is to play like this for a while, and then at my next string change, polish up the fingerboard once again and put on the "light" electric flatwounds to see what they sound like. The plan there is for the following:

• 6th: .056 flatwound, tuned to C2
• 5th: .042 flatwound, tuned to G2
• 4th: .024 flatwound, tuned to D3
• 3rd: .018 plain, tuned to A3
• 2nd: .013 plain, tuned to E4
• 1st: .011 plain, tuned to G4

I figure that if the action/setup sounds good with the lightest strings, I'll have done with the instrument what I am capable of doing as a luthier, and by then I'll have enough evidence to decide how I want to string in the longer term.

For now, we'll try whole-step-down, heavy strings, and see how it goes!

The NST fretless acoustic guitar

The big project, the one I'm the most excited about, is the fretless acoustic. This project is still one or two steps away from being "really done", but these are definitely in the spirit of small refinements. I am psyched about this one.

The concept

I was after several things here. I had for a while been intrigued by the concept of a fretless guitar, having loved the sounds of Jaco, Percy Jones, Kai Eckhardt, Michael Manring, and Tony Levin for some years now. But it was running into Neil Haverstick, who served as a marvelously patient and charmingly idiosyncratic "theory teacher" for Dave Cialone and I (after Nathan left for Illinois), that really inspired this project. In addition to teaching us an approach to tonal music theory (read the theory posts on this blog and you'll see the product of a lot of that), Neil was personally in the midst of exploring alternative tuning options for his microtonal music, and was himself just beginning to perform with a fretless guitar. It was compelling.

So, I had identified that I wanted to build a guitar from a Musicmakers kit, and their "Guit-along" teardrop shaped mini-guitar (which is not a currently available kit, it appears) seemed like the right design for compact size and complete access to the upper register. It is designed to be a steel-string, fretted acoustic guitar in standard tuning with a small floating bridge and no electronics. So, naturally, I decided I'd build it as a nylon-string, fretless acoustic guitar in Guitar Craft standard tuning (aka New Standard Tuning or NST to Crafties*) with the addition of an onboard pickup and preamp for amplifying and recording. This would involve coming up with a solution for the provided fretboard, which was already slotted for fretwire, fabricating my own bridge and saddle, and selecting and adapting electronics.

You know, for building my first guitar. :-)

I'm happy to say that I am pleased with the end result. There were certainly headaches in there, but the result is good as it is, and will get better with a couple more refinements.


The tour

The kit came with pre-bent wood for the guitar body, and sound- and backboards. The wood turned out much prettier than I'd expected it to be, but I didn't find that out until the finish (clear lacquer) went on. The plainest piece of wood on the thing is the Sitka spruce laminate soundboard!

Note in the pic on the left, above, the battery box, and look closely inside the far side of the soundhole and you'll see the volume and tone pots supplied with the LR Baggs undersaddle transducer (I got one specifically calibrated for nylon strings). In the pic on the right, you can see the battery box through the other side of the soundhole. Note too that the bridge in these shots is the first-phase bridge, fabricated from a plank of padauk wood from Rockler's in Denver whose color was pretty close to the kit's supplied padauk fingerboard. The saddle in this first iteration is a plastic saddle from an old dreadnaught and was being used as a placeholder; I had not even started work on the bone saddle at this point.

Here's a look at the fingerboard and the headstock. It's a shame that I wasn't able to capture the almost mirror shine that 600-grit sandpaper put on the fretless surface.

To solve the problem of the fret slots, the staff at Musicmakers suggested I glue light-colored wood veneer into the 18 fret slots, and then sand the board flat. This was a great idea; it looks really nice and the reference is very useful for someone getting started with fretless playing!

Of interest: despite my using a drill press to cut the peg holes for the tuning machines, I still managed to get one of them off-center. Doesn't affect how it plays, I know, but it still makes me grumpy. I'm much happier with the bone nut (from Stewart-MacDonald, along with the bone saddle, battery box, and electronics) I substituted for the plastic one provided with the kit.

Here's a look at the neck, and a closeup of the volume/tone pots in the soundhole:

In hindsight, I probably should have shaped the neck a little differently, as this one feels a little thick, but it is my first time shaping a neck (the kit's neck was bandsawn, so it wasn't a complete neck blank; essentially the rounding is mine), and I was conservative.

As a woodworking project, it was fun. I learned a great deal about gluing, sanding, and the use of router attachments for Dremel tools, and enjoyed it. The electronics scared the shite out of me, though, as I am no electrician, and I was continually petrified that I'd build the whole thing, plug in and then get...nothing.

The pickup is an undersaddle transducer, which meant that I could not use the kit's supplied bridge--which simply floats on top of the soundboard with no provision for a separate saddle to transmit vibration to the transducer. So...I fabricated a bridge, from a plank of padauk wood from Rockler's, with a Dremel tool and hand sanding, using the Dremel plunge router attachment to fashion a workable but far from perfect channel for the saddle, and then just sanding that thing square with the aid of my shooting micrometer. In the end, I managed to build a little compensation into the saddle, with the bass strings slightly longer than the trebles (this may be somewhat academic on a fretless instrument, but I'm happy I did it).

The preamp is built into the endpin jack, so a giant hole went into the tailblock of the guitar, and instead of using the battery bag included with the pickup, I rewired the battery to Stew-Mac's battery box, which I fitted on the top side of the guitar in the only "flat" spot on the teardrop's curve. I think that will work out rather nicely; the box is much more elegant than trying to negotiate a battery bag through that reduced-size soundhole.

I assembled the whole thing up, mostly to see if the electronics would even work, and strung it up and plugged it in. To my total astonishment, it sounded fabulous through my SWR California Blonde. To my ears, at least.

My thoughts now turned to the guitar's action. For the initial test, I used "throwaway" strings, and acoustic steel roundwounds at that, just to provide a starting point. The action was sky-high, which I kind of expected as I had just fabricated a bridge from scratch, used a placeholder saddle, and had not done anything to reduce the height of the nut. Check out these shots of the initial action. (For reference, note the how thick the bridge is in the first three pictures in this post.)

Measured with my reloading micrometer, string heights at the nut were .130" for the sixth string down to .085" for the first string. (A general rule of thumb is that 1/16", or .063", is appropriate for this measurement, for guitars, and this measurement is from the crown of the first fret to the bottom of the string.) At the 18th "fret", the heights were .345" for the sixth string and .290" for the first. In general, the lower the action the better, especially for a fretless instrument, and my goal was to get to 1/32", or .0313", at the nut. (My Fender Stratocaster's action, set up for me by a luthier, measures .025" at the first fret and .100" at the 18th, and it is the easiest action I currently own.)

So, I thickness-sanded the bottom of the bridge, sanded down the top of the bone saddle (both to reduce height, and also to observe the "50/50 rule" that you want at least 50% of the saddle to be down in the slot, not above it, to avoid excessive tilt), and filed deeper slots in the nut for the strings I have on, to hit my target.

I was careful, and the result was extremely gratifying. These pics are of the revised bridge with the bone saddle fitted and notched:

And these last pics are of the revised action. Compare them to the ones above!

In the end, the numbers were a little better than my target. The revised action has .021" - .030" gap at the nut, and .071" - .080" at the 18th "fret". What a difference!

The revision did highlight a small high spot in my fingerboard, in the area of "frets" 16-18 on the first and second strings. I'm no luthier, but I would think this is an encouraging place to have a minor high spot, and my intent is to sand this area slightly to take care of that, put a final nice polish on the whole fingerboard again, and re-string with my next experiment: flat-wound electric guitar strings (which have the primary advantage of not needing to be purchased; I already have a set of them, in NST gauges, from my previous experiment with the Stratocaster).

When I tuned up and plugged in again, I played for a while for Sabre, who seemed to enjoy the new sound. For me, the sound of the instrument is intoxicating, and I suspect I will learn a number of new techniques to allow me to take advantage of what I've got. (Those will certainly get posted here...)


Now what?

The purpose of this was to experiment with a fretless instrument; hell, mostly it was to see if I could build something worth playing! It started with the idea of "hey, let's try building a guitar" and steamrolled with the additions of the fretless fingerboard and the onboard electronics.

It's got its warts, and I'm sure I'll find things to dislike about it. But I have to say, I'm pleased at the result, and I intend to see what the application of a Crafty mindset to a completely new instrument might yield. (I am certainly treating it as a new instrument!)



_________________
* For those who do not know it, the Guitar Craft Standard Tuning is C2 - G2 - D3 - A3 - E4 - G4, from sixth to first strings. This gives an expanded range over the fourths-based standard tuning, broader chords in general and an orchestral approach to music theory (the CGDA pitches of strings 6-3, are the same pitches as a cello is tuned). I like this tuning, and being a blowhard, all my guitars are tuned this way; I've even brought the intervals of the top four strings to my new kit banjo. Anything to be difficult! :-)