Misnamed Tunings

[Dave Mudgett]

Maybe this question is overly pedantic ...

Definitely. People will name tunings any way they want. I'm not sure what your reference page is from. I agree that there are obvious errors if the goal is to name an actual chord. But that may not always be the point. I am also not sure whether some of these "inconsistencies" are from actual usage, or errors made by your source. But it is much ado about nothing, IMO.

In the first place - the name of a tuning does not tell us what the tuning is. There is not a one-to-one correspondence between actual tunings and names - the same name may refer to different tunings, and the same tuning may be referred to by different names. How many ways can one implement a C6 tuning, for example? Plenty. There are dozens if not hundreds of different steel guitar tunings. The only way to know exactly which tuning one is talking about is to spell it out.

In the second place - is it really necessary to name a tuning by accurately describing which Western-notation chord is made from it? And if there are multiples, which one? Or which ones? Example:

My 6 string tuning is G B D F# A D. I call it D/G, pronounced “D over G”. I think that’s better than the chord name G Major 9, don’t you?

For me, D/G is more descriptive of the use of the tuning because Gmaj9 doesn't come close to fully describing how I would use the tuning - it completely misses the D-root usage. But if you want to be pedantic, D6/Gmaj9 pretty well covers it because the top 5 strings clearly form a D6 chord and the bottom 5 strings clearly form a Gmaj9 chord. To me, the only utility of the labeling is the make clear various functions of the tuning. But I still want to know exactly which notes are in the tuning. As far as I'm concerned, anything else is ambiguous.

As far as labeling of tunings from low-to-high, or vice versa - people will write tunings any way they want. They will write string gauges any way they want. I think it would help if people stated which way they're doing it - there clearly is no generally agreed upon "standard". Personally, I prefer low-to-high because I think in intervals from low-to-high. But I don't think it matters a whit which way one diagrams it, as long as the writer states what they're doing so there is no confusion.

On the other hand, it would be a rare tuning indeed for which a reasonably experienced player couldn't quickly infer the correct order. However, for the benefit of less experienced players, I think it is important to state the order explicitly.

[Fred Treece]

When tunings are named by their chords, writing the notes from low to high helps to understand the tuning. I don't really know which is more prevalent; I just know which I prefer.

...And there are very few tunings that aren’t named by the identifiable chord, no matter whether you call the same tuning Am7 or C6, Gmaj9 or D/G, etc.

It seems an issue this trivial could be settled right here in a poll, so 100 years from now players won’t have to take the few seconds to determine whether the horizontally written tuning they’re trying to figure out what to call is supposed to be read low to high or high to low. Geez, you wonder what discourages people from wanting to learn how to play the thing...

[Nic Neufeld]

The VHS - Betamax is an interesting analogy. Interesting because I see it the other way ‘round!
Low to high is VHS and high to low is Betamax. You know, a small group of die-hards vs the world standard. Looking through the posts on this forum and its predecessor, there seems to be a shift occurring. Before around 2010 nearly everyone posted high to low. After around 2015 nearly everyone posts low to high.

Maybe. Honestly I don't care other than just, pick one!

It probably depends what style of music. If you're coming from rock, country, bluegrass I think low-to-high seems more common (usually do see it written GBDGBD). For people from the older Hawaiian tradition, high to low is the standard. That's what Jerry Byrd used in his teaching material, its what I always read from guys like Basil Henriques, and for instance, all the way through Lorene Ruymar's book on Hawaiian steel guitar, high-to-low is the convention used. Another reason why that might be, from just scanning through the JB lessons...he charts a tuning out with 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 underneath. So he goes in order...first string through eighth string. There is some logic to that.

(Now that is a hill I will die on...if we start insisting the "first" string is the low bass one, well, human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!)

[Dave Mudgett]

It seems an issue this trivial could be settled right here in a poll, so 100 years from now players won’t have to take the few seconds to determine whether the horizontally written tuning they’re trying to figure out what to call is supposed to be low to high or high to low.

Good luck with that one! People are gonna write 'em any way they want regardless of what anybody else says is "correct", "standard", or any other adjective you wanna use.

...And there are very few tunings that aren’t named by the identifiable chord, no matter whether you call the same tuning Am7 or C6, Gmaj9 or D/G, etc.

Slide guitarists frequently use other names for open tunings besides the chord name. For example, "Vestapol" describes a variety of open tunings based on the set of intervals (from low-to-high) 1-5, 5-1, 1-3, 3-5, 5-1. Sometimes they will specifically denote the key, e.g., "Vestapol E" to denote E,B,E,G#,B,E. They do this because, e.g., "Open E" is ambiguous. But many slide guitarists have just called them all "Vestapol" and moved them up and down to suit their voice. And - this is not restricted to slide guitar. For example, the most commonly used lap steel tunings by David Lindley are Vestapol-based. And it's well known that he'll move 'em up and down to suit his purpose. It was recently discussed that "Running On Empty" was in A Vestapol. Yup, A to A. https://bb.steelguitarforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=358567

The other most common slide guitar tuning simply shifts the intervals up one string: 5-1, 1-5, 5-1, 1-3, 3-5 - e.g., Open G = D,G,D,G,B,D, and is also a perfectly reasonable steel guitar tuning. Then there are plenty of other open G tunings, used on both slide and lap steel.

You will never get agreement on how to name anything!

[Nic Neufeld]

It seems an issue this trivial could be settled right here in a poll, so 100 years from now players won’t have to take the few seconds to determine whether the horizontally written tuning they’re trying to figure out what to call is supposed to be low to high or high to low.

Good luck with that one! People are gonna write 'em any way they want regardless of what anybody else says is "correct", "standard", or any other adjective you wanna use.

Part of the problem I think...it's really hard to change any entrenched standard because of tradition. Reminds me of the Chesterton quote that tradition is the "democracy of the dead", where generations past get a vote as well. So the fact that reams and reams of documentation, lessons, even forum archives exist with this or that format, you can't go back and retroactively change all that (reasonably) so we're kind of stuck without a standard even if we (the small subset of SGF people in this thread) did agree.

Another example that springs to mind...that insane 12v cigarette lighter electrical outlet in cars. They don't even ship them standard with cigarette lighters any more, but we're still stuck with a very sub-optimal design for an electrical outlet (just overall, not a solid connection, in my experience...even had one fail and melt!) because that's what its always been, people have appliances that plug in that way, etc. Really hard to change even bad standards once they get past a certain point of acceptance... Same for the screw in lightbulb design, I feel like better / safer connector designs are out there, but who is going to change it now?

Fun discussion!

[Fred Treece]

Well...it seemed like a simple, trivial thing to settle. I suppose it’s fun, to an extent, to debate the pros and cons of one and the other. I can say that if the vote went against what makes completely common sense to me, I would settle and move on to more interesting and important things. Lord knows I have settled for much more horrifying options my fellow man has chosen.

I’ve never heard the term Vestapol until today. I like it. Sounds like a Global spy network. Nevertheless, I did specify “very few” tunings aren’t named for their chordal identity. Leavitt came to mind, but I knew someone would pick up the challenge.

I started playing slide guitar when I was about 13. Not that anyone gives a hoot, but back in those great dark ages, I used 3 different tunings for slide. I called all of them “Duane”.

[Jerry Wagner]

I started playing slide guitar when I was about 13. Not that anyone gives a hoot, but back in those great dark ages, I used 3 different tunings for slide. I called all of them “Duane”.

13...... Ah yes, so long ago.

So Fred,
Just guessing that must be a reference to the immortal Duane Allman? Did nobody you knew back then play slide, or ask you about the difference between "Duane" 1 - 3? Tell us more. It doesn't even have to be 100% true. Songs are stories, and we really like stories.

[Dave Mudgett]

Well...it seemed like a simple, trivial thing to settle.

Getting people to agree - especially on something that is completely arbitrary like a simple ordering or other arbitrary notational convention - is totally impossible. Scientists, mathematicians, and engineers frequently can't agree on notation for things that are very precisely defined. Fields, sub-fields, and even different groups in a sub-field often maintain their own notational conventions. Sometimes there are good reasons for that - I think that is also true in music.

I suppose it’s fun, to an extent, to debate the pros and cons of one and the other.

I'm arguing that it is pointless.

I can say that if the vote went against what makes completely common sense to me, I would settle and move on to more interesting and important things.

Vote? Why? People are gonna write things the way they want.

There are a lot of good players on here who have useful knowledge that they willingly and often generously impart, often requiring significant effort. If we want to avail ourselves of that knowledge, it is up to us to make an effort to try to understand how they're putting that across, instead of expecting them to adhere to our way of stating things.

[Fred Treece]

Good guess, Jerry. And thanks for at least pretending to give a hoot. You asked for it

I was 13 in 1970, so there were two Duane’s, but only one of them played slide. Nobody I knew 50 years ago played guitar. There were a couple other players I knew of in town, but they were much older than me. When I started playing at teenager parties, I met some kids my age who played and we formed a godawful band and had tons of glorious fun.

The slide tunings I used were E (EBEG#BE), G (DGDGBD), and standard guitar tuning. The E, I figured out on my own listening to Ronnie Wood play “Round The Plynth” with Rod Stewart. It became pretty clear how Statesboro Blues fit into that tuning. The G I got from listening to Pete Haycock of Climax Blues Band (Country Hat). Can’t say that I know of any Allman Bros tunes where it’s used, but it still got the name. The third Duane tuning was the easiest. I was 99% sure that he played “Dreams” in standard tuning because you can kinda tell listening to the song where he goes from playing straight fingered guitar and picks up the slide bar during the solo. All the slide licks work in standard tuning. He is still God on slide, for me anyway.

So far, this is all true. Except for the previous statement, George Carlin might say...

I guess that is why reading the tuning low to high horizontally seems natural to me. It was like that right from the start, running the intervals. If that’s the same for players who learned it the opposite way from the start, then I guess I understand. It just seems musically counterintuitive.

Dave M: you are much too deep for me. You are in “the folly of man” territory. I just want to make one tiny little thing a little easier for the average moron to figure out.

[Paul McEvoy]

Funny thing about cigarette lighters. I used to live on a smallish sailboat that I did a few long sails on. Everything on a boat runs on 12v like a car. And salt water pretty much destroys whatever it can, all the time. But those stupid 12v cigarette lighter outlets are basically how you wire anything like that on a boat. I looked into something more rugged but there wasn't really anything easily available. And using something different would mean cutting the male connections and rewiring stuff I bought.

So my boat ended up with 10 or so outlets. They even make waterproof ones with rubber covers which is pretty funny.

Regarding naming tunings, as said above, since a lot of tunings could easily represent two different chords like c6 or a minor it seems convention is the name of the game. It appears to me that the great ones are almost barely conscious of tunings but as a very amateur I understand wanting to nail it down. I'm taking classical guitar lessons with a guy who has about as many tunings as Joni Mitchell and it's helpful to see how fluid he is between them and how he relates them to each other.

I think there is some Buddy Emmons quote about him sitting down to a new tuning and just finding where all the intervals are?

[Scott Thomas]

There is a story here about Tom Morrell doing that too, sitting at somebody else's non-pedal steel, asking what it's tuned to and doing a slow strum and getting down by intervals. To guys like that it's second nature and they have the ear and experience.

I guess I'm proof a leopard can change his spots. I'm like Nic. I had the Jerry Byrd course, the Ruymar book, and others which listed high to low. Plus, this forum with lots of players I look up to, many who listed tunings that way. But this thread really made me think about it and change. But I still don't think the other way is wrong. And honestly, I'm not thrown off no matter how it's listed horizontally. It takes about a second to get it whether it's specified or not. No biggie IMO.