| Author |
Topic: Do you raise strings 1 and 2 or lower 3 and 4? |
Greg Gefell
From:
Upstate NY
|
Posted 15 Apr 2008 8:20 am |
|
Raising string 1 a whole tone, and 2 a half tone gets the same notes as lowering string 3 a whole tone and 4 a half. Anyone care to share why they think one is preferable over the other?
I'm trying to decide which change I want to add. If I put a G# lower it could be used with the E lower or independently. The strings 1 and 2 raise would always be together. |
|
|
|
Roger Crawford
From:
Griffin, GA USA
|
Posted 15 Apr 2008 8:41 am
|
|
| I raise 1 & 2 even though it's the same notes as 3 & 4. I like the way it sounds to have them change smoothly rather than having to pick the two groups seperatly. |
|
|
|
Pete Finney
From:
Nashville Tn.
|
Posted 15 Apr 2008 8:54 am
|
|
| It seems to me that part of the point of the raises on strings 1 and 2 is the unisons with the E's and G#'s on the 4th and 3rd strings (root and third respectively); that seems like a lot of what you typically hear with those changes, bending in and/or out of the root or 3rd with the unison as part of the lick... What you're talking about is not exactly an equivalent change. It's still a perfectly reasonable thing to do of course; just different... |
|
|
|
Brint Hannay
From:
Maryland, USA
|
Posted 15 Apr 2008 10:51 am
|
|
| If I'm not mistaken, a lot of guitars' changers are unable to lower the 3rd string a whole tone. |
|
|
|
Greg Gefell
From:
Upstate NY
|
Posted 15 Apr 2008 10:52 am
|
|
| I think there are pluses and minuses to both approaches. The lowers might actually be redundant though as you can get that same inversion by dropping 2 frets and hitting A pedal and F lever. I'm also not sure how well an .11 G# can take the abuse of lowering to F# and raising to A. |
|
|
|
Jonathan Cullifer
From:
Gallatin, TN
|
Posted 15 Apr 2008 10:57 am
|
|
| Lowering 3 and 4 would remove the ability to do a lot of stuff that uses those strings with 1 and 2...I'd definitely raise 1 and 2. |
|
|
|
Greg Gefell
From:
Upstate NY
|
Posted 15 Apr 2008 11:04 am
|
|
| Quote: |
| Lowering 3 and 4 would remove the ability to do a lot of stuff that uses those strings with 1 and 2... |
Jonathon, can you give me an example of what you mean? |
|
|
|
Jon Light (deceased)
From:
Saugerties, NY
|
Posted 15 Apr 2008 11:10 am
|
|
I actually do both....sort of.
On my Carter I do the 'standard' 1 & 2 raise. On a different lever I lower 3 whole step, tuned as a split with the B pedal for an in tune G. The point is to get a dom 7 on strings 3-4-5-6 with AB down with the lever engaged. I don't care for a feeler stop on 1 (although I'm getting used to one on a different guitar) and I want the whole step raise on 1 so this extra lever gives me the G note on 3 and also gives me easier access to Mooney sort of stuff. This is a different use than you are talking about but.....
It is NOT an essential lever but it's real cool.
On my Fessenden I cannot get the full step lower on 3. |
|
|
|
Ray Minich
From:
Bradford, Pa. Frozen Tundra
|
Posted 15 Apr 2008 3:03 pm
|
|
| I'm still workin' on them string1 & 2 lowers... |
|
|
|
Paul Redmond
From:
Illinois, USA
|
Posted 18 Apr 2008 11:18 pm
|
|
I lower 3, 6, and 10 on my Uni 12 to G on my first pedal. Pedals 2, 3, and 4 are standard Emmons setup. I also have an engageable rod on the underside that I can use at will to drop #3 to F#. It's a stiff pull and I rarely use it, but it's there for use on certain songs. Most guitars won't drop the #3 that far.
PRR |
|
|
|
