How many play a Blues-based tuning

Karlis Abolins · Post by **Karlis Abolins** » 28 Dec 2004 4:14 pm

I am moving in the direction of Blues-based tunings (sacred steel and variants.) How many play this type of tuning? How is it set up and how do you use it? What would you change?

Karlis

David Doggett · Post by **David Doggett** » 29 Dec 2004 3:01 pm

Over on the Carter site they give several Sacred Steel copedants. The main one is the one Chuck Campbell and Robert Randolph use. It is basically two octaves of an open E chord, with a 7th in the top octave. The middle E is on two strings. This is so one can be raised to a 9th or lowered to a 7th with a pedal or lever, but open it is a strummable E chord on the bottom. I considered trying this tuning, but then I started finding so much blues stuff on my new S12U that I've just stayed with it. The problem with the Sacred Steel tuning is that it can't be easily made to play the traditional country stuff or swing. The uni has strummable low strings and can also do everything else.

Bobby Lee · Post by **Bobby Lee** » 29 Dec 2004 3:27 pm

I tried it for a while, but eventually went back to my extended E9th. E9th works really well for blues, in my opinion. C6th is pretty good for blues, too.

The main feature of the sacred steel tuning that sets it apart is the doubled E. This makes it uniquely suitable for playing rhythm parts. As near as I can tell, there's nothing in the Sacred Steel E7th that makes it better for blues lead playing than the standard E9th or c6th.

------------------
<img align=right src="http://b0b.com/Hotb0b.gif" width="96 height="96">Bobby Lee - email: quasar@b0b.com - gigs - CDs, Open Hearts
Sierra SD-12 (Ext E9), Williams D-12 Crossover, Sierra S-12 (F Diatonic)
Sierra Laptop 8 (E6add9), Fender Stringmaster (E13, C6, A6)

David Doggett · Post by **David Doggett** » 29 Dec 2004 7:41 pm

b0b, I think the SS tuning is a little faster and simpler for blues than anything else, because it only has strings for a straight E7 chord. You can get really slap-happy and free with it, just like it was a giant lap steel. But I agree with you that it seems too limited for anything else.

Bobby Lee · Post by **Bobby Lee** » 29 Dec 2004 10:45 pm

I didn't say it was limited, David. I actually think it's a very versatile tuning. Study it a bit, and you realize that almost everything from the E9th is there, plus it has that "autoharp mode" going for it.

I don't recommend it for beginners, though, because there is no instructional material available for it.

Dan Tyack · Post by **Dan Tyack** » 29 Dec 2004 10:59 pm

Here's my Sacred Steel/E9th hybred. I don't see how I'm missing much if any from the standard E9th tuning, but there's so much I can do with this that just isn't there on the E9th.

<pre>
notes P1 P2 P3 P4 LKL LKV LKR RKL RKR
F# ++G#
D# -D-C# +E
G# +A
E ++F# +F -D#
B ++C#' ++C# --A -A#
G# +A --F#
F# --E
E +F --D -D#
B ++C# --A -A#
E
</pre>

------------------
www.tyack.com

Pete Knapton · Post by **Pete Knapton** » 30 Dec 2004 5:17 am

Dan, are the two bottom E strings the same octave/gauge?
If you had a 3 + 4 set up, what would you change or compromise with your tuning?
Thanks, Pete

Dan Tyack · Post by **Dan Tyack** » 30 Dec 2004 12:02 pm

No, the low E string is an octave lower than the 8th string.

One way to look at this tuning is that the top 8 strings are standard E9th, whereas with the RKR engaged the bottom 8 strings are a vanilla E lap steel tuning.

------------------
www.tyack.com

Dan Tyack · Post by **Dan Tyack** » 30 Dec 2004 12:03 pm

If I were to do a 3X4 tuning, I'd eliminate P4 and LKV.

Steve Richter · Post by **Steve Richter** » 30 Dec 2004 12:15 pm

Thanks, Dan. I was just considering posting to see if you had extra changes for your style of play. I really like that low E.

I'm still blown away by your CD. It's one of me and my wife's favorites and most excellent for cruisin'! Vitamins J, I, V & E ...

... my personal favorite.

Happy New Year!

Steve

Dan Tyack · Post by **Dan Tyack** » 30 Dec 2004 1:06 pm

The Blackened Toast CD was all on standard E9th (except for part of one solo, which was in C6th).

BTW, Thanks Steve!
------------------
www.tyack.com
[This message was edited by Dan Tyack on 30 December 2004 at 01:10 PM.]

David Doggett · Post by **David Doggett** » 30 Dec 2004 3:23 pm

Dan, I know you are great on the separate C6 neck, but that tuning above is only two low strings away from a uni. You could literally keep everything exactly as you have it, and just fill out the E chord with two more strings on bottom. Then in addition to everything you have above, you'd have strummable bottom strings (plain vanilla lap steel, as you put it) for the open pedal position, the AB pedal position, and the relative minor position. And that low root for the relative minor is a killer for minor blues and modal blues. In addition you would have instantaneous access to all the fat blues chords of B6. You're almost there, man. Keep everything you have and just add the two additional strings.[This message was edited by David Doggett on 30 December 2004 at 03:24 PM.]

Dan Tyack · Post by **Dan Tyack** » 30 Dec 2004 4:40 pm

David, I assume you mean a low G# and another B below my low E. I'd take that low B, but I don't want anything but roots and fifths down that low. It takes away from the rhythm thing I am doing with the tuning. I'll post some examples. I think that ideally I would have a double 11 (with the tuning I just posted plus a low B, and my C tuning adding the low C back to the tuning).

------------------
www.tyack.com
[This message was edited by Dan Tyack on 30 December 2004 at 04:48 PM.]

Pete Knapton · Post by **Pete Knapton** » 30 Dec 2004 5:33 pm

Dan, thanks for the help with your tuning.

I'm not from a country background (arrh, i'll wash my mouth out!) and so i'm looking at the tuning from a blues perspective.

Wouldn't the low D be more benificial left in at the expense of one of the higher notes? I'm trying to get my head around this and can see that a low D useage with this tuning may be somewhat limited with other chord construction. I guess its about compromise.

Also, my understanding is that the E9 tuning was created for country music, right? And the top four string configuration is for country picking, please correct me if this is not true. So, if we're talking about a blues neck, wouldn't it make more sense to have the top four strings in acending order D# E F# G# ?

Cheers, Pete

Dan Tyack · Post by **Dan Tyack** » 30 Dec 2004 6:08 pm

Pete, you have a D down there (I use it all the time), you just have to use a knee lever to get it (not a big deal). In terms of the top of the neck,

1) the E9th isn't just for country, it's good for a variety of styles (including blues)

2) I wanted a tuning that was equivalent (and compatible) with my 30+ years of experience with the E9th tuning, so I wanted to change as little as possible.

------------------
www.tyack.com

Pete Knapton · Post by **Pete Knapton** » 30 Dec 2004 7:01 pm

Whats the advantage of having the top 4 standard string configuration over an acending configuration? The rest of the strings are in 'order', why not the top 4 strings, Is it for picking?

I'm trying to learn and need to understand why things are, or are not. Convention aside, it just seems logical to have acending notes across the neck. Pete

Dan Tyack · Post by **Dan Tyack** » 30 Dec 2004 11:07 pm

Now you are talking ancient history, Pete.

Buddy Emmons and Jimmy Day originated the E9th tuning. The 'chromatic strings' (D# and F#) were added to a basic E7th tuning. As I recall, at first on Buddy's guitar they were added to the bottom of the tuning, to strings 9 and 10, simply because that was the most expedient way to get them on his guitar (changes in copedent were not as easy as they are today). They wanted to add the strings, but needed to still play their familiar tuning, so the strings were added on the top. Now there are advantages in terms of cross picking, but then the question is which came first, the chicken or the egg? What licks would have been developed had the tuning have been more logically organized?

------------------
www.tyack.com

Dean Parks · Post by **Dean Parks** » 31 Dec 2004 12:32 am

Something I've been fooling with is tuning 9D down almost an octave to low E, and tuning 7F# down a step to E. The low E is spongy, but hey, it's the blues. It's like a guitar in open E, but the 2 lowest strings are reversed.

So a strum on string 10 thru 3 is an E major.

B pedal + RKL G#-F# split to a G, so I can go up and down the neck making major and minor chords. Also, squeeze the knees for a 5 over 1 chord, regular AB is 4 over 5.

Nice thing is, tune it back, and it's regular E9.
-----
Also, in "regular E9 mode" I've got RKR raising 7F#-G#, lowering 9D-C#. So, holding the A pedal raising both B's and RKR, and there is a big 10 thru 3 C# minor strummer... add LKL raising E's and it becomes C# major... so again, up and down the neck with majors or minors... or lower the E's with LKR, and it's a C# "two chord", meaning, roots, fifths and seconds only. Plus, work the A pedal to scoop the roots up from the flat 7th.

-dean-[This message was edited by Dean Parks on 31 December 2004 at 12:36 AM.]

Franklin · Post by **Franklin** » 31 Dec 2004 5:05 am

Dean,

I really look forward to our next session. I have always wondered what directions could be found if someone of your musical depth and talent took up the instrument.

Have a great New Year!

Paul

Karlis Abolins · Post by **Karlis Abolins** » 31 Dec 2004 6:02 am

My purpose in starting this thread was to see if I could elicit the WHY of Blues-based tunings. Sometimes we can’t express why something is done the way it is because no one has asked the question. The Sacred Steel tuning that Dan uses has a lot going for it. B0B has a great article on Sacred Steel tunings in the links at the top. But the big question is why it works. The little answer is rhythm. That seems to be the theme throughout the topics on sacred steel. Watching Robert Randolph play his special style makes it even more apparent. So it would appear that being able to alternate between rhythm and lead with a minimum of effort is the goal of a Blues-based tuning.
This more than just a mental exercise for me. I am building a pedal steel guitar for myself. I hope that the design parameters that I am incorporating will give me a guitar that is more like a pedal strat or Les Paul than an Emmons. I don’t know what the copedant will turn out to be but it will allow me to play rhythm and lead with ease. It may not allow me to play Country easily but that is a genre that I have never felt comfortable with.
A 7th tuning will likely be the basis for it. I have started designing the copedant and this is just the beginning;
<pre>
P1 P2 P3 P4
G | + -
E | -
D | - +
B | ++
A | -
G | + -
E | - __
B | ++
G | + - ++
E | -

G7 C7 D7

G |-3P1-3---3P3
E |-3---3---3P3
D |-3---3P2-3P3
B |-3---3P2-3--
A |-3P1-3---3--
G |-3P1-3---3P3
E |-3---3---3P3
B |-3---3P2-3--
G |-3P1-3---3P3
E |-3---3---3P3

Position 1 scale in G

G |----------|----------|-------3
E |----------|----------|-----3--
D |----------|----------|---3----
B |----------|----------|-3------
A |----------|---------3|--------
G |----------|-------3--|--------
E |----------|-3P4-3----|--------
B |---------3|----------|--------
G |---3-3P4--|----------|--------
E |-3--------|----------|--------
</pre>

With just 4 pedals I have 10 string G7, C7, and D7 chords at the G fret. I also have a two octave plus Blues scale at its natural fret position. I haven’t yet worked out my major and minor chord pedals but my hope is to limit this to a 5 x 4 setup.

Karlis

Dan Tyack · Post by **Dan Tyack** » 31 Dec 2004 10:09 am

Hey Dean, welcome to the forum!

I understand what you are doing there. I get this by using the RKR lever, which tunes that pesky F# on the 7th string down to E. Note that on the same change it raises 1 to G# and 2 to E, so you have an E major chord all the way across the neck. Great for those Pete Townsend moments.

Also, by getting a unison E on 7 and 8, if you pick 7,8 and 10 simultaneously and do lines up and down the neck (like Wes) it sounds like a freight train.

I'll post some samples later today.

------------------
www.tyack.com
[This message was edited by Dan Tyack on 31 December 2004 at 10:12 AM.]

Dean Parks · Post by **Dean Parks** » 31 Dec 2004 10:11 am

Paul-

Thank you for the kind words. I'm not so worried about new directions as just trying to stay afloat!

I now have a more "detailed" respect for you and what you do. But always I've seen you as a complete musician, who would have made history on any instrument you chose... the fact that you're pulling all of that music out of such a cantankerous instrument is a lesson to all.

And happy new year to you too!

-dean-[This message was edited by Dean Parks on 31 December 2004 at 10:12 AM.]

Dean Parks · Post by **Dean Parks** » 31 Dec 2004 10:20 am

Dan-

I've heard you on your website... great stuff, I'll look for you at NAMM.

I can see that is a good thing, the giant E chord with the low root-third-double root. I'll be looking for those sound bytes.

-dean-

Dan Tyack · Post by **Dan Tyack** » 31 Dec 2004 12:41 pm

Here's a Floydish chord thing:

Floydish

Here's a Muddy Waters kind of groove:

Muddy

Here's your basic AC/DC thing
Girl's got Rhythm

------------------
www.tyack.com
[This message was edited by Dan Tyack on 31 December 2004 at 12:42 PM.]

Don Walters · Post by **Don Walters** » 31 Dec 2004 1:00 pm

Wow! This is the type of thread that makes the SGF priceless!