Talk:List of guitar tunings

Merge: Guitar tunings
Should this page be merged with Guitar tunings, since it's basically a cut down version of the same? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 16:18, 6 January 2011 (talk) 88.111.134.215


 * It is a pity that you could not foresee the future. History repeats itself, the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce. Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  00:02, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Separate article from list of tunings
The article needs development.

Does anybody object to separating the list of tunings in a proper Wikipedia list? Kiefer .Wolfowitz  13:39, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I just watchlisted this article a bit before you started working on it. I don't object. There is simply no need to list 100 conceivable tunings in an encyclopedic introduction to guitar tuning... it gives a newbie the impression that there is some chance they'll actually run into more than 3 or 4 guitar tunings in their amateur life, which they won't. I wouldn't object to deleting 90% of the tunings, period, but creating a list would effectively shuffle the "I want to add a tuning" edits to a dedicated page. Riggr Mortis (talk) 19:34, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Riggr Mortis!
 * Thanks for the vote of confidence!
 * There are a number of Wikipedians who like lists, whom can be left to care for the lists.
 * William Sethares has written an intelligent overview of the main classes and most interesting examples of tunings, which I suppose can guide the expansion. In Sweden, I have little access to English books on tunings, although I added the ones that were not designed to fit in gig bags. Perhaps another editor can find some in a local library, and clean-up a section or two?
 * Cheers, Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  22:05, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It will be necessary to delete all the unreferenced stuff, to get control of this article, and bring it up to C class. Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  12:41, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Copied by Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  00:02, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

What's the point?
I frankly don't see the point of a list like this, especially as there is already a separate article on Guitar Tunings.

The only appropriate function of an additional list would be to attempt to either 1) fully catalog all possible guitar tunings, or 2) catalog all guitar tunings which have actually been called for in the guitar literature, or employed in actual performance.

This would be a formidable project: as one began to consider the various microtonal tunings possible, a complete list would almost literally have infinite possibilities. Listing all the tunings actually called for or used on stage would be more in the realm of possibility, but would require intensive research and documentation, and could easily run to hundreds of tunings. Furthermore, a decision would have to be made as to whether the list was to apply only to standard size-and-range 6-string instruments, or to incorporate some or all of the many guitar variants: tenor; 7-string; 8-string; 10-string; octave; baritone; etc., etc.

From my POV, a more sensible approach would be to reduce this list to a section of the Guitar Tunings article, and then provide a few footnotes referencing some of the many complete books which have been written on this topic.

For the most part, 99% of lists like this are of extremely limited usefulness, and that mostly to a handful of obsessive list-makers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.249 (talk) 21:16, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

It is especially limited. A lot of the lists are just transposed tuning an you end up with lists 12 times as long. You could either expand this to be a complete list of bands using particular transposed tunings. Or you could put actual varied tunings, rather than 15 or so transposed variations of standard tuning. That the main ridiculous part, having every single transposition when you can cover that any tuning can be transposed. Maybe delete those and add some interesting tunings like 'unison' tunings (for example sonic youth) that are hard to figure out, not just tuning from a new starting pitch.31.51.18.39 (talk) 20:43, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

What about standard?
It sure would be nice if standard tuning could be included in this list. Many of the others are described by reference to it, but without an entry for standard itself, those descriptions are hard to understand. 130.226.142.243 (talk) 07:39, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The descriptions are verbose, obscure, and unnecessary. There is already an article titled "Guitar Tunings", which clearly and adequately explains the different categories of tuning, and the rationale for them.  If this list is to have any usefulness at all, 90%-100% of the descriptions should be removed, and it should be rendered as a simple table, of perhaps three colums:  1) the tuning notes; 2) the most common name or names for the tuning (if any); 3) one or two prominent examples of the tuning's use in the guitar literature.
 * The table might be split into two sections: one giving tunings possible without restringing or otherwise modifying the conventional instrument; the other including prominent tunings which do require different string gauges or other modifications.
 * Also, octave designations should be given for the notes, preferably employing scientific pitch notation.
 * And I agree: standard tuning should appear at the top of the list.

67.206.183.63 (talk) 09:37, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Tuning of Soundgarden’s Black Hole Sun
In the Shifted tuning, section “Raised”, Soundgarden’s Black Hole Sun is reported as in F tuning (i.e. F-B♭-E♭-A♭-C-F). What is the source for that? According to other sources (e.g. Wikipedia itself, see the page relating to Soundgarden’s song Black Hole Sun) and to valuable guitar tutorials in Youtube (e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWwNhgGyI7g) the song is actually played in drop D tuning (i.e. D-A-D-G-B-E). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.64.254.240 (talk) 12:20, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

New tunings
So I'm not sure what makes a tuning notable enough to allow inclusion into this article, but I have one more tuning to mention if someone else knows and would like to include it. The band Delusions of Grandeur (who does not currently meet the notability guidelines) uses the seven-string tuning E-A-E-A-D-F#-B. This is essentially Drop A on a 6-string with a low E added. I'm also not sure how to name tunings, but I propose the names "Drop A add E" or "Drop A/Drop E" for this one. Note that I see Black Tongue's Drop D1 tuning listed, and they are also not currently notable. 72.242.143.140 (talk) 19:17, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

It's me again (72.242.143.140). I also have learned that the band Infant Annihilator uses this tuning, but they have added a high e (8-string instead of 7-string). This would be E-A-E-A-D-F#-B-E. I'll go ahead and add it as a variation on Drop E, A in the 8-string dropped section of the article. —  Tha† emo over †here (talk)  23:01, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I assume it's okay to add because now Gabe from Delusions of Grandeur is also a member of the wiki-notable band Enterprise Earth and he still uses this tuning. —  Tha† emo over †here (talk)  20:03, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of guitar tunings. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111021185726/http://www.luth.org/backissues/al69-72/al72.htm to http://www.luth.org/backissues/al69-72/al72.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120529074627/http://v3p0.m3guitar.com/ to http://v3p0.m3guitar.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:33, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of guitar tunings. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130310120037/http://www.gtdb.org/tuner/ccgceg/ to http://www.gtdb.org/tuner/ccgceg/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121108070453/http://vs24.kobv.de/opus4-matheon/frontdoor/index/index/docId/675 to http://vs24.kobv.de/opus4-matheon/frontdoor/index/index/docId/675
 * Added tag to http://www.erhanbirol.com/othersites/tolgahan/EN/microtonal_en.html
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20070301171917/http://www.ibanez.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4151&PN=1 to http://www.ibanez.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4151&PN=1
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120713033111/http://warrenallencom.ipage.com/waguitartunings/tunings.htm to http://warrenallencom.ipage.com/waguitartunings/tunings.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:44, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

proposed Merge proposal
THESIS: this is an expanding pile of crap, it should be rolled back into Guitar tunings, and the result likely should be reduced with great enthusiasm.

First, someone ought to explain how this page is a list. Start with Stand-alone lists. The 49K article Guitar tunings (which is mostly a bunch of tunings with some appended commentary & trivia) spawned the 97K list List of guitar tunings (which is mostly a bunch of tunings with some appended commentary & trivia). The latter is now so bloated — packed with unsourced claims about "who used which on what" — that by Wikipedia standards it richly deserves to be chopped at least 40%, whether by outright cutting or by spawning yet another fancruft "article." (Maybe Wikipedia should launch articlist pages.) Go create List of recordings that use non-standard guitar tunings.

Second, explain the criteria — a list IS NOT just a random pile of facts/"facts." How is it that Double-dropped tunings is a subsection of Shifted tunings and not Dropped tunings?

The cruft content is muted & pernicious. For instance, the Dsus4 tuning is given a list-appropriate line entry under Open >> Modal, then (with typical fanboy fairy dust) magically reappears as DADGAD/D-A-D-G-A-D in its own little mini-article Miscellaneous >> Dad-Gad. The same magic is conferred as an afterthought on D-A-D-D-A-D.

(Another symptom of fanboyism: I see reference to one John Rebourn because a fanboy's prime duty is to splodge in pounds of trivia, NOT to reflect reality.)

A big problem with both articlists is not relying upon a simple, clear definition of open tuning. Per Guitar tunings, An open tuning lets the guitarist play a chord by strumming the open strings (no strings fretted)… problem being that pretty much ANY collection of three or more tones in the same scale is by definition a chord, and there's no requirement it be inherently pleasant so B♭-B-C is a chord. The Open section starts out with majors, strays into minors, then runs fanboy amok with modal and "extended" examples that really are not generally pleasing to listeners and are used by few guitarists. Aside from the cruft factor, this clearly begs the "WTF" question.

Note to self or whoever: there's a stupid-long fancruft list of guitar tunings buried in Standard tuning — predictably, the entire page is cruft, & began from one wildly insufficient source.

Another example of fanboyism: in order to shoehorn as much garbage here as possible, a five-string guitar — with an inherently narrower tonal range than a standard guitar — magically fits under Extended-range tunings by renaming the section Extended range and other guitar tunings. Really, either the whole section ought to be wiped or tuning-related chitchat needs to be removed from and maybe Twelve-string guitar and Classical guitar with additional strings as well.
 * Seven-string guitar
 * Eight-string guitar
 * Nine-string guitar
 * Ten-string guitar

Finally, just because it's a List page does not magically exempt the content from scrutiny. If it's mere undecorated tabular data, we tend to overlook lapses. I do not find feigned ignorance of this credible. Really, if we're being literal-minded here, a List OUGHT to be NOTHING but a tabulation of topics notable enough to have Wikipedia articles, and anything else runs afoul of policy. Weeb Dingle (talk) 18:55, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to buy you a beer, sir. could not agree more. puzzling too, that the list of alternate tunings seems confined to one or two or three "genres" (& I use the term reluctantly) with no discussion of the rationale behind these tunings, let alone any examination of the history of standard & other tunings by non-electric guitarists.

duncanrmi (talk) 00:18, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Spanish and Vestapol tuning
Origin of the terms «spanish» for open G and «vestapol» for open D tuning: see Henry Warrall: «Henry Warrall's Guitar School» with «Spanish Fandango» in open G and «Sebastopol» in open D tuning, and http://jasobrecht.com/blues-origins-spanish-fandango-and-sebastopol/. --92.107.224.216 (talk) 18:10, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Restoring sources
Hey guys, I need help. I've just redirected all the remaining dropped/lowered tuning articles, and I was moving all the sources from there to this article, but somehow, the edit was rejected and I couldn't restore them, and I don't wanna have to waste so much time trying again. So can any of you please help bring the sources from those redirected articles to this one? Thanks....SirZPthundergod9001 (talk) 03:42, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Why was the article for A#/B♭ deleted?
What was the reasoning for the deletion of this page? It was an extremely valuable list of examples for a somewhat uncommon tuning that is somewhat uncommon, and said list is not present anywhere else on the internet. This information is just somewhat buried now as a result 172.58.129.252 (talk) 13:58, 29 May 2022 (UTC)