Talk:Stringed instrument tunings

Missing info: octave
For example, the viola and the cello are not tuned alike, nor are the bass guitar and the bottom four strings of its 6-string cousin... not sure how best to put this into the tables. __Just plain Bill 01:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, what's the convention for this? Hint: there are systems of writing note names indicating which octave they're in that actually predate Wikipedia. Who'da thunk it? (I'm saying this out of ignorance, as I know the system exists but don't know the details.) +ILike2BeAnonymous 01:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Cute. Of course a cello's lowest note is C2, where the viola's is C3. The question is more about how to fit this information into the table so it's readable and doesn't add confusion. When someone adds the Theorbo or even the Twelve string guitar, things could get hairy. __Just plain Bill 12:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, I went and tried something on cello, viola, and violin. Comments? _Just plain Bill


 * I say do it to it. The worst part will be all the guitar tunings, with 6 notes, which look like they'll still fit in their cells nicely; the absolute worst will be archlute, which may require a couple of lines. +ILike2BeAnonymous 18:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

How to show courses?
I just put octaves on the double bass, and guessed the keynote D of the mountain dulcimer is an octave below a violin's open D, based on string length. Not sure about the octave of the upper "D" course, but I've always twisted that one around depending on what mode the tune was in. Work in progress here...

I'm OK with listing strings lowest-to-highest pitch, since that seems pretty common, even though strings are conventionally numbered high-to-low (e.g. the G string of a violin is number IV.) Not so sure about how to deal with courses of paired strings (or more; there's a saz on the mantel here with eight strings in 3 courses, 3-2-3) particularly when the courses are not tuned in unison, or when not all courses have the same number of strings, such as that saz or the Appalachian dulcimer.

For now, I'll suggest we use something like "G3 D4 A4 E5" for a mandolin, with each course the same number of strings tuned in unison, "D3 A3 (D4)x2" for the plucked dulcimer, and something like "(E2 E3) (A2 A3) (D3 D4) (G3 G3) (B3 B3) (E4 E4)" for the 12-string guitar.

I'll wait a day or two before going much further with this. My knowledge of Latin and Asian instruments is limited, so I intend to leave those entries alone. __Just plain Bill 03:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Using parentheses to group courses is a good idea (e.g., (A2 A3)). I noticed that in the dulcimer example you continued using this for unison pairs; why not use this always for consistency (so mandolin would be (G3 G3) (D4 D4) (A4 A4) (E5 E5))? Sure, it takes up more space, but it makes the whole thing more ... orthogonal. Whaddya think? +ILike2BeAnonymous 03:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, while [someone's] at it, it would be good to add a note at the top of the article explaining the nomenclature: that strings are listed from low pitch to high, and explain the octave numbering for those unfamiliar with this notation. +ILike2BeAnonymous 03:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

We were typing together, it seems. Here's what I was going to add:


 * Another way to show the 12-string might be "E2,3 A2,3 D3,4 G3,3 (or 3,2) B3,3 E4,4" if that's the way you tune such a thing. It's still a pretty bulky notation, and not as readable as the other one above. (I firmly believe that presentation should not get in the way of speedy comprehension.)

But you're right, the parentheses help a bit. I'm still going to wait a day or few, in case other comments come in. __Just plain Bill 03:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Just to let you know, I added 12-string git-box in the "new" notation: (E2 E3) (A2 A3) ... etc. It doesn't look too bad, if I don't say so myself. One thing: I put non-breaking spaces between the pairs so they stick together. Could also use a comma, but I think the less cluttered, the better. Want to take a crack at changing all the other entries (at least the ones you're sure about the octave)? +ILike2BeAnonymous 20:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * ... and furthermore: Another proposal: if we're going to use the (n1 n2) format for notating multiple-string courses, how about omitting the parentheses altogether on instruments which have only single-string courses, in the further interest of not cluttering things? (So 6-string guitar would be simply E2 A2 D2 G2 B3 E4). +ILike2BeAnonymous 21:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * That works fine for me. Did the ones I'm reasonably confident of; don't know a lot about banjos, could make some reasonable guesses, but won't for now. __Just plain Bill 03:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

another nit: aren't some ukes tuned "down and up?"
OK after this one I'll give it a rest for the night. Where an instrument's strings are not tuned in ascending order, to me it seems OK to list them from "bass" to "treble" side, as guitar or violin strings go from left to right when viewed from the front with the headstock or scroll upwards. __Just plain Bill 04:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yep. And apropos your edit comment, maybe it should be pointed out that, technically speaking, a ukulele is tuned "My Dog Has Fleas"&mdash;right? +ILike2BeAnonymous 08:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Wiseacre. ;-) __Just plain Bill 15:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Formatting the table: bullets vs. spaces, etc.
I'm quite happy with your use of the Acoustical Society of America Octave Designations, but I have to admit to being a little annoyed at the manner in which you're setting formatting policy for this page. I see little or no discussion regarding the way it should or shouldn't be laid out. As the creator of this particular page, I'm certainly not looking for personal glory, just a little more respect in this matter. The removal of the bulleted entries seemed to be a little petty, when in my opinion the entries are lot less cluttered, rather than using endless parathenses which make the columns unnecessarily wide. I was tempted to revert the page again, but feel it's an exercise in tit-for-tat futility. Also, I fundamentally disagree with you over the labelling of entries involving Europe as an origin. Certainly this isn't as specific as other entries, but it does give sufficient information about the approximate region, rather than leaving no idea at all about where an instrument originated. Comparing it with the relevancy of the world as a destination is spurious in the extreme. tagrich1961 (Tobe A. Richards) 22nd July 2007
 * I favor a single-character separator between courses; saves 7 characters for a 6-course instrument, which helps readability a lot. Separator characters don't provide as much info as the note/octave character pairs (or triples where there's an accidental sign) and hence don't deserve as much ink. Bullets work just fine for that.
 * I also favor keeping "Europe" where no more specific country applies. The violin wasn't invented in the Americas, for example. Was there an "Italy" at the time of its invention? More questions than answers. Ancestral fiddles came from Asia (somewhere, whatever the locals called that place at the time) but the form we now know as a violin came from Tuscany or cis-Alpine Gaul or somewhere around there. Maybe. I don't know, so I won't put that in the article. Unless someone else beats me to it, I'll be happy to put the bullets back, though. __Just plain Bill 03:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Before anyone makes any drastic changes to the formatting of the whole enchilada, could someone humor me and provide a sample of what this might look like, here on this "talk" page? It would be nice to see what it looks like before committing to it. (Be sure to include some multi-string-course instruments.) Just a couple-few rows of the table would be plenty.
 * One small objection I have to using bullets is that they're a little more difficult to use for others who might edit who may not be familiar with those characters. (I'm assuming they're in the big box of special characters on the editing page; are they? And of course there's always copy-and-paste.) Not necessarily a show-stopper, but something to consider. +ILike2BeAnonymous 06:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Firstly,apologies for getting slightly hot on the collar about the formatting. I guess we're all pretty passionate about stringed instruments or else none of us would bother editing it lol! But I do feel bullets might be a space saver compared with parantheses - that was my sole reason for implementing them. If you look in the character box just below the editing panel, you'll find the bullet symbol beside the down arrow character ↓. I would agree to a certain extent the bullet symbol isn't quite as easy to find as the 2 paratheses characters, but as you so rightly point out, good old cut and paste is a quick and easy option for any editing Wikipedians. The only reason I chose the bullet is because it's fairly visible and a tidy character. We could just leave a space, but I think the eye has a little trouble always seeing a clear division between the courses/strings, particularly for viewers with less than 20/20 vision. Oh I nearly forgot, I believe you asked for an example of the bulleted entries. Obviously, this isn't in table format, but it probably doesn't really matter. E2•A2•D3•G3•B3•E4 or E2 • A2 • D3 • G3 • B3 • E4. Personally, I think I prefer the second version with the spaces inbetween, as it looks a bit less squashed, but I'm quite open to other opinions on this.


 * The Europe issue is a tricky one, but if we use it provisionally with any entry without a clear origin (always supposing it is from Europe!), that would seem a good half-way house option. I profess to knowing more about fretted than fretless instruments, so the violin family aren't really in my area of knowledge anyway.


 * This page, as I may have mentioned, is obviously going to be a constantly evolving affair, so some entries will hopefully, as time goes by, acquire more specific information. For instance, if we haven't got specific information about the octave designations regarding the tuning of the strings/courses, but do have the note names of the courses, this I would say would be better than leaving it totally blank. But obviously, the correct octave designations are the best way to go if we know them.


 * If either of you or any other wouldbe editors have any other ideas about adding additional information, diagrams etc. that's something further we could discuss. Anyhow, if we can arrive at a consensus over the formatting issue and get it out of the way, we can concentrate on the more interesting issue of adding entries. One final thing I did consider adding to the tables was a column for scale length, but I wasn't sure if this would make the table width too unwieldy. If not, this could make a useful sister page, possibly with other constructional information (?). tagrich1961 (Tobe A. Richards) 23rd July 2007


 * Since you didn't really provide the examples I was looking for, I went ahead and did it myself. Here are two representative entries, in the current format (using spaces and parentheses) and in a prospective new format using bullets (•) as separators, both with and without parentheses to enclose courses:


 * One thing you'll notice is that the new format takes up more space overall than the old one for single-string courses (but less overall for multiple ones if parentheses are omitted). So what do folks think of this? +ILike2BeAnonymous 17:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * My feeling is that there are likely to be a large number of double coursed instruments spread throughout the table, so I probably unsurprisingly favour the bulleted format. Putting aside the width aspect of it, I personally find them easier to read. tagrich1961 (Tobe A. Richards) 23rd July 2007


 * The bullet character being difficult for some to find is a non-issue IMO. It could just as easily be a splat (*) a bang (!) a pipe (|) or any other suitable character. In a variable-width font the pipe would probably be the slimmest character. For instruments with only single-string courses, why not just use a space, the way it was earlier? The bottom two entries below have no regular spaces, with the "advantage" that the Tuning column (which carries the main info content here) will not shrink and break into a new line as the window shrinks or the text size gets bigger. Comment?


 * Aah, don't like it; too squished. See my addition of a line with spaces around the vertical bar characters. Still don't really like it, though. +ILike2BeAnonymous 23:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, how about with sneaks instead of pipes? Line after your addition. Compact is OK, squished is not so great. I'm growing fond of the "no linebreaks in the column that is the reason for us being here" idea. __Just plain Bill 23:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * "Sneaks"? Where does that usage come from? Er, but no; don't like them. By the way, just popped in to say I endorse your idea of simply spacing single-string courses w/spaces. +ILike2BeAnonymous 23:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Pipe is unix-speak from the seventies or so. Sneak, bang, splat are all IBM-speak from around then as well. Once worked with a good old boy of that generation. Still thinking about the other stuff. __Just plain Bill 23:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * <&mdash; Don't want to commit myself too early, but it's looking like bullets may be the best option, visually and graphically speaking, to delimit multi-string courses. I wonder what that other editor has to say about all this? +ILike2BeAnonymous 23:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I just added a couple of lines with diamonds and bullets, but no spaces between courses. Tobe? __Just plain Bill 00:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Apologies for the late reply - I very cleverly managed to put my back out - thus the delay! Firstly, I think we're all agreed on using a non-squished format, so whichever we choose, there should be a space between the bullets and/or courses or whatever. I first used the bulleted format on a similar table in the frettedfriends database and it seems to work ok, so if you both agree on that method, that might be the way to go, certainly with the double/triple course instruments. For single courses, I'm not overly worried either way, we can use spaces or bullets with spaces. The main concern of mine is readibility and obviously continuity should other editors become in involved. Incidentally, if either of you are particularly interested in fretted instruments, I run a discussion group on the net. It's called frettedfriends (one word) and is one of the Yahoo Groups. At present we have 2000+ members from around the world, so as you can imagine, most fretted instruments get discussed. Incidentally Bill, I love your terminology - splats, bangs etc. wonderfully descriptive! :-) __tagrich1961 14:06, 25th June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Descriptive and monosyllabically compact is why I keep using them. More of a fretless orientation here, tnx for the invite as well. I wonder how you & others feel about using nonbreaking en spaces for the white space in the Tuning column, so it doesn't collapse at various view sizes. Bullets work OK for me. __Just plain Bill 15:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Formalizing the proposal somewhat:
 * Use bullets and spaces for multi-string courses
 * Use spaces only for single-string courses
 * Use non-breaking spaces throughout to prevent line breaks
 * Just got an idea; would it be worthwhile to find someone to code a template that could do this formatting automatically? Say something like ? That would relieve editors of a lot of drudgery (copying & pasting, hunting for special characters, etc.). +ILike2BeAnonymous 17:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds fine to me! Code writing isn't in my sphere of knowledge, so if you think you can find a code writer to simplify things, it sounds a good idea. __tagrich1961 14:06, 25th June 2007 (UTC)
 * The deed is done. I could probably code such a template, but having a sense of the amount of work involved with all the ifs, ands, and buts I can think of right now off the top of my head (not counting the ones that would be bound to show up after debugging started) I'd rather not. Just doing the editing was easier.


 * Kindly see what you think of the arch-lute and dulcimer entries. They were the only odd ones for the moment. __Just plain Bill 23:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Octaves on the ronroco are place-holders here, since I have no idea what they really are.
 * __Just plain Bill 23:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

One little fly in the ointment (isn't there always?) comes up with the entry for archlute. Here it is, before and after I edited it to remove the parentheses:

In order to make this whole scheme more orthogonal, I think the second format should be used (at least in those rare cases of instruments with both single- and multiple-string courses). But I'm wondering whether it's clear to others which strings go with which this way: is it obvious that all the strings after the last pair of Ds are single-string courses? (I'm still thinking about a template to automate the insertion of these tunings.) +ILike2BeAnonymous 03:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That works. It leaves the dulcimer with parentheses. With a single bullet, that one is unclear: no typographic distinction between the two single strings and the double course. Did the archlute that way to keep things consistent... for now it looks like we still have one oddity, that, I can live with. __Just plain Bill 04:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Course notation not optimal
I know, this has been discussed extensively above, and it's been stable for 6 years. Still, as someone who is seeing this page for the first time, I'd like to raise my voice that the current notation isn't that straightforward to the uninitiated. The dot seems to rather connect strings than separate them, and at least my browser (Firefox) interprets it just that way: it keeps any groups connected with a dot in one line, and breaks at the space, which adds to the confusion. That was better in ILike2BeAnonymous's first table (last entry), which surrounds the bullets with spaces. But I'm not coming here with a preconceived notion for how it should best be done. Leaving the default notation for separate courses, and the non-default notation for strings within a course would have a logical advantage, as can be seen for the 20-string archlute (as it was in the article until 2010, see below, but I'm guessing the octaves). So, allow me to post an updated table of different notations for your kind consideration:

An alternative to all of this might also be to use musical notation, but of course that would be space consuming, unless we'd use 8va notation. &mdash; Sebastian 05:44, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This time around, at first glance, my favorite is the spaced dots, followed by the plus signs. The direct and compressed options, not so much. Thinking and watching... __ Just plain Bill (talk) 15:40, 6 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello again! Just checking in to see whether the thinking has come to fruition, and if anyone else has an opinion on this. &mdash; Sebastian 07:03, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Helmholtz Octave Designations
One thing I haven't brought up is whether to include Helmholtz designations in the table. Personally, I think this would make it too cluttered and probably isn't strictly necessary. I did include them in the diagram as I know a number of players prefer them over the ASA system, but it's a simple enough matter just to refer to the diagram, should people wish to use this system. Also I find them more difficult to read. tagrich1961 (Tobe A. Richards) 23rd July 2007
 * That works fine for me; not fond of graphic clutter. __Just plain Bill 22:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Octave Designations Notation Diagram?
I'm pretty busy at the moment, but I wondered what you both thought about me adding a notation staff/stave diagram to compliment the piano version, displaying the octave designations in notation as well? My reasoning being not everyone can visualize the pitch on the piano, but a lot of interested parties are familiar with notation. __tagrich1961 14:06, 25th June 2007 (UTC)
 * Go nuts, sez I. Multiple avenues into the information are a good thing in my book. Grand staff seems appropriate. Bigger project than I want to lay hold of just now... __Just plain Bill 00:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Irish zouk octave courses?
Seems odd to me the way they are now shown:

Not knowing any better, I'd probably string one like this:

So a down-pick hits the lower octave string first. I'll go ask an Irish traddie on a forum I inhabit, and if anyone here knows for sure in the meantime, kindly either fix it in the article or say so here and I'll do the editing. __Just plain Bill 00:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. Enough folks there believe that the thin string goes on the bass side of the octave courses that I'll leave it alone here. __Just plain Bill 23:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Generally, the high octave strings would be on the outside (i.e. 8th and 6th strings), but this isn't a hard and fast rule. A bit like the 12-string guitar, some players prefer the high octave inside and others, out. I play the Irish zouk, but I prefer the instrument strung with unison pairs. It's all personal preference, really. __tagrich1961 23:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Lowest to Highest or Left to Right Courses?
I've been thinking about this and I'm wondering if it might be a better idea to indicate that all entries will feature left to right tunings instead of specifying lowest to highest. The reason I say this is because there are exceptions to this where there could be some confusion. The main one being the mountain dulcimer and it's European cousins which are strung in the reverse direction with the melody or high pitched courses to the left or nearest to player's body. Then you also have instruments with re-entrant tunings where there might also be some confusion, such as the ukulele and charango. Anyhow, let me know what you think. I did make a small amendedment to the introduction to cover anomalies, but I'm not sure if this is really necessary if we stick to one rule throughout. __tagrich1961 20:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Good job; a few suggestions?
First I'd like to thank whoever created this page and those who helped whip it into shape. You've tackled a broad and complex subject and done a damned good job of it.

One suggestion I'd make is to list instruments first by their most notable type, and /then/ by qualifier. I noticed this because I came here looking for the traditional tuning for a Bouzouki, and at first thought that there was no entry for it. So, for example, I would suggest:

Bouzouki, Greek Bouzouki, Irish

instead of the current "Greek Bouzouki" and "Irish Bouzouki". This makes more organological sense as well, since the Greek instrument is the true bouzouki ('bouzouki' is a Greek word), and the Irish "Bouzouki" is really a tenor mandolin (also called an 'octave mandolin').

Adopting this convention would be helpful as well in locating the various flavors of "guitar," as in:

Guitar, Classical Guitar, Falmenco Guitar, Tenor Guitar, Twelve-String etc.

As it stands now, one has to wade through the many guitars and scan over three columns to find the sub-type. This approach would also make the chart more consistent -- as it stands now, 12-string guitar is grouped under "G" with the other guitars, while "Tenor Guitar" is way down by itself under "T"


 * I think this is a fantastic idea, and the same should be done for all the different types of banjos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Claireislovely (talk • contribs) 20:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

My second suggestion is to eliminate the many entries for variant tunings of the guitar, fiddle (and some of the other instruments), and just list the current standard tuning, and perhaps one or two of the most common alternates. The number of possible tunings is, after all, virtually infinite (if one includes microtones), and although a few notable performers have achieved fame using things like open D-minor tuning, said tuning is still quite rare.

Using the guitar as an example, I would give standard tuning (E-A-D-G-B-E), Dropped D tuning (D-A-D-G-B-E), "lute" tuning (E-A-D-F#-B-E), and perhaps one example of an "open" tuning, perhaps D or G, with a footnote leading to a separate page discussing alternate tunings.

A couple other points: I own a pretty wide variety of guitars myself, but I have to say that I have never seen an actual example of a "soprano guitar" tuned an octave higher than the standrad guitar. It's theoretically possible, of course, and given the seemingly endless variations available these days (e.g., 7-string guitars, 8-string guitars, 10-string guitars, etc., etc.) it's probably true that *somebody* *somewhere* has made one, and somebody owns it -- but unless an actual example is uncovered, I'd leave it off the list. (If you -do- know where an example of this instrument can be found, that would make an intriguing footnote, as well.)

There also seem to be a number of omissions, although I can add some of those in myself, when I have more time. A few that I noticed were:

Baritone Ukulele (oops!  there it is, three columns over... :-)

Tenor Ukulele: 4-string, 4-course 6-string, 4 course 6-string, 6-course

Li'liu (a tenor uke variant)

These are actually pretty commonly available these days.

I also didn't find any entry for Harp Guitar, nor for either of the true dulcimers (Cimbalom, or "hammered" dulcimer). Come to think of it, there are no entries for Harp (either Pedal Harp or Folk ("Celtic") Harp).

You might also note that your listing of "Guitar Banjo" is also known as a "Banjitar," (there also exists a counterpart that puts a 5-string banjo neck on a guitar body, known as a "Guitjo" or an "Gitanjo", but that one is probably only a little less rare than the Soprano Guitar :-)

Anyway, Wiki is always a work in progress; thought I'd add my $0.02 to the mix. Carry on, ladies and gents. 74.92.174.105 (talk) 02:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Where did the fiddle go?
Fiddle tunings were removed here at 14:54, 4 April 2010, without edit comment. Seems to me that was valid encyclopedic content... __ Just plain Bill (talk) 22:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * They were moved to under violin, the proper name. Fiddle is the colloquial folk name. Claireislovely (talk) 10:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. They are fiddle tunings, used in fiddling traditions. Similar (sometimes identical) instrument, very different genre. Right now the violin only shows one scordatura tuning. There are several more amongst the missing. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 12:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe there is justification for including all the previous fiddle crosstunings, despite the anon suggestion above to "eliminate the many entries for variant tunings". There does not seem to be a predominant alternate tuning for the fiddle; each of the ones mentioned has its own set of uses, and in some circles, GDAE is the exception more than the rule. Any reason I should not restore the previous fiddle tunings under "F" ? __ Just plain Bill (talk) 21:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Why not restore the 'fiddle' tunings under V for violin? They are after all one and the same instrument, and violin is the proper name. Fiddle is more of a colloquial folk name. Claireislovely (talk) 08:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Not really one and the same. Fiddling on a violin may often be done, but violinning on a fiddle is not always convenient, and sometimes hardly possible. Differences in setup account for that, as well as the condition and quality of the equipment. Fiddlers are far more likely than violinists to play an instrument with five strings, for example, or to play left-handed, either "over the bass" on a normally strung instrument, or on a purpose-built instrument, with reversed soundpost, bass bar, and pegbox. These cross-tunings are used by fiddlers, for playing fiddle tunes, and to call them violinists playing violins is inaccurate, perhaps even a bit discourteous. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 12:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * So what you're saying is that fiddle and violin are the same instrument played and tuned differently. I rest my case :p Claireislovely (talk) 17:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It appears that your case does not rest on a very extensive knowledge of fiddling. Violin family instruments are individuals, no two exactly alike, even though some may stick more or less closely to certain vital dimensions. All violins are fiddles, but not all fiddles are violins, even though a casual inspection by a guitar player might not show much difference. This page obviously covers a great diversity of string instruments. One of those instruments is called a "fiddle," not a "violin" for reasons quite apparent to the player of either. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 18:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I used to play classical violin, and people frequently called it a fiddle. I don't know where you live, but here in the UK, the two terms are interchangeable, and fiddle is just a 'folky' colloquial name for the violin. I know many ethnic bowed instruments are sometimes called 'fiddles' by westerners, too, and this further suggests the term is not encyclopaedic. You could call an Erhu a fiddle, but that has it's own section here, and so does the violin. Why make a new special section for the violin under fiddle when the 'western fiddle' (violin) already has a section? Claireislovely (talk) 20:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Players prefer instruments with different voices and responses. In an orchestra, section players place different demands on their axes than soloists do. Generalization (you see I mostly write US English) is usually inaccurate, but fiddlers and violinists tend to prefer instruments with different capabilities. There is not a bright line that says any particular instrument is one or the other, but many of them are much more suitable as violins than as fiddles, and vice versa.


 * Some of the differences are a matter of setup or configuration, and hence more subject to conversion than others. Choice of string type is easy to change. Things like action height, bridge top curve, and presence or lack of fine tuners may be changed without a lot of work. Graduation and bass bar voicing may be altered, but at greater cost in labor. Wood choice and arching are not really subject to change. Some latitude is possible regarding mensur, or proportion of neck stop to body stop, since the bridge may be moved, effectively changing the body stop to a limited extent. The neck stop is effectively unalterable without the expense of a neck graft, and if it differs too greatly from 130 mm, it may render an instrument unfit for violin service, but leave it perfectly acceptable as a fiddle.


 * If a player puts their axe into Calico tuning, one may expect they are playing a fiddle, and that they may consider it amusing, impertinent, or offensive to insist on calling it a violin. Of course some players do not care what you call it, because they know very well what it is they have in their hands.


 * The chief point here, though, is that these particular tunings are fiddle tunings, and it is reasonable to say a reader will expect to find them listed there. That's how I see our job as encyclopedia editors. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 22:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I realize I have left out the primary relevant bit of context here. The tunings in question largely pertain to North American "Old-Time" fiddling. While many modern players in this style use violins set up to serve as fiddles, the "ideal" instrument used in the genre would need drastic alteration before it would work as a violin. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 11:45, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

You have done a lot of work on this page, and in great measure obviously know what you are about. However, I strenuously object to listing fiddle tunings under "violin" since they are not violin tunings. To insist on calling a fiddler's instrument a violin is elitist and parochial, to put it politely. Some people with thinner skins than myself might even find it offensive. You may say they are the same instrument, and there is indeed a lot of overlap, but while such an instrument is rigged as a fiddle, it is not a violin. That it could be set up as a violin does not make it one, not at that moment. One requirement for accurately calling it a violin is that it be able to play violin repertoire, which many times will not be the case.

The first place a general reader can be expected to look for fiddle tunings is under "F," and insisting that the reader take a further step to "V" does not make their life easier, nor does it accurately report the facts on the ground. True, in everyday usage, "violin" and "fiddle" are more or less interchangeable, but more precisely, and relevant to this context of cross-tunings, they refer to two different instruments, even if the difference may be transient compared to a centuries-long service life. We humans, however, do not have the luxury of playing them hundreds of years at a time, and can only play the instrument the way we find it right now. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 17:49, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

A few more things: One level-headed luthier has summarized the difference as "At the most extreme, different arching etc to get a gritty bass and more metallic whining tone. Often a lower break angle over the bridge. Steel strings. Fine tuners. Thinner bridge feet. Thicker bridge top. Different soundpost location. Less or no relief in the fingerboard. Sometimes a different radius on the fingerboard. Usually a different radius on the bridge top."

A bit like a soloist's violin, a good fiddle has a sound that stands out against, or "cuts through" the sound of loud accompaniment, such as a banjo, or perhaps melodeon. Unlike that violin, if the fiddle has a flattish bridge top (some modern fiddlers use a CD as a template, giving a 60 mm radius rather than the much rounder classical standard 42 mm) then clean articulation of off-string passages in upper positions will be difficult to impossible, that is to say unacceptable by violinistic standards. Conversion between types of setup certainly cannot be done in mid-performance. Some instruments may be unrewarding or outright impossible to convert, even though they all share a strong family resemblance.

You say that "violin" is the "proper" name, and "fiddle" is colloquial. Is that verifiable by a reliable source, or is it your sense based on the way those around you use the words? Is "violin" more "proper" as an English word because it comes to us through the Romance languages rather than the Germanic ones? I foresee difficulties in any attempt to support such an assertion as it relates to this context. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 19:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

A few observations from the original page creator
Firstly, I like the idea of adding photographs of the actual instruments. My only criticism of them would be there's a lot of variation in format (i.e. landscape, portrait or diagonal modes). Where it's a simple matter of rotating them in an image editing program like Photoshop or Photo Paint, then I feel this might tidy it up a bit. It's a minor quibble though. There are a few pics missing which are readily available from the net, so maybe those could added as well - such as the ronroco.

Now I'm not sure if I should wade into the violin vs fiddle debate as I'm strictly a fretted instrument specialist, but to my way of thinking I don't think it hurts to feature both entries. Of all the colloquial terms used in instrument naming conventions, fiddle is arguably the most accepted variant of violin. Also, when used in a folk music context, the word violin is rarely if ever used. This I believe is the clincher in the debate from my point of view. One is from the classical tradition, the other, folk. tagrich1961 (talk) 10:00, 30 August 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 08:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC).

Missing Instruments
I noticed a few missing instruments. Please add others or create corresponding entries in the actual article. (Unfortunately I don't have time to do this right now - Futnuh (talk) 07:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC))
 * Guzheng
 * Koto
 * Zither
 * Another missing instrument is the SAPE, is there anyone reading this could do this ? I have asked sape players but never really got a suitable answer to the tuning - Sape is made of solid wood hollowed to provide a sound box, it is native to Malaysian borneo - sarawak, mostly in the north played by the Kayan, Kenyan and Kelabit tribes although many others (e.g. Ibans, Westerners) have fallen in love with the instrument, its often sold as a tourist souvenir. It has I think 4 or 5 strings - 3 being played as drones, it is like a crude sitar and sounds just as haunting.

I added the concert zither.... add more zither types to that section if you have the information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.125.227.164 (talk) 22:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Balalaikas missing octaves?
Are the piccolo, primo, and alto balalaikas really tuned identically? I don't think so -- octave information is needed here. Also, the illustrations make all the balalaikas look identical, but in the balalaika orchestras I've seen there is a considerable size difference between the piccolo and the bass.

Banjo Illustrations
The illustration for every banjo type shows the same 5-string bluegrass banjo. I'm not sure this is helpful and it could be misleading. Surely it can't be difficult to get a picture of a 4-string tenor banjo, as common as they are? And the others could probably be found in turn-of-the-19th century photos of banjo ensembles -- photos that old surely must be in the public domain? In any event, for any listed instrument, -no- picture is probably preferable to the -wrong- picture. 67.206.163.232 (talk) 07:46, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Separate Chart for Alternate Tunings
I'd like to suggest a separate chart, or even a separate article for alternate tunings. For example, you've got a half-dozen or more tunings listed for "fiddle," but only a couple for "guitar". If you're going to give all those alternates for fiddle, one could easily justify giving a dozen more for guitar. But doing that would clutter up the chart. Makes more sense to me to just have the standard tuning, and maybe the *most common* variation listed here, with a link to a chart or page having a more exhaustive listing. (I mean, come on... "Zoltan Kodaly" tuning for cello? Even Kodaly used standard tuning -most- of the time.  This is specialized enough that it shouldn't be in a chart of basic, standard tunings -- but it would be at home in an article on "alternate tunings.")  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.206.163.232 (talk) 08:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Another approach that would neaten up the chart, and make it easier to use, would be to add a /column/ for listing the alternate tunings, or better yet, incorporate all the tunings into a single column.
 * That way, instead of listing "fiddle" nine serpatate times (for example), it would just be listed once, the standard or most common tuning listed first, followed by another column oe list in which other frequently used tunings would be given and identified.
 * For an instrument that has no "standard" tuning, a representative "common" tuning could be given first, followed by the variants.
 * This would shorten the charts, making things easier to find, reduce the number of repetitive illustrations, maintain the alternate tunings with this article (and allow space to add more, since the charts would be much shorter once the redundancies were removed).


 * Using "fiddle" as an example, the result could look like this:


 * This reduces the number of "fiddle" entries from 9 to 1, shortens table space by at least 25%, eliminates 56 cells, and yet preserves all of the original information given for "fiddle".
 * One other suggestion is to convert all pitches to Standard Scientific Pitch Notation (Middle C = C4). This is universal, unambiguous, and far less "fussy" than Helmholtz notation.
 * Comments?
 * One other suggestion is to convert all pitches to Standard Scientific Pitch Notation (Middle C = C4). This is universal, unambiguous, and far less "fussy" than Helmholtz notation.
 * Comments?
 * Comments?

74.92.174.105 (talk) 22:46, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Whole-hearted endorsement of scientific pitch notation. The ambiguous entries, with octave unspecified, can be left that way for now.
 * Condensing alternate tunings as you suggest seems like a good idea; let's wait for further comment on that.
 * The chart should reflect the Fnerff being commonly called a "Bin-gubbins" in the UK. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 12:37, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, it's been more than a year since I posted my suggestions and to date, yours is the only comment, Bill. I'm going to take that to mean that no one has any serious objections to the proposed chart neatening.  When I get some time in the next couple of weeks, I'll see to it, if I can.  Will also add scientific notation octaves where I know them, and get "Bin-gubbins" in there. :-)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.92.174.105 (talk) 19:25, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Took a little longer than anticipated, but I finished neatening up the charts in the new format, removing duplicate entries and condensing alternate tunings under single entries, where appropriate. Added a couple of missing instruments (e.g. Tiple Colombiano Requinto), and added a few references.
 * ....I also put in octave designations where I knew them, but there's still a lot of work that could be done there; I'll continue to add these as I come across them.
 * ....Also removed illustrations which were incorrect (for example, a 5-string bluegrass banjo is not an appropriate illustration of a 4-string tenor banjo). There could be a lot more illustrations; it should be possible to find public domain illustrations for nearly all but the most recently invented instruments.
 * ....I will, however, leave the illustrating to someone else. I've had bad experience with trying to provide images for Wiki -- even my own, donated, copyright free images have been refused admission into the august realm of Wiki, and that after more than a year of haggling.
 * .......One more thing: I added a small chart, of my own creation, for tuning the open strings on the Alpine and Concert Zithers.  I really couldn't think of any more compact way to give the tuning for a 42-stringed instrument, and it seemed necessary -- when I frist got hold of a zither it took the best part of a year for me to find a source on how to tune all those strings, so I figured others may find the chart handy.
 * 74.92.174.105 (talk) 02:06, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

In-line References Flag Removed
This is already a very busy set of tables and requiring "in-line references" seems redundant, unnecessary, and contrary to the main purpose of having a _chart_. Redundant and unnecessary because the list of references at the end of the article adequately addresses the sources for the various tunings: all of the orchestral instrument tunings can be found in Piston; 90% of the others in Marcuse; and the remainder Darling, Hanson, and Randall. Contrary to the purpose of a chart, because the primary purpose of a chart is to provide a quick, easy, uncluttered reference to a certain kind of information. If in-line refs are going to be required, for the sake of consistency essentially every instrument and tuning in the tables would require at least one in-line reference, cluttering up the charts with hundreds of unnecessary footnotes. 74.92.174.105 (talk) 22:36, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Starting to take shape
I've put a great deal of work into this article since last August, building on the excellent beginning the original creator of the article set up. Since then I have:
 * Completed restructuring of the chart as regards strings, courses, alternate tunings, and eliminated redundant entries.
 * Completed conversion of octave designations to scientific pitch notation.
 * Extensively researched proper octaves for the tunings, and have been able to provide them for maybe 95% of those which were lacking. (Still researching the others)
 * Removed incorrect illustrations, and (breaking my own vow not to mess with illustrations), located many instrument illustrations alrady in the Wiki Commons, and added them to the chart where they were missing. Probably 80% of instruments listed now have an appropriate illustration.
 * Adjusted chart column spacings as needed to accomodate the new information.
 * Added more than a dozen missing instruments, such as guitalele, koto, kora, Chapman stick, etc.
 * Improved explanatory notes for instruments in non-western tuning.
 * Added a bunch of references: in-line, bibliographic, "see also", and some selected external links.

What I'll probably do now is work on finding the octaves for those tunings still lacking them, illustrations for instruments still lacking them, and improving some of less clear illustrations already there. At this point I figured that any appropriate illustration was better than none at all, but some of those in the commons could eventually be upgraded with clearer photos, higher resolution, or less 'busy' backgrounds. Probably I will upload and donate to the Commons a bunch of of the pictures I've taken myself to partially address this.

Whew! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.92.174.105 (talk) 00:01, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Nice. Thanks! __ Just plain Bill (talk) 02:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You're welcome!
 * BTW, I just fixed 8 DAB links found by Wiki on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.92.174.105 (talk) 02:44, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Archlute gained 7 strings
In this and this edit, our model archlute gained 7 strings without explanation. Is that right? &mdash; Sebastian 05:26, 6 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Sebastian, not really sure what the issue is here? Archlutes can have a varying number of strings, from as few as 11 courses to as many as 14 courses.  In general, all courses but the highest are double-strung (though there are occasional exceptions to this).  So, assuming the maximum number of courses, with the maximum typical double-stringing, you would have: 13 double strung courses (26 strings) + one single-strung course = a total of 27 strings.  I see tunings given for 27 strings, and that is consistent with other information in the chart entry.  So, the entry appears to be correct.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.249 (talk) 23:33, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Walaycho
There doesn't seem to be a great deal of information about this instrument -- either printed or on the web, but having spent some time researching those which are available, I can report that all are consistent with the information present in the chart. That is, they all assert that the Walaycho is tuned either a fourth or a fifth above the standard charango tuning.

I am starting to believe, however, that these claims are all balls, and that the available sources cribbed from each other without actually seeing if such a tuning were possible. I'm here to report that, as far as I can tell, it isn't. Recently I acquired two walaychos from Bolivia, one with metal strings, the other with nylon strings. On neither instrument was I able to tune any string up as high as an A5, much less a B5. I tried strings of several different gauges and materials. G5 is barely possible, but both metal and nylon strings snap long before reaching G#5, much less A or higher.

This leads me to believe that there may not actually be a "standard" tuning for this instrument. It is possible to mimic charango tuning a fourth higher, provided that the center course and the top course are tuned an octave lower than specified -- that is, to A4 (or B4). This works out OK, as charango fingerings can still be used, but it does change the sound of the chords considerably.

Does anyone have any better information on what what actual pitches and octaves this instrument is usually tuned to? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.95.43.249 (talk) 00:00, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I was finally able to get a Walaycho tuned a 5th higher than the charango by stringing it with various gauges of monofilament nylon fishing line, 15 - 45 pound test, and gauges ranging from 0.013 - 0.022". I have read that charangos were originally strung with fishing line, so this is probably an authentic approach.  Can't get it anywhere near that high with commercially made strings, though, and even with fishing line the 5th-up tuning seems pretty much the practical limit.  This suggests to me that the tunings in the table for this instrument may at least be possible.  Would be nice to find a definitive source, though.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.249 (talk) 23:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

New Stuff
I just added a number of instruments to the chart, including: Ahenk, Ajayu, Akonting, Amzad, Armenico, Arpeggione, Celovic, Cahnzy, Contrabass Banjo, Geyerlier, Ektara, Epinette des Voages, Guitarron Argintino, Guitarra de Golpe, Ichigenkin, Octofone, Panduri, Saragi, Tiple de Menorca, Trembulo, several of the South American guitars designated as "viola [something]" and Zhongu. Quite a number of these already have independent Wiki articles, and really should have been in the chart. The rest are easily documented in the Marcuse reference already given, and from several web sources.

Where I found illustrations in Wiki Commons, I included them, and also added some for instruments already in the table which were lacking illustrations. Others are still needed. As regards the Contrabass Banjo, I found several illustrations on the web, some going back to the 19th century and probably in public domain, but as I wasn't sure about copyright I didn't use the illustrations, but footnoted links to them, instead.

It would be nice, as someone suggested earlier, to evnetually standardize the illustrations at least as far as having them all roughly the same size and all horizontal or all vertical, but that's a project for another day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.249 (talk) 00:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Russian 7 string guitars
Russian 7-string guitars are tuned not as American and Brazilian ones, but in an Open G tuning: D2 G2 B2 D2 G2 B3 D4. Sometimes both B's are shifted one semitone down to B-flats. Siealex (talk) 12:42, 14 July 2017 (UTC)


 * True. And if you drop down the chart to the "R" table, and check under "Russian Guitar", you'll find exactly that tuning given for the Russian 7-string guitar.
 * HTH :)
 * 74.95.43.249 (talk) 00:42, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Electric Bass - Guitar?
Shouldn't we move Bass guitar from G section to B section? It's not really part of 'guitar family', originaly upright bass was used in same way that electric bass is used nowadays usually. Leo Fender just created it's electric counterpart in Telecaster shape, with frets for more precision. And acoustic bass guitar didn't even existed yet. So electric bass just shares the shape with electric guitars, it's not really a guitar, so it should be under the G section as "guitar, bass" but it should be under B section as "bass" or "bass guitar" or "bass, electric", "bass, acoustic", etc.. 185.28.251.26 (talk) 18:11, 17 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Regardless of the musical function of the bass guitar, the fact is that it was derived from, and is, a guitar. It exists in both electric and acoustic forms, the details of construction are the same as for a guitar, and it has the same Hornbostel-Sachs classification as the other members of the guitar family -- 321.322.  It is the bass member of all-guitar ensembles, like the Niibori guitar orchestra.  Acoustic bass guitars, BTW, were made as far back as the early Baroque period, and modern acoustic bass instruments such as the bajo sexto and guitarron were around in the 1920s.


 * Moving it to "B" runs counter to the logic of the rest of the table, which classifies all other bass instruments (bass violin; bass banjo; bass balalaika; bass charango; etc., etc.) as low pitched members of their respective families.


 * That said, I agree that the bass guitar in modern culture is commonly enough referred to simply as "bass", and that someone might conceivably look for it under "B".  So... I've left the entry under "G", but added a cross-reference under "B" as well.  HTH.
 * 70.89.176.249 (talk) 02:21, 4 October 2018 (UTC) (formerly known as 74.95.43.249)