Talk:Stringed instrument tunings

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: ... 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  How to show courses? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Yep. And apropos your edit comment, maybe it should be pointed out that, technically speaking, a ukulele is tuned "My Dog Has Fleas"—right? +ILike2BeAnonymous 08:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wiseacre.  ;-) __Just plain Bill 15:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  another nit: aren't some ukes tuned "down and up?" 

message: 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:
Notation                                         	Tuning                                                                               	Strings & Courses	Alternative Names	Origin	Notes
dots without spaces - as currently implemented   	F1 F2•G1 G2•A1 A2•B1 B2•C2 C3•D2 D3•E2 F2 G2 C3 F3 A3 D4 G4                          	                 	                 	      	
dots with spaces - as originally suggested       	F1 F2 • G1 G2 • A1 A2 • B1 B2 • C2 C3 • D2 D3 • E2 • F2 • G2 • C3 • F3 • A3 • D4 • G4	                 	                 	      	
connecting "+" for strings within course         	F1+F2 G1+G2 A1+A2 B1+B2 C2+C3 D2+D3 E2 F2 G2 C3 F3 A3 D4 G4                          	                 	                 	      	
direct connection for strings within course      	F1F2 G1G2 A1A2 B1B2 C2C3 D2D3 E2 F2 G2 C3 F3 A3 D4 G4                                	                 	                 	      	
compressed - just as an idea (derived from above)	F12 G12 A12 B12 C23 D23 E2 F2 G2 C3 F3 A3 D4 G4                                      	                 	                 	      	
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. — Sebastian 05:44, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Hello again! Just checking in to see whether the thinking has come to fruition, and if anyone else has an opinion on this. — Sebastian 07:03, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Course notation not optimal 

message: 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)
thread_title: Helmholtz Octave Designations

message: 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)
thread_title: Octave Designations Notation Diagram?

message: Seems odd to me the way they are now shown:
Instrument    	Tuning                                                                         	Strings & Courses  	Alternative Names	Origin 	Notes
Irish bouzouki	G3 G2 • D4 D3 • A3 A3 • D4 D4	8 strings/4 courses	zouk             	Ireland	Irish tuning (octaves)
Not knowing any better, I'd probably string one like this:
Instrument    	Tuning                                                                         	Strings & Courses  	Alternative Names	Origin 	Notes
Irish bouzouki	G2 G3 • D3 D4 • A3 A3 • D4 D4	8 strings/4 courses	zouk             	Ireland	Irish tuning (octaves)
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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Irish zouk octave courses? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Lowest to Highest or Left to Right Courses? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Good job; a few suggestions? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  A few observations from the original page creator 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Missing Instruments 

message: 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)
thread_title: Banjo Illustrations

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant 
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Greek wooden baglama.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: 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)
thread_title:  In-line References Flag Removed 

message: In this and this edit, our model archlute gained 7 strings without explanation. Is that right? — Sebastian 05:26, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Archlute gained 7 strings 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Walaycho

message: 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)
thread_title: New Stuff