# Why choose to play an ERG with more than 8 strings?



## Poltergeist (Jun 13, 2014)

I feel like 8 string guitars are the limit for me at this point in time... I'm trying to see from a musicians perspective why a 9 or 10 string guitar would be desired or necessary when an 8 string with a 27" scale length can be setup to reach almost any tuning one could desire in the 1st or 0 octave. Besides the fact that a 9 or 10 string would have more strings, why do you think these guitars should or shouldn't grow into the ERG world? Do you think they're necessary for expanding musical expression or a redundancy of our human desire to "keep pushing the limits"? Are they really going to allow you to play something that you cant already play on an 8 or even a 7 if setup and tuned correctly? This thread is not meant to bash on these type of guitars in no manner! But the question is posed to stimulate conversation of peoples thoughts and logic on them, and how these guitars may possibly re-evaluate peoples musicianship and style with these instruments as their use in music progresses into the future.. When you have that many octaves, what does it mean for the role of the musician? Are they to fill the role of the guitarist or the bassist? or both? Again, this is all just to stimulate conversation, and for people to share their thoughts on them as the ERG world journeys towards tuning even lower... I put my perspective out there.. Now I'm looking to hear what you guys think.


----------



## Shimme (Jun 13, 2014)

Music has always been about pushing the limits since it became widely commercialized We're currently in a phase where bands are trying to push how chaotic and/or agressive music can be while still being listenable. I'm definetly on the side of "pushing things to the limit is part of human nature."

Guitars are tools, however many strings are needed for the job is the right answer to how many string do I need. I do think that for widespread use of 9+ strings a multiscale design becomes almost necessary.


----------



## rockskate4x (Jun 13, 2014)

check out the 0 octave club thread for some fun examples of this stuff being put to use!

IMO no good comes from putting limits on the tools we can use. A tool might go through fads and phases, which can make it quite annoying to people at times, but that doesn't make the tool bad to use. It is up to the creativity and skill of the artist or craftsman to put it to its best use.

EDIT: commenting on shimme saying that music has been about pushing limits since becoming widely commercialized. I'd push back and say, that many limits in music and the arts are imposed by society so that the arts cannot progress without severe public backlash. Pushing the limits is what caused many artists to die desperately poor, only to have their work appreciated many years later.


----------



## Hollowway (Jun 13, 2014)

Having heard the notes below the standard tuning on an 8 string, I like them. So that's why I would like a 9 string.


----------



## Shimme (Jun 13, 2014)

rockskate4x said:


> EDIT: I'd push back and say, that many limits in music and the arts are imposed by society so that the arts cannot progress without severe public backlash. Pushing the limits is what caused many artists to die desperately poor, only to have their work appreciated many years later.



That's why I think that the development of recording techniques is what's allowed music to push the limits so hard! While in the past you could only reach an audience through live performances, with the creation of phonographs and radios let artists throw a wider net of potential listeners (and buyers!) of their music, allowing playing unorthodox music to be a sustainable lifestyle.


----------



## jephjacques (Jun 13, 2014)

Because you want to?


----------



## Dayn (Jun 13, 2014)

I can't think of a way to say 'because they have more strings' without being snarky, sorry. Increased range, phrasing opportunities, tuning possibilities... That's literally it. If it's there, people will use it. If it's not there, people will create it.

I can already think of tunings I would use for a 10-string that build off the base standard tuning. It's cool and interesting, so of course I'm going to play it. Why limit myself?


----------



## broj15 (Jun 13, 2014)

Shimme said:


> That's why I think that the development of recording techniques is what's allowed music to push the limits so hard! While in the past you could only reach an audience through live performances, with the creation of phonographs and radios let artists throw a wider net of potential listeners (and buyers!) of their music, allowing playing unorthodox music to be a sustainable lifestyle.



not to mention the power of the internet along with the now (relatively) cheap home recording equipment anyone with a song in their head and the know how and desire to do so can record and release their own material. But going back further than that it really wasn't until the DIY movement that people realized you didn't need a push from a major label/distributer/promoter to get people to hear your music. After that is when you really start to see extreme music - everything from hardcore to metal to harsh noise - start to take off.


----------



## Philligan (Jun 13, 2014)

Hollowway said:


> Having heard the notes below the standard tuning on an 8 string, I like them. So that's why I would like a 9 string.



/thread


----------



## yingmin (Jun 14, 2014)

The question is fundamentally absurd. Why play with more than six strings? Why more than seven? If six wasn't the "correct" number of strings, nor seven, why would eight be?


----------



## teamSKDM (Jun 14, 2014)

I personally dont like anything below a low 8 string E unless its on a clean channel, ive never really been able to hear anything metal lower than low E and it sound good still. (of course if someone can show me some examples of something im missing thatd be cool)
but ive heard cool stuff played on a clean channel on extended range instruments where essentailly its a bass and guitar in one instrument. but ive never heard 9+ strings used very well in metal.


----------



## flo (Jun 14, 2014)

Just wait until the first guitar builder opens a piano...


----------



## Dayn (Jun 14, 2014)

flo said:


> Just wait until the first guitar builder opens a piano...


Isn't that what the orchestral harp is?


----------



## Go To Bed Jessica (Jun 14, 2014)

I know this seems like a trivial answer to the question, but believe me it isn't. It's the only answer that makes any sense at all to me.

Why not?


----------



## Shimme (Jun 14, 2014)

teamSKDM said:


> I personally dont like anything below a low 8 string E unless its on a clean channel, ive never really been able to hear anything metal lower than low E and it sound good still. (of course if someone can show me some examples of something im missing thatd be cool)



Within The Ruins recently put up a new track from their album where they're tuned to C1(D1? it's lower than E) never listened to them before but it's a fun song in an extremely, extremely produced sort of way. Still kindof muddy, but better than the wet farts on After The Burials stuff 



Also: X-Men


----------



## chris9 (Jun 14, 2014)

I bought a ten for the chord tapping stuff it sounds great its the the size of the dam thing which takes some getting used to.

before you all say it
yeah thats what she said ha ha


----------



## cip 123 (Jun 14, 2014)

Because you can. 

i have an 8, i dont know what i'd do with a 9 or 10 but i'd love to try just cause i can, with 9s becoming more commercially available.


----------



## Nag (Jun 14, 2014)

I read the OP much like I read "why get a 7-string instead of tuning down to B on a 6"

it's a different instrument. it's designed for a different playstyle. for different people.

everyone should be able to get whatever instrument suits them the best. I'm well served with 6 and 7 string guitars, I really don't need any more. I don't annoy/question ERG players just because I am not one of them. 

musicians just play notes. what instrument they need/want/use should not be important.


----------



## coffeeflush (Jun 14, 2014)

For more range.


----------



## Poltergeist (Jun 14, 2014)

I'm really not annoyed by them guys; I hope I'm not coming off that way.They're just not for me but I'm interested in peoples logic or approach of them and curious of their playability and people who are using them and the role they're going to play in the ERG world in the coming future and so on.. 

The pain from fretting when I first started playing an 8 string was pretty intense... I couldn't imagine getting use 9+ string guitar ... I'd have carpal tunnel before the age of 30 due to the love I have for notes found in the 1st and 0 octave... That's why I stated why not have the best of both worlds and just tune the 8 string down and play in the exact same octaves that the 9 or 10 string would be able to produce and save your hands and increase one's playability. 

When Tosin started utilizing the Victor Wooten bass slap technique I thought that was pretty interesting and thinking outside of the box for an 8 string and filled the role of the bassist and guitar almost at the same time.. That's kind of the avenue I see where these guitars could go... When a guitarist can fill the role of the bassist and guitarist at the same time, now that's the next level. And it would be cool to see more people do that... No one really is representing the 9+ string guitar realm at this point in the future or just haven't reached enough people yet. I figured this is one way to get people talking about it...


----------



## Halowords (Jun 14, 2014)

A related question, a/o different way to ask this...

What can you do with a 9+ string guitar do that you cannot do with an 8 string guitar in a band setting and still sound good?

I know there is more range. However, how much lower than a drop-E 8-string or Bass VI type guitar can you go and have usable range? How high can you go with a 9-string or 10-string with the available/practical scale lengths (straight or multiscale) and still sound good and not too bright?

On one hand, I love the options of as much range as possible. On the other hand, I also wonder how low I can go without marching all over the bass player, and how practical it is for me if I find the high strings on the longer scale guitars shriller than I like (typically a Gibson-scale guy). I also have pretty average-sized hands. So, in theory, 9- or 10-string guitar? Sign me up! In reality? At a point, I am sacrificing playability for range I may not reasonably use in a band setting and a setup likely to be less than ideal for my taste in guitar tone.

An 8-string multiscale seems most likely to get that sweet spot for me. A 9-string or more? The size of the neck and especially the need of a larger-than-optimal fan makes it kind of a sacrifice. Would I like one? Sure. Do I see it as practical, for me and all of my quirks? For now, I'm not so sure.

-Cheers


----------



## trem licking (Jun 14, 2014)

Am I the only one here who would love a 32-36 fret 30" 9 string guitar? More octaves is my answer


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Jun 15, 2014)

Everyone always wants to go lower, which is cool, but why don't they ever go higher? Like say an 8 or 9 string with a high A string?


----------



## Halowords (Jun 15, 2014)

Spaced Out Ace said:


> Everyone always wants to go lower, which is cool, but why don't they ever go higher? Like say an 8 or 9 string with a high A string?



They do. You pretty much need a multiscale for that, apparently ~24" or so on the high end. I have seen some like that.

That is kind of the problem, for me at least. For an 8-string, most say you need a 27", preferably a 28" or more according to some. I suppose a 24"-27" fan is perfectly workable with a high-A on the 1st string at ~24". It is just not something I have personally ever felt a need for.

-Cheers


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Jun 15, 2014)

Halowords said:


> They do. You pretty much need a multiscale for that, apparently ~24" or so on the high end. I have seen some like that.
> 
> That is kind of the problem, for me at least. For an 8-string, most say you need a 27", preferably a 28" or more according to some. I suppose a 24"-27" fan is perfectly workable with a high-A on the 1st string at ~24". It is just not something I have personally ever felt a need for.
> 
> -Cheers



Ah cool. Didn't know that.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Jun 15, 2014)

^EtherealEntity's Vik...


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Jun 15, 2014)

Konfyouzd said:


> ^EtherealEntity's Vik...



Or as I call him, Eazy E.


----------



## Shimme (Jun 15, 2014)

24" is assuming its for standard. I'd find an added G would be extremely cool, and you'd probably be able to push that out to a 28-24.75 scale with a 9.

But yeah, even with large fans you do have to start making a compromises at that kind of range in terms of playability and sound. I think that we might be reaching the limits of what is possible with a 4ths tuned guitar. 

That doesn't mean we've reached the end all be all of guitars though. There are tons of other crazy ideas that should work out there. Personally I have a desire for a partially doublecoursed ERG (think Matt Pike's First Act) that'll have to be fulfilled one day!


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Jun 15, 2014)

Shimme said:


> 24" is assuming its for standard. I'd find an added G would be extremely cool, and you'd probably be able to push that out to a 28-24.75 scale with a 9.
> 
> But yeah, even with large fans you do have to start making a compromises at that kind of range in terms of playability and sound. I think that we might be reaching the limits of what is possible with *a 5ths tuned guitar*.
> 
> That doesn't mean we've reached the end all be all of guitars though. There are tons of other crazy ideas that should work out there. Personally I have a desire for a partially doublecoursed ERG (think Matt Pike's First Act) that'll have to be fulfilled one day!



Don't you mean 4ths?


----------



## Halowords (Jun 15, 2014)

flo said:


> Just wait until the first guitar builder opens a piano...



Just wait until the first guitarist tries to play chords on one! 

-Cheers


----------



## Shimme (Jun 15, 2014)

Spaced Out Ace said:


> Don't you mean 4ths?



Yep  late night typing on a tablet isn't great for accuracy


----------



## Corrosion (Jun 15, 2014)

In all reality this question is like asking why play a guitar?


----------



## Poltergeist (Jun 15, 2014)

Corrosion said:


> In all reality this question is like asking why play a guitar?



We all have motives behind the reasons that we do things as human beings and as musicians.. The questions purpose is to stimulate conversation on the topic of ERG with more than 8 strings.. Really I question it for the theoretical level and peoples ability to be more expressive.. I want people to share there thoughts, or people who are actually using these guitars right now to post sound clips, and to see what they're doing with them ... because it does seem like they're going to be more prevalent in the future as they become more widely available. I feel like virtuoso players can really make these instruments soar and inspire new playing styles, but maybe not so much for novice or amateur players; and that ties back to the idea of what do these instruments make the musician.. a guitarist or a bassist... or both? Really cant imagine a better place on the Internet to discuss these type of philosophies than here on ss.org.


----------



## Halowords (Jun 15, 2014)

Corrosion said:


> In all reality this question is like asking why play a guitar?



...except for the fact it's asking about the uses of a guitar with more than a certain set or parameters.

I thought the actual question was pretty reasonable. The OP stated, he felt like 8 string guitars were the limit *for him at this point in time...* He inquired as to the uses of a 9 or 10 string guitar above an 8 string with a 27" scale length, for instance, given the ability to achieve the 1st or 0 octave.

Obviously some find it nice to have the range more horizontal across any given fret. Some find the extra range useful for tapping, doing bass lines, they happen to be Charlie Hunter(esque?), like having a high-g or high-a for leads, really dig into the extremes of the guitar, or whatnot.

There are uses as there are limits for most though. Why can we not just talk about those? I do not feel like this was a challenge or a value-assessment on >8-string guitars. Just an open inquiry into what you actually use the extra range for over, say, a 27" 8-string. That seems like a perfectly valid discussion. Maybe you have ideas that the OP (or, for that matter, me!) will find compelling enough to actually consider one for our day-to-day practice. But if it's just "why not?" then there are actual playability considerations and how it fits into a band-setting. For that matter, why not go for 11 or 12 or more string guitars in the same sort of extended range, or like a harp? Why not go for a double-necked bass-thru-guitar setup at some point? I could ask, why go for sub-hearing-to-dog-whistle scale. I mean, hey, why not?

Without getting too snarky, the guy asked a pretty legitimate question that I think got taken a bit out of context and kind of crapped on. I have some of the same questions. Other than "why not" or interesting-but-not-necessarily-ideal-for-my-style sorts of setups (some interesting studio musicians or solo-artists doing some pretty cool stuff that I can appreciate), I am not seeing the extra range being worth the potential loss of playability or the string maintenance for that matter. At least not for me, for now, or for my main day-to-day player.

-Cheers


----------



## Shimme (Jun 15, 2014)

Halowords said:


> Just wait until the first guitarist tries to play chords on one!
> 
> -Cheers



Fretless 88 string? bet it dj0nts so hard


----------



## Hollowway (Jun 16, 2014)

One of the reasons I play 8s is because it feels way more natural than a 6 or 7. The 27" and 28" scale length is perfect for me. The high frets on 25.5" feel way too tight, and at 28.625" the low frets are hard to easily play my same stretches on, and it becomes uncomfortable. And the wide neck feels just so natural to have my thumb centered right in the middle of the back. 

So for me, a 9 string is kind of like the "experimental" territory, because those notes are so low, I'm not sure how much I'd use them routinely. And I'd have to got to at least 30" to feel comfortable with C#1 (that's what I had on my 10 string).


----------



## Dayn (Jun 16, 2014)

Halowords said:


> A related question, a/o different way to ask this...
> 
> What can you do with a 9+ string guitar do that you cannot do with an 8 string guitar in a band setting and still sound good?
> 
> ...


Depends entirely on your music. Who says there must be a bassist and they must play in lock-step with the guitar?

My dream 9-string tuning, high to low, is GEBGDAEAC#. Minor third on top, and a fifth and a minor sixth on the bottom. Very interesting phrasing opportunities for clean stuff. I also find the low C# to be quite usable in 'metal' settings with a band. Yes, I use bass an octave lower than that when I think it suits the music. I need to adjust my bass's setup though. Looking into getting one with a longer scale.

So as for 'stepping on toes', it doesn't matter. I just push my bass down lower to make it absolutely thunderous. When I want to, of course. Many times it plays in the same register as the guitar, with the different tones combining in the same octave for a powerful sound. Or it just does something completely different, because it's a different instrument. It can do what it likes, it doesn't have to follow the guitar.

As for the physical side of it, that's definitely an issue. My friend can't even handle my 27" 8-string. I could feasibly with no loss of comfort tackle an 11-string, though can only think of a current use for 10 strings. GEBGDAEBF#C#, or EB, or EA I could handle for a 10-string. GEBGDAEBF#C#G#... might be pushing it, but if you gave me an 11-string you bet your arse I'd latch onto it and hiss and claw at you if you ever tried to take it back.


----------



## Winspear (Jun 16, 2014)

"Eazy E" clocking in. Yes my 9 is 24.75-29.25. I must say I personally disagree about 27" being able to reach any tuning. F# is it's tonal limit for me (not saying the string can't be made to sound good by itself, but get above a certain gauge and it will always be much darker than the rest of the instrument which I dislike).

My 9 allows me to play from low E to high G# (perfect 4ths tuning) with optimal tone and tension for me  A big big part of it is not just about range for me but for fingerings. More notes under the hand at any time. I have heard people ask "Why add a high string, is 24 frets not enough? Why not 27 frets" etc. It's not about the high range for me - it's fingerings and extensions to chords lower down the fretboard which otherwise wouldn't be possible. Likewise I use my bottom string up the neck quite a bit too (another reason I prefer longer scale lengths). 
I would _absolutely _play a 10 string, because I love the sound of even lower notes and again, more fingerings is great. However it would be the point of becoming hard to reach comfortably for me, and the scale length I would want to keep the gauges down would push the fan way too wide haha. I do have another 9 on order for lower tuning with 34-31 inches 

With regards to 'bass territory' and bass players jobs etc - I would say, have you ever heard a bassist complain that his keyboard player has too much range?  Likewise, I feel that until an instrument exceeds the range of the piano (13 string, I believe?), there is nothing to question. However I don't feel guitar is a practical instrument to do that very well for reasons explained above haha. But that's not to say there aren't people doing it happily, even without multiscale!

In short, I think pretty much any question about ERGs or their purpose can always be answered with a simple picture of a piano


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Jun 16, 2014)

EtherealEntity said:


> "Eazy E" clocking in. Yes my 9 is 24.75-29.25. I must say I personally disagree about 27" being able to reach any tuning. F# is it's tonal limit for me (not saying the string can't be made to sound good by itself, but *get above a certain gauge and it will always be much darker than the rest of the instrument which I dislike).*
> 
> My 9 allows me to play from low E to high G# (perfect 4ths tuning) with optimal tone and tension for me  A big big part of it is not just about range for me but for fingerings. More notes under the hand at any time. I have heard people ask "Why add a high string, is 24 frets not enough? Why not 27 frets" etc. It's not about the high range for me - it's fingerings and extensions to chords lower down the fretboard which otherwise wouldn't be possible. Likewise I use my bottom string up the neck quite a bit too (another reason I prefer longer scale lengths).
> I would _absolutely _play a 10 string, because I love the sound of even lower notes and again, more fingerings is great. However it would be the point of becoming hard to reach comfortably for me, and the scale length I would want to keep the gauges down would push the fan way too wide haha. I do have another 9 on order for lower tuning with 34-31 inches
> ...



Use round core for the low F# string instead of hex core. I'm lead to believe that lower gauges of round core are darker, whereas hex core are brighter, but as they go up, they begin to reverse and round core become brighter while hex core get darker. Do note that this is just what I've read and have not looked into this myself, but if someone wants to try it out and report back to us, I'd be glad to see their experience and if I've been lead astray or not.


----------



## Halowords (Jun 16, 2014)

Dayn said:


> Depends entirely on your music. Who says there must be a bassist and they must play in lock-step with the guitar?



Nobody? 



> My dream 9-string tuning, high to low, is GEBGDAEAC#. Minor third on top, and a fifth and a minor sixth on the bottom. Very interesting phrasing opportunities for clean stuff. I also find the low C# to be quite usable in 'metal' settings with a band. Yes, I use bass an octave lower than that when I think it suits the music. I need to adjust my bass's setup though. Looking into getting one with a longer scale.
> 
> 
> > So as for 'stepping on toes', it doesn't matter. I just push my bass down lower to make it absolutely thunderous. When I want to, of course. Many times it plays in the same register as the guitar, with the different tones combining in the same octave for a powerful sound. Or it just does something completely different, because it's a different instrument. It can do what it likes, it doesn't have to follow the guitar.
> ...


----------



## Halowords (Jun 16, 2014)

EtherealEntity said:


> "Eazy E" clocking in. Yes my 9 is 24.75-29.25. I must say I personally disagree about 27" being able to reach any tuning. F# is it's tonal limit for me (not saying the string can't be made to sound good by itself, but get above a certain gauge and it will always be much darker than the rest of the instrument which I dislike).



That is a pretty valid response.



> My 9 allows me to play from low E to high G# (perfect 4ths tuning) with optimal tone and tension for me  A big big part of it is not just about range for me but for fingerings.



I have thought of that as a plus. My concern is, how does that effect playing guitar with fingerings like a standard set-up guitar? For me, an 8-string with two lower strings tuned to drop-E on the 8th string lets me keep the same chord shapes. On the other hand, I wonder if it may behoove me to break out of relying on the same patterns.

So again, for me I am not siding with the OP because I think 9 or more strings are bad. I think it is worthy of discussion in why they are or may be useful.



> With regards to 'bass territory' and bass players jobs etc - I would say, have you ever heard a bassist complain that his keyboard player has too much range?  Likewise, I feel that until an instrument exceeds the range of the piano (13 string, I believe?), there is nothing to question. However I don't feel guitar is a practical instrument to do that very well for reasons explained above haha. But that's not to say there aren't people doing it happily, even without multiscale!



Two reasons I kinda/sorta disagree with you. Theoretically.

Keyboards do not fit into the same sort of style as bass or guitar, obviously. However, as long as you mix/EQ things in right, it might not be an issue at all. I was just curious people's experiences though if they felt there was some redundancy or that you were stealing the bass player's thunder on some level. Or not.



> In short, I think pretty much any question about ERGs or their purpose can always be answered with a simple picture of a piano



Yes. Except... Usually you do not have two pianists playing the same time. Point taken though. And sincere thanks for the input.

If I could follow up with one question, how do you work in the chord shapes of your high-G# string? Just logistically, wondering how that fits into fingerings and such. My issue was always about avoiding having to relearn too much specific to a particular setup, which is why an EBEADGBE setup 8-string holds so much appeal to me.

-Cheers


----------



## shawnperolis (Jun 16, 2014)

I think anyone who plays an instrument with more than 8 strings is a scoundrel and a villain!


----------



## Winspear (Jun 17, 2014)

I'll address the high string first and 4ths tuning later. 

The EADGBEA chord shapes a very natural. Your A string barre chords fit perfectly of course. E string barre chords you get your Add11 which of course you wont want all the time but it's easy enough to avoid strumming. The note fits, at least. Open C chord you can add a high C with your pinky. Open E chords easy to add a high fifth. I don't really use much of any of these but I can say it has always fit incredibly well with various smaller chord fingerings and arpeggios all over the fretboard. Scale extension is also very logical. You can try tuning to EADF#BE to emulate fingerings of the ADGBEA portion 
Which brings me to another point: Some people dislike the idea of the unusual intervals with an extra high string, i.e another '5-x-7' octave after two '5-x-8' octave shapes on the upper strings. If you find it generally confusing, you could always try the 'capo @ 5th' tuning approach. That is, EADGCEA on the top - like BEADGBE tuned up 5 semitones. You'll have your standard shapes but higher. Didn't like it personally as I found everything to just sound higher than my fingers expected (like the downtuned 6 vs. BEADGBE effect but in reverse) whereas EADGBEA was straightforward. 

Now onto perfect fourths which I've moved to recently. You can pretty much forget that I have a high string in this case, as the guitar now becomes a series of constant intervals across any amount of strings in any position. I suppose this makes the higher string more approachable but like I said it wasn't a problem for me in standard tuning anyway. I moved to perfect 4ths more to get rid of the inconsistency of the G-B strings of the standard portion. It's not something which had been a problem to me as such, but I felt it would much aid mastering the fretboard across various instruments, string numbers and tuning keys. It has been very helpful for that. I've always been most confident with my chord construction on the lower strings, or on a 6 string bass guitar which is 4ths by standard. The only thing I feel I've lost is barre chords but that's not important to me - and you can still do the 5-7-7-6 portion of it (or 5-5-7-7-6) if you fancy a 5th on the bottom. It works very well for me. It's not a permanent fixture yet because I'm still finishing up my EP which I started in the tuning I mentioned before, but I can't wait to move to 4ths permanently. I just feel much more unified and comfortable knowing that all of my instruments of any string number and tuning are just portions of the same keyboard, so to speak. And on a single instrument alone it helps my chord construction/arpeggio playing considerably, whilst hindering nothing but previous pieces I've learned.


----------



## boxsmiley (Jun 17, 2014)

I play a 9 string because....

Rondo didn't have a 10 string available at the time.

I can loop bass lines without having to change instruments. 

I can do more interesting breakdowns when playing solo with just guitar and vocal

I can challenge myself playing both melody and harmony parts. Charlie hunter was mentioned, I wouldn't presume to be in that league but same idea. 

It is a training aid that forces "proper" thumb on back of neck fundamentals, light touch, speed, and accuracy when trying to play more than traditional guitar type parts. When I go back to a six string, I find that it is much easier to play and feels like a child's toy. 

With so many more notes available, I think it also encourages more awareness of where notes are and breaks me out of my comfort zone compared to a six stringer...similar to when I play piano.


----------



## Halowords (Jun 17, 2014)

boxsmiley said:


> I play a 9 string because....
> 
> [snip]
> 
> ...



In theory, I am down with all of that. My one caveat is, for myself, how it effects playability. For me. I have small-to-medium hands, probably medium/average with pretty average/not-long fingers. So, just thinking aloud here, I am just left pondering how or if my hands are at a size compatible with the dimensions of a 9-string guitar.

-Cheers


----------



## simonXsludge (Jun 18, 2014)

9 out of 10 cases: For shock value.


----------



## Nag (Jun 18, 2014)

someone gave me neutral rep with this comment : 

"If the instrument that suits someone best is stupid to begin with, like a 9 or 10 string ERG/Bass, they should not even be allowed to play let alone buy something that shouldnt be made in the 1st place. Stupid is as stupid does = 9+ strings"

I guess you just can't fight the narrow-minded people...


----------



## yingmin (Jun 18, 2014)

I got "Your response is absurd. 6 is the correct number as it is the 'standard', more than 8 strings, or playing in and below the bass territory is stupid, fundamentally stupid". There are so many things about these comments. Why is it stupid to play with MORE than 8 strings, if 6 is "correct"? If playing in bass range is stupid and should not be permitted, why are 8-strings okay? Ultimately it's pointless to try to analyze these statements, since they really don't have any point of view beyond ".... you".


----------



## Nag (Jun 18, 2014)

let's all sell everything we own.

obviously, we need to have a fender strat, gibson les paul, marshall tube amp, cry baby wah and a martin acoustic because everything else isn't "standard".

to whoever wrote these comments : people get creative by breaking the rules. and hating on everyone who is different doesn't exactly help. you know what happens when you establish a standard and try to erase everything that doesn't match it ? Google "Nazi Germany". Since you don't sign your rep, I gotta assume you're a troll. I hope you are one, cause I don't see any other excuse to say things that are that ignorant/narrow-minded/straight out stupid.


----------



## canuck brian (Jun 18, 2014)

Don't like 9 strings? Don't buy them. Don't like 10 strings? Don't buy them. Can't play 8, 9 or 10 strings? Don't buy them.

If your instrument does everything you want and you have no interest, stop assuming that other people buying guitars with more range are either stupid or attempting shock value. They're getting it because they WANT it.


----------



## Nag (Jun 18, 2014)

thank you brian for saying my thoughts in a diplomatic way


----------



## DreamError (Jun 18, 2014)

I physically could not play one, 8 is my limit, but I will not begrudge anyone for being able to play more strings than me. With all the people detuning 8s (I've uptuned mine ) it makes sense some would want 9 or 10 if they want to keep the high range.


----------



## Nag (Jun 18, 2014)

one of the things most people tend to forget : there are millions of tunings. Ask EtherealEntity, he uses a reduced range tuning (major or minor thirds, I forget which) on his 9 so he has LESS range than a 7-string, maybe even less than a 6.


----------



## Halowords (Jun 18, 2014)

Forgive me if I am repeating myself. Remember, not everybody is bashing >8 string guitars. More apt to this thread, neither I believe was the OP. Neither was I. And all of the above past few posts are legitimate reasons for having 9/10/11/etc. string guitars, which is I believe what the OP was after.

Also, I am not denying that those of us who cannot play > or =8-string guitars should stay away. Personally, I was just thinking aloud about my abilities to do so (or not), or how it would fit into my typical way of playing, as I am sure that probably factors into the equation for some.

-Cheers


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Jun 18, 2014)

I dunno about you all, but I'd like a 19 string fanned fret multi scale guibass with a neck like a telephone pole and 27 frets.


----------



## Nag (Jun 18, 2014)

Halowords said:


> Forgive me if I am repeating myself. Remember, not everybody is bashing >8 string guitars. More apt to this thread, neither I believe was the OP. Neither was I. And all of the above past few posts are legitimate reasons for having 9/10/11/etc. string guitars, which is I believe what the OP was after.
> 
> Also, I am not denying that those of us who cannot play > or =8-string guitars should stay away. Personally, I was just thinking aloud about my abilities to do so (or not), or how it would fit into my typical way of playing, as I am sure that probably factors into the equation for some.
> 
> -Cheers



you can check my rep record to see the message I quoted. it clearly states you have to be stupid to play 9+ string guitars.

I personally don't need many strings, 6 and 7 is all I really need. I wanna try an 8 just to experiment with but that's all. I'm just _extremely _intolerant with narrow-minded people (and trolls), such as whoever said what I quoted before.


----------



## Grindspine (Jun 18, 2014)

.. www.stick.com - Instruments and Tunings

12 string chapman sticks have been around for decades.. 88 key pianos have existed for centuries.... And you think 9 strings is outside the realm of being reasonable?

I started feeling a bit limited on a six string. I heard a lot of stuff that I liked played on seven string guitars. A friend of mine got a seven, and I made the switch last year. I still play my six string guitars. I do find the range on a seven to be a little freeing though.

I have played a few eight string guitars as well. None have resonated with me yet the way my RGD did, but I do keep an open mind. I would probably be more likely to get a 5 string BTB bass, but an ERG that would give me range but still be comfortable to play would not be a bad thing!


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Jun 18, 2014)

Grindspine said:


> .. www.stick.com - Instruments and Tunings
> 
> 12 string chapman sticks have been around for decades.. 88 key pianos have existed for centuries.... And you think 9 strings is outside the realm of being reasonable?
> 
> ...



A guitar isn't exactly a piano though, despite how EVH used to tap sometimes with his guitar lifted up.


----------



## Halowords (Jun 18, 2014)

Nagash said:


> you can check my rep record to see the message I quoted. it clearly states you have to be stupid to play 9+ string guitars.
> 
> I personally don't need many strings, 6 and 7 is all I really need. I wanna try an 8 just to experiment with but that's all. I'm just _extremely _intolerant with narrow-minded people (and trolls), such as whoever said what I quoted before.



I believe you, although I don't know how to check your rep record to see said message. I was just pointing out I do not think that's what the OP was getting at, and it 100% was NOT what I was getting at, and while some might feel that way a/o troll about it not everybody inquiring into 8/9/10/11/12/whatever-string guitars necessarily is either. Nothing more, nothing less.

-Cheers


----------



## yingmin (Jun 18, 2014)

Grindspine said:


> .. www.stick.com - Instruments and Tunings
> 
> 12 string chapman sticks have been around for decades.. 88 key pianos have existed for centuries.... And you think 9 strings is outside the realm of being reasonable?


Neither is a remotely appropriate analogy.

One key on a piano represents one note, which means that 88 keys is just a hair over a 7 octave range. One string on a guitar is typically around two octaves by itself. The strings on a piano are scaled in size according to the note to which they're tuned, and since the strings aren't being fretted, they aren't subject to the same restrictions as strings on a fretted instrument. 

Sticks may have 10+ strings, but they're actually two sets of strings with overlapping tuning. A 12-string Stick has roughly the same range of notes as an 8-string guitar, or a 6-string tuned in fifths. They're also designed specifically to be played with both hands on the fretboard, whereas ERGs are typically intended to be played as "Spanish" guitars.

Tonally, pianos are played acoustically, and electric pianos or synthesizers are played through full-range systems. Sticks have separate pickups for each set of strings, so that you can send the lower strings through a bass amp and the higher strings through a guitar amp, for example. ERGs, for the most part, use single pickups to amplify all the strings through a single amplifier, which is generally a guitar amp designed for (6-string) guitar frequencies.

Hell, I have a pedal steel (which is technically a guitar) with 20 strings, but those are two necks with separate pickups, using re-entrant tunings that mostly overlap, so the combined range of all 20 strings is roughly the same as a 7-string guitar.

So if you're actually comparing apples to apples (Spanish guitar with summed output being played through an amp designed for 6-string guitars), there are some valid arguments to be made against going beyond a certain number of strings, or a certain tuning range.


----------



## AxeHappy (Jun 18, 2014)

I want a nine string, specifically a Xen, because my 8 string is tuned with an high A and I would like to add the extended lower range as well. 

I want, what many would consider to be, an extreme fan to achieve this goal.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Jun 18, 2014)

AxeHappy said:


> I want a nine string, specifically a Xen, because my 8 string is tuned with an high A and I would like to add the extended lower range as well.
> 
> I want, what many would consider to be, an extreme fan to achieve this goal.



24.75"-30"?


----------



## AxeHappy (Jun 18, 2014)

23.5-27.5

I like thick strings (I use a .70 for a B on a sevenstring) so I don't need the longer scales on the lower end that some desire.


----------



## Grindspine (Jun 18, 2014)

You're actually reinforcing my argument. Standard six string guitars at an E to E tuning would have a four octave range, just hitting the fifth E on a 24 fret instrument.

Saying that a piano has each string tuned to length is correct. But that is the reason that many extended range guitar manufacturers are designing fanned fret instruments.

As far as your argument concerning summed output through one set of pickups, many guitarists change pickups to change tonal response when playing in different registers. The variation of pickups covers a wide enough frequency range between the many models that it is not a limiting factor to the overall range.

As long as a manufacturer takes into account the physical constraints of human hearing and the length of reach human fingers have, there should be no additional limits placed on the design of an instrument. Of course, it sounds like some of you simply want a limit based on "tradition".


----------



## yingmin (Jun 19, 2014)

Grindspine said:


> You're actually reinforcing my argument. Standard six string guitars at an E to E tuning would have a four octave range, just hitting the fifth E on a 24 fret instrument.
> 
> Saying that a piano has each string tuned to length is correct. But that is the reason that many extended range guitar manufacturers are designing fanned fret instruments.
> 
> ...


It doesn't reinforce your argument at all. My whole point is that Sticks and pianos, for example, are purpose-built instruments designed for a particular range of notes (and, again, despite the high number of strings a Stick has, the actual range of notes is not that great), while ERGs are, by and large, slight tweaks of the existing guitar platform. You can argue whether or not those tweaks are sufficient, but they are not fundamentally the same. Adding fanned frets to an ERG is conceptually similar to the way piano strings are laid out, but you're talking about a difference of a few inches on an ERG, whereas piano strings can differ in length by several feet. Since piano strings are played through the mechanical operation of the keys, not directly manipulated by the player's own hands as on a guitar, the length of a piano string is not confined by any playability concerns. Similarly, pianos use varying numbers of strings for different notes, in order to achieve consistent volume across the keyboard. Different pickups in ERGs might accentuate different frequencies, but one could argue about whether any monophonic pickup system played into a guitar amp can adequately recreate the full spectrum of sounds a 9+ string guitar produces.

I'm not arguing for any specific limit on the number of strings a guitar "should" have. All I'm saying is that your analogy is invalid, because the fact that OTHER instruments have more strings and/or a wider range than a guitar does not have any logical bearing on the number of strings a guitar should have.


----------



## Explorer (Jun 21, 2014)

Back to the OP's question:

I've played 8 in full fifths tuning, from Bb0 to B4 at 25.5" and Ab0 to A4 at 28.625" (thank you, Octave 4 Plus!). 

I then switched mostly to a combination bass/guitar tuning (EADGFCAD) while exploring the playing of Leo Nocentelli, the guitarist for the Meters, allowing me to use the bass and guitar playing skills I already had on one instrument. 

Now I'm considering getting a 9-string to add at least the low B0 which I lack, like on my 6-string basses. Since I like the 25.5" scale length, I could also add the high G4 in pattern without hardship, and that would be 10 string... for the moment. 

And if in the future I decide to set up different and try a 10-string touchstyle tuning, then I'll be able to try it with no great problems. 

There you go, just my personal reasons for considering 9- to 10-string ERGs.


----------



## Vrollin (Jun 21, 2014)

I want a 9 string ibanez RG9 simply because I can, I wouldn't know what the hell to do with it, or use it to its full extent. But its a 9 string and to me that is insane and I just want in on the action.... I just see the whole "do you really need an extended range guitar" argument void, simply because why not, its there and if you can afford it why shouldn't you get your hands on one and have a noodle? Its a far stretch from being wrong or bad, its just different....


----------



## Grindspine (Jun 21, 2014)

yingmin said:


> I'm not arguing for any specific limit on the number of strings a guitar "should" have. All I'm saying is that your analogy is invalid, because the fact that OTHER instruments have more strings and/or a wider range than a guitar does not have any logical bearing on the number of strings a guitar should have.


 
You mentioned that the other instruments are "purpose built" for having specific tonal ranges. Wouldn't have those builds also been adjustments of prior stringed instruments? If you look at bowed stringed instruments (violin, viola, cello, bass) aren't those inherently just modifications on the same concept; the modification being the gauge and length of the strings? 

So again, what exactly is your argument against a guitar type instrument having extended tonal range and a large number of strings?


----------



## troyguitar (Jun 21, 2014)

I wanted a 9 to still have a large range while tuned to major thirds (like AbCEAbCEAbCE). I still think the concept is cool, but so far I've been too lazy to actually learn how to play the thing.


----------



## Nag (Jun 21, 2014)

I liked the 88-key piano analogy a lot...

some people just like the sound of an electric guitar and want to use it with more notes. more strings is kinda like more frets, except it calls for a different playing technique (such as two handed tapping, which people already did on 6/7 strings)


----------



## Explorer (Jun 22, 2014)

Yingmin, since you're arguing in part about pickups being a "valid argument" for not going beyond any given number of strings, did you know that many of the early ERGs on this board used EMG bass pickups, as there were no stock ERG pickups available? Those pickups have flat enough response to work. 

More to the point... what *is* your point? That you feel there are reasons to not have beyond a certain number of strings on an ERG? 

In that case, why do you care enough to argue against others going for it on an ERG board? That's like someone going on a board for runners to argue against running. 

Anyway, you're arguing in a topic where someone asked why people are going for ERGs. Start another topic to argue against them, and don't derail this one.


----------



## yingmin (Jun 22, 2014)

Explorer said:


> Yingmin, since you're arguing in part about pickups being a "valid argument" for not going beyond any given number of strings, did you know that many of the early ERGs on this board used EMG bass pickups, as there were no stock ERG pickups available? Those pickups have flat enough response to work.
> 
> More to the point... what *is* your point? That you feel there are reasons to not have beyond a certain number of strings on an ERG?
> 
> ...



My point was exactly what I said it was: that his analogy was invalid. You're just inferring everything beyond that.


----------



## yingmin (Jun 22, 2014)

Ah, hell with it. Here's the disquisition.

First off, in the interest of full disclosure, let me say that I am not at all interested in ERGs. I've heard very little music on 8+ string guitars that I care about at all. I don't think they sound good, and I don't think that many people really use them well. I don't care who plays them, and I'm certainly not going to argue that anyone SHOULDN'T play an ERG. Put as many strings on your guitar as you want, tune as low as you feel like, knock yourself out. I just probably won't listen to your music.

That said, the issue that I do have with ERGs is that, as I said before, they're essentially just small tweaks on the existing guitar platform, and I'm not convinced that that's really the way to go for how some people are playing these days. If you could go back to the 1950s and convince Leo Fender to put more strings on a Strat and more gain stages in a Bassman, you'd end up with essentially the same gear that even the supposedly forward-thinking ERG crowd is playing today. Guitarists are, by and large, surprisingly conservative in the equipment they use, and the technology employed in guitars and guitar amps really hasn't changed very much since the '50s. Even things that, on the surface, seem like huge advances, such as the Kemper and AxeFX, are still judged on their ability to get the same tones that they would get on more conventional gear.

I would say that the four people who had the biggest, most lasting influence on the way electric guitar equipment is made were Leo Fender, Jim Marshall, Ted McCarty and Les Paul. It is, at least to me, very telling that only one of those people was actually a guitarist. I would argue that Ned Steinberger and Ken Parker have made contributions to the design of electric guitars that is just as significant as those made by Leo Fender and Ted McCarty, but they haven't had the impact that I feel they should. Bassists, on the other hand, have generally been much more willing to embrace new technology than guitarists, with developments like active electronics, solid state amps, bi-amping and rack gear finding a much more receptive audience in the bass world than the guitar world. Yes, plenty of guitarists use active pickups, but the electronics of the guitar are still fundamentally the same. Plenty of guitarists use rack gear, but it's still very much a niche audience, and guitarists outside of communities like this for the most part either don't really understand what rack gear is or are outright contemptuous of it. ERG players approach their instruments in basically the same way as more conventional guitarists, and use the same gear to achieve the same tone they'd want on a 6-string. 

That the advances made to ERGs pretty much stops at longer scale lengths and multi-scaling strikes as a hugely wasted opportunity. Where is the active EQ for guitarists? Where are things like stereo or multiphonic pickup systems? What about biamping and running through mixed speaker systems? What about something like multi-band distortion, so that lower frequencies distort in a different way from the higher frequencies? Why do guitar amps still just have bass, treble and midrange knobs? Practically every professional-grade bass amp has at least a two-band midrange, and many of them have at least semi-parametric EQ. 

I mentioned Ned Steinberger and Ken Parker earlier, and the reason I find them so inspiring is that they did not approach the guitar with romantic preconceptions about what a guitar should be. They started from the premise that things don't need to be the way they always have been. Ned Steinberger realized that a guitar doesn't need a headstock, and for that matter it barely even needs a body. It doesn't even need to be made of wood. Both Ned and Ken introduced their own tremolo systems that functioned differently from the, if I may say, primitive spring and claw systems that are still the norm today, and their designs worked beautifully. Both of them experimented with different shapes and materials, with great results. Both of them produced instruments that are, in some ways, objectively superior to the guitars that came before them, whether or not one personally likes the way they play or sound.

THAT is what I was saying with my earlier post. The problem with ERGs is not too many strings; the problem is too little imagination.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Jun 22, 2014)

yingmin said:


> Ah, hell with it. Here's the disquisition.
> 
> First off, in the interest of full disclosure, let me say that I am not at all interested in ERGs. I've heard very little music on 8+ string guitars that I care about at all. I don't think they sound good, and I don't think that many people really use them well. I don't care who plays them, and I'm certainly not going to argue that anyone SHOULDN'T play an ERG. Put as many strings on your guitar as you want, tune as low as you feel like, knock yourself out. I just probably won't listen to your music.
> 
> ...



You forgot someone... Tony Iommi influenced how a guitar is made [24 frets] and played [lower tunings]. And before anyone starts, I'm sure other people used lower tunings before Tony, but they probably weren't as influential with their use of lower tunings.


----------



## yingmin (Jun 22, 2014)

I wasn't aware of any connection between Tony Iommi and guitars having 24 frets, but even if that's the case, I don't think that's nearly on the level of innovation and importance as the examples I cited.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Jun 22, 2014)

yingmin said:


> I wasn't aware of any connection between Tony Iommi and guitars having 24 frets, but even if that's the case, I don't think that's nearly on the level of innovation and importance as the examples I cited.



You forgot quite a few people that have been important to the way guitars are made and played.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Jun 22, 2014)

yingmin said:


> Ah, hell with it. Here's the disquisition.
> 
> First off, in the interest of full disclosure, let me say that I am not at all interested in ERGs. I've heard very little music on 8+ string guitars that I care about at all. I don't think they sound good, and I don't think that many people really use them well. I don't care who plays them, and I'm certainly not going to argue that anyone SHOULDN'T play an ERG. Put as many strings on your guitar as you want, tune as low as you feel like, knock yourself out. I just probably won't listen to your music.
> 
> ...



I'm quoting this huge post on the same page because it is, quite frankly, one of my favorite posts of all time. I can't begin to say how right yingmin is and I've said this stuff before, maybe not as eloquently though. 

Bravo. 

We should hang out and play our carbon boarded guitars through biamped rigs.


----------



## yingmin (Jun 22, 2014)

Spaced Out Ace said:


> You forgot quite a few people that have been important to the way guitars are made and played.



I didn't "forget" anybody, because it wasn't a comprehensive list. Those are the four people that I would argue have had the LARGEST impact on how electric guitar gear is made. If you disagree with any of them, or think that other people are on the same level, that's fine, we can have that conversation. But saying that these are not the only people who were important or influential misses the point, because that's not what I was saying.


----------



## Nag (Jun 22, 2014)

yingmin, while I agree with part of what you said, IMO you need to give people time.

right now, guitars with "a lot" of strings are still a relatively new thing. and if the players don't ask for active EQs, different amp EQs and all the other stuff you mentioned, the manufacturers won't think of it on their own (because, as a matter of fact, most manufacturers just don't innovate but replicate a recipe that's already known to sell).

Give it a few musical geniuses who manage to get world famous by using 8/9/10 string guitars and stuff might happen. I think it's kind of like with 7-string guitars, apart from Steve Vai there still aren't any worldwide famous "guitar heroes" who use 7-string guitars on a regular basis. And for 8+ string guitars, it might take a while.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Jun 22, 2014)

Spaced Out Ace said:


> You forgot someone... Tony Iommi influenced how a guitar is made [24 frets] and played [lower tunings]. And before anyone starts, I'm sure other people used lower tunings before Tony, but they probably weren't as influential with their use of lower tunings.



I wouldn't exactly say Jimmy Page and George Harrison were non-influential when it comes to tuning down, but seeing as they released She's So Heavy and Moby Dick in 1969, before Sabbath's first major album came out nearly a year later. 

I don't feel that Iommi's influence was really felt until the late 70's and early 80's, by that time tons of folks were tuning down. 

As for 24 frets, plenty of mainstream guitar makers were building 24-fret guitars long before Iommi even got his first 24-fret guitar until 1971 if I remember correctly. 

I love Sabbath, and I love Iommi, but I think you're exaggerating his accomplishments.


----------



## Grindspine (Jun 22, 2014)

Spaced Out Ace said:


> You forgot someone... Tony Iommi influenced how a guitar is made [24 frets] and played [lower tunings]. And before anyone starts, I'm sure other people used lower tunings before Tony, but they probably weren't as influential with their use of lower tunings.


 
I heard a story that he had his fingertip crushed in a factory machine, which led to his lower string tension. If true, it supports that necessity is the mother of invention.

Yinmin, with my above statement that necessity is the mother of invention, perhaps what you are viewing as problems with guitars are either not viewed as a problem by some, or have been addressed in some way.

You mention that many guitarists shy from rack gear. I happen to be a rack user since I love having stereo effects and/or being able to pan between speaker cabinets loaded with different speakers. Sure, those Celestion 12 inch speakers similar to what guitarists have used forever, but I don't have a problem with that.

I use an active EQ in my g-major post gain to tweak those frequencies that are not covered by treble/mid/bass/presence in my Triaxis.

On the idea of multiband distortion, I completely agree. But instead of bi-amping my signal, I boost the mids pre-gain, then cut them post gain to leave a balanced sound with mid saturation, but clear/tight lows and smooth, defined high end.

Perhaps synthetic materials are great for guitars. I certainly have no argument against KTS titanium being in the neck of my Ibanez Prestige.

At the same time, I love how the gear I use has older elements that have not been completely replaced. My Triaxis and 2:Ninety do have tubes in them. I like high quality woodwork in guitars. I am comfortable with 24.75", 25", 25.5", or 26.5" scales, even though the 26.5" is not traditional.

I do think that multi-scale instruments are a pretty decent step forward. I do not know when the concept was first widely implemented, but I enjoy that it is an idea that is gaining ground against the standard parallel frets.

If you do want to see more innovation in guitar technology, shoot some ideas out to the other members on the board. In my experience, this board's membership is generally pretty open to new ideas. I think that is part of the frustration on this thread. It initially appeared that you were arguing against the progress of technology in musical instruments. I see now that you were trying to argue that you would like more or different progress.


----------



## yingmin (Jun 22, 2014)

Nagash said:


> yingmin, while I agree with part of what you said, IMO you need to give people time.
> 
> right now, guitars with "a lot" of strings are still a relatively new thing. and if the players don't ask for active EQs, different amp EQs and all the other stuff you mentioned, the manufacturers won't think of it on their own (because, as a matter of fact, most manufacturers just don't innovate but replicate a recipe that's already known to sell).
> 
> Give it a few musical geniuses who manage to get world famous by using 8/9/10 string guitars and stuff might happen. I think it's kind of like with 7-string guitars, apart from Steve Vai there still aren't any worldwide famous "guitar heroes" who use 7-string guitars on a regular basis. And for 8+ string guitars, it might take a while.



That's actually my point, though. Some of those innovations HAVE been attempted, and the guitar community rejected them. Again going back to Steinberger, those same headless, carbon-fiber guitars that didn't catch on because they were too different also had EMGs (possibly the first guitars to come stock with them) and many had active EQ circuits as well. Headless guitars are making a comeback now, and active pickups have been common for some time now, but I don't know if I've ever seen another guitar that came with active EQ, and non-wood guitars are still extremely uncommon. This goes back to my example of Leo Fender and Ted McCarty: most of the biggest innovations in electric guitars did NOT come from the players, but rather from the manufacturers. By contrast, Ned Steinberger introduced innovations which I consider roughly as significant as those of Fender, McCarty et al, but they didn't catch on, either right away or at all. So even if a company did release a product that really moved the ball forward on guitar gear - for example, a biampable guitar head with 6-band semi-parametric EQ, or a synthetic 10-string guitar with a stereo pickup system and active EQ - it probably wouldn't catch on with the guitar buying public.

Maybe I'm still not putting it well, but basically what I'm saying is that, by and large, even in a small niche that is supposedly open to innovation and change, guitarists are the obstacle to progress.


----------



## Nag (Jun 22, 2014)

I was talking about this with my good buddy Tom (aka EtherealEntity)... bass players are much less "driven backwards" than guitar players. we were talking about the very tweakable "balance" knob you have on basses instead of a pickup switch with only a few select number of options.

I'm all for innovation. there's a few things I want to keep (like guitars made of wood and tube amps) but just going insane over anything just because it's new... not cool.


----------



## yingmin (Jun 22, 2014)

I want to be perfectly clear about a few things. I absolutely can be guilty of the same kind of romanticism I'm decrying, and in a way, that's also part of my point. I'm definitely not saying that the old guitar technologies have no value, and I would never encourage guitarists to adopt new technologies indiscriminately. I would just like to see more openness to new and different things than I see even in ERGs. I'm sure there were some innovations in the bass world that didn't catch on (the first one that comes to mind is aluminum necks, and personally I'm glad that that one didn't take), but the important thing is that so many HAVE. New technologies don't have to replace the old; a Jazz Bass is still a great instrument without all the futuristic upgrades of something like a Pedulla, but bassists are better off because both of those things exist.


----------



## Halowords (Jun 22, 2014)

yingmin said:


> I want to be perfectly clear about a few things. I absolutely can be guilty of the same kind of romanticism I'm decrying, and in a way, that's also part of my point. I'm definitely not saying that the old guitar technologies have no value, and I would never encourage guitarists to adopt new technologies indiscriminately. I would just like to see more openness to new and different things than I see even in ERGs. I'm sure there were some innovations in the bass world that didn't catch on (the first one that comes to mind is aluminum necks, and personally I'm glad that that one didn't take), but the important thing is that so many HAVE. New technologies don't have to replace the old; a Jazz Bass is still a great instrument without all the futuristic upgrades of something like a Pedulla, but bassists are better off because both of those things exist.



I can actually see your point on all of this. I guess my thoughts in reply to you would be:

1) What sort of innovations do we actually need? I guess I tend toward minimalism. The more stuff I have, the more I find I tend to not use it. However, I am still open to new, practical/usable/whatever innovations. But I tend to think of things like the blended heel that David Myka uses as something kind of nice, or ergonomic shapes, or just things that can be done with effects outside the guitar itself. That said, your list of innovations/innovators was thought-provoking, both for the things that may be possible, and the fact most innovators are not guitarists which maybe should tell us something.

2) The role of ERG's. I like Meshuggah and The Deftones as much as the next guy. However, I also like the idea of baritone guitars. So for me, it is not so much about playing any certain style of music that may be currently associated with ERG, which tends to be heavy metal. My interest in ERG's is largely due to bands that play baritone or Bass VI as guitars, like The Cure and Buckethead. I also think Little Tybee have done things a bit a-typical compared to most ERG-style stuff.
http://www.sevenstring.org/forum/extended-range-guitars/272162-8-string-progressive-folk-new-videos.html

As for ERG's showing a lack of creativity? They might. Adding more notes will not, in and of itself, add creativity. However, I can see people using it creatively in Jazz, Folk, and Indie-rock, as well as the Meshuggah, Animals As Leaders, and Deftones-inspired stuff. But I think, generally speaking, creativity is always going to be about the artist and not their tool. Great guitarists or artists will always find a way to do something special. So I find myself a bit on the fence between you and Max and everybody else who's posted. To me, an ERG is about being able to have the baritone sounds and I guess you would say a wider sounding guitar, in terms of being able to have a wider spectrum or 8+ string chords, without losing the ability of playing traditional stuff. But I cannot really dispute anything you are saying, outside of individuals' subjective opinions on the subject.

-Cheers


----------



## troyguitar (Jun 23, 2014)

Since it was mentioned, multi-band distortion of a primitive sort does exist in some of the new BOSS pedals and Roland/Boss modeling stuff. I've been meaning to get my hands on one of the pedals to try it.


----------



## AxeHappy (Jun 23, 2014)

Pretty sure most everything he listed exists. It just isn't popular. Because guitarists are horrible Luddites. 

I worked with teachers, at a shop that sold mostly Ibanez, that wouldn't even try an Ibanez because it wasn't a Fender or Gibson.


----------



## DeathChord (Jun 23, 2014)

When everything old becomes new again.
7-string, 8-string, 9-string & 10-string Guitars


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Jun 23, 2014)

DeathChord said:


> When everything old becomes new again.
> 7-string, 8-string, 9-string & 10-string Guitars



Let's get the obvious outta the way... Does it djent? /badumtsshhh


----------



## yingmin (Jun 23, 2014)

Halowords said:


> 1) What sort of innovations do we actually need? I guess I tend toward minimalism. The more stuff I have, the more I find I tend to not use it. However, I am still open to new, practical/usable/whatever innovations. But I tend to think of things like the blended heel that David Myka uses as something kind of nice, or ergonomic shapes, or just things that can be done with effects outside the guitar itself. That said, your list of innovations/innovators was thought-provoking, both for the things that may be possible, and the fact most innovators are not guitarists which maybe should tell us something.


We may not know what kinds of innovations we need until we have them, and can look back in wonder that people ever played guitar without them. Floyd Rose is a good example; how many guitarists now use Floyds and couldn't imagine using a non-locking tremolo system? For its time, the Floyd Rose was pretty inventive, and created a new paradigm for tremolo design. As much as it may have seemed like I was poo-pooing multiscales earlier, that is also a creative solution as well, and although fanned frets aren't conducive to the way I personally play guitar, I'm glad they're becoming more common. However, I think the most important step is just accepting some of the innovations that have already come along. 



Halowords said:


> 2) The role of ERG's. I like Meshuggah and The Deftones as much as the next guy. However, I also like the idea of baritone guitars. So for me, it is not so much about playing any certain style of music that may be currently associated with ERG, which tends to be heavy metal. My interest in ERG's is largely due to bands that play baritone or Bass VI as guitars, like The Cure and Buckethead. I also think Little Tybee have done things a bit a-typical compared to most ERG-style stuff.
> http://www.sevenstring.org/forum/extended-range-guitars/272162-8-string-progressive-folk-new-videos.html


What's interesting is that ERGs have a much longer history than people often realize. Jazz players were using 7-string guitars decades before the Universe was ever released, and classical guitarists have been using guitars with more than 6 strings for a long time as well. The Bass VI was originally designed for country music, primarily to double up basslines. 

As a minor curmudgeonly point, "progressive folk" is an oxymoron. Once music becomes complex and sophisticated, it is, by definition, no longer "folk". 


troyguitar said:


> Since it was mentioned, multi-band distortion of a primitive sort does exist in some of the new BOSS pedals and Roland/Boss modeling stuff. I've been meaning to get my hands on one of the pedals to try it.


I have a GR55, and just bought a GT100, but haven't experimented with multivendor distortion yet. I'll have to give it a shot some time. 


DeathChord said:


> When everything old becomes new again.
> 7-string, 8-string, 9-string & 10-string Guitars



I've only had the opportunity to play a harp guitar on a few occasions, but I'd love to own one. They're not really "7-10 string guitars in the same way we're talking about, since the extra strings aren't fretted and are tuned diatonically. They're still effectively 6-string guitars, but with a few extra bass notes.


----------



## boxsmiley (Jun 23, 2014)

ergs suck, guitarists suck, everything sucks..............weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee


----------



## Given To Fly (Jun 24, 2014)

yingmin said:


> However, I think the most important step is just accepting some of the innovations that have already come along.
> 
> Jazz players were using 7-string guitars decades before the Universe was ever released, and classical guitarists have been using guitars with more than 6 strings for a long time as well.
> 
> ...



- What innovations are we not accepting? Also, keep patent laws in mind, just because someone invents something does not mean everyone can use it. 

- The classical music _avant grade_ does everything first. It just takes 50 years for someone to convincingly make it work. 

- Synth technology needs to be rock solid before guitarists accept it and so far no one has succeeded. There is one simple reason for this: frets are not buttons.

- If you limit ERG's to guitars tuned in 4th's than you are discounting how valuable those "few extra bass notes" are to performing the repertoire the instrument was intended to perform.


----------



## Explorer (Jun 24, 2014)

If memory serves correctly, once you get to 8 courses or more on lute, the bass strings are generally a half-step or a whole step apart, so you can sound them like an unfretted course, similar to how a harp guitar uses its extra strings. Therbo is the same.

And I thought a lot of the classical ERGs used that same paradigm for the lower note tunings, instead of using those strings as fretted strings.


----------



## yingmin (Jun 24, 2014)

Given To Fly said:


> - What innovations are we not accepting? Also, keep patent laws in mind, just because someone invents something does not mean everyone can use it.


I don't understand how you could ask that question if you've actually read my previous posts. Examples I've already given: active EQ, synthetic materials, biamping, mixed speaker systems, parametric EQ, headless instruments (recent Strandberg love notwithstanding), tremolo systems other than the standard claw-and-spring design.



Given To Fly said:


> - Synth technology needs to be rock solid before guitarists accept it and so far no one has succeeded. There is one simple reason for this: frets are not buttons.


Guitar synth technology does have its limits, but it's always getting better, and even in its primitive state, some people (Alan Holdsworth and Paul Masvidal, for example) were using it to great effect. The last few series of Roland guitar synths track perfectly on modeled guitar tones, and is pretty good on PCM synth tones. The fact that Roland doesn't even make any dedicated guitar "synths" anymore is indicative of how little interest there is in the field; their current offerings are either primarily or exclusively dedicated to modeling guitar sounds. I've heard so many guitarists, again even on this board, dismiss guitar synths because you should just learn to play a keyboard instead. There absolutely is resistance to the very idea of a guitar synth among guitarists.



Given To Fly said:


> - If you limit ERG's to guitars tuned in 4th's than you are discounting how valuable those "few extra bass notes" are to performing the repertoire the instrument was intended to perform.


I'm not "discounting" harp guitars at all. I just don't feel they should be categorized as ERGs, even though they are guitars, and they do have a greater range of notes than a standard guitar. By the same token, an 8-string lap steel is technically a (Hawaiian/steel) guitar, and it does have more than 6 strings, but I think it would be a bit screwy to call those ERGs. Harp guitars have value, and I appreciate them. I just happen to think they're more properly their own type of instrument. Put more simply, harp guitars are not ERGs; they're harp guitars.


----------



## octatoan (Jun 24, 2014)

This thread <3


----------



## Danukenator (Jun 24, 2014)

I go higher on one guitar. Fanned frets from 25.5" - 23.5" to achieve an high A.

It's fun to have such a massive range of notes to play. Even the high A sounds interesting because you rarely hear notes that high on a guitar. 

Quick note: 25.5" works fine for an F#. With heavy distortion it can get muddy but for soloing or adding a bassy feeling to guitar lines, it works perfectly!


----------



## troyguitar (Jun 24, 2014)

Given To Fly said:


> - Synth technology needs to be rock solid before guitarists accept it and so far no one has succeeded. There is one simple reason for this: frets are not buttons.



There's no reason that they can't effectively be buttons. I'd be surprised if no one has already done this, it would be relatively simple to accomplish.


----------



## yingmin (Jun 24, 2014)

troyguitar said:


> There's no reason that they can't effectively be buttons. I'd be surprised if no one has already done this, it would be relatively simple to accomplish.



Actually, a few companies, most notably Vox, made guitars which used frets as buttons to activate an organ sound.



There are also "guitar synths" that are merely synthesizers shaped like guitars, with six rows of buttons representing the frets.



What I don't like about either of those approaches is that they strip away the principal benefits of a guitar over a synthesizer: the expressiveness possible through directly manipulating the strings. By bending and using vibrato with your fingers, you have a much wider range of expression than MIDI commands will allow, because you're not relying on a machine to interpret your commands.


----------



## Poltergeist (Jun 25, 2014)

Uh oh, looks like I created a controversial thread  
I'm blown away by some peoples' comments/reactions to this topic, and pretty inspired by what others had to say... 




canuck brian said:


> Don't like 9 strings? Don't buy them. Don't like 10 strings? Don't buy them. Can't play 8, 9 or 10 strings? Don't buy them.
> 
> If your instrument does everything you want and you have no interest, stop assuming that other people buying guitars with more range are either stupid or attempting shock value. They're getting it because they WANT it.



It seems to me sir, you've read my thread the wrong way and somehow generalized and took offense to it. I'm NOT implying that more range or people who play 9+ string guitars are stupid or doing it for shock value.. I dont know why someone would join ss.org if they had a problem with extended range. I want to see peoples views on them since they're becoming more prevalent in the ERG community... Seems like I got way more perspectives than I thought I would, but I for sure never meant to bash on anyone or come across with any of those implications... People have motives,plans, and ideas for the reasons they _want_ things.


@Nagash- I feel bad that someone gave you a bad rep from my thread.. I dont agree with the comments they left either and just want to confirm that I did not give anyone a PM or any reps regarding this thread..

Thanks to the others who gave their personal experiences and goals with these instruments, it really was what I was looking for and more... And seems like its highly of interest to others too.. so its not a complete fail guys, this is a topic that obviously many people have A LOT to say about.. No reason to get butthurt about talking about this kinda stuff, I never insulted anyone, and I apologize again if anyone else had taken offense or misread my previous comments, I really just wanted to stimulate conversation on these types of instruments to read what others think of them...

Key points & Questions:
*All for more range

9+ stringed guitars are NOT stupid

Does the size of the neck impact your playing accuracy, or bring pain to the fretting hand?

Interested in peoples use of them, and how they are approached in music now and will be in the future

How do YOU think they can be used to influence play-styles to be more musically expressive, or better suit you as a musician? *


----------



## Explorer (Jun 25, 2014)

Poltergeist said:


> *Does the size of the neck impact your playing accuracy, or bring pain to the fretting hand? *



This is the single biggest problem I see across the board when people play, in rock, metal, and other styles. 

I went through a period where I had wrist problems. The solution, according to the therapist and the orthopedist, was to not have to bend my wrist while working my fingers. Using the fingers extensively with the wrist bent makes the tendons bend a corner, which causes all kind of problems. Now I play with the neck nearly upright, the same position as an upright bass or a Chapman Stick, with the headstock near my left ear.

Here's some photos, from worst positioning to the best.



































And lastly, able to reach across 12 strings with pretty much straight wrists and no strain at all....






Compare that to this next one. Which one allows more mobility and looks less painful?






Ouch!


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Jun 26, 2014)

Explorer said:


> This is the single biggest problem I see across the board when people play, in rock, metal, and other styles.
> 
> I went through a period where I had wrist problems. The solution, according to the therapist and the orthopedist, was to not have to bend my wrist while working my fingers. Using the fingers extensively with the wrist bent makes the tendons bend a corner, which causes all kind of problems. Now I play with the neck nearly upright, the same position as an upright bass or a Chapman Stick, with the headstock near my left ear.
> 
> ...



If you're trying to say a V is more painful, a Gibson V style guitar was the most comfortable guitar I've ever played.


----------



## yingmin (Jun 26, 2014)

Not the style of guitar, but how it's played. Look at how low the V is, and where the player's hands are, compared to the examples above it. This is not a problem of Vs per se, but a pretty common problem of the people who play Vs.


----------



## coffeeflush (Jun 26, 2014)

I actually find that V's and Ax shape (which I am using) is great if you hold guitar in classical postition, while not as comfortable as a chapman stick style it makes right hand left hand positions damn comfortable compared to normal rock position


----------



## Explorer (Jun 27, 2014)

Poltergeist said:


> *Does the size of the neck impact your playing accuracy, or bring pain to the fretting hand? *





Explorer said:


> *Using the fingers extensively with the wrist bent makes the tendons bend a corner, which causes all kind of problems.* Now I play with the neck nearly upright, the same position as an upright bass or a Chapman Stick, with the headstock near my left ear.
> 
> Here's some photos, from worst positioning to the best.And lastly, able to reach across 12 strings with *pretty much straight wrists and no strain at all....*
> 
> ...





Spaced Out Ace said:


> If you're trying to say a V is more painful, a Gibson V style guitar was the most comfortable guitar I've ever played.



All that stuff about wrist position, my own experiences on avoiding those issues, and all the photos illustrating the spectrum of wrist position from bad to good, and then one final bad one, were just a clever way to disguise my real point, that V's are uncomfortable.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Jun 27, 2014)

Explorer said:


> All that stuff about wrist position, my own experiences on avoiding those issues, and all the photos illustrating the spectrum of wrist position from bad to good, and then one final bad one, were just a clever way to disguise my real point, that *V's are uncomfortable*.



My experience with a V says otherwise.


----------



## InfinityCollision (Jun 27, 2014)

Spaced Out Ace said:


> My experience with a V says otherwise.





Read. Please.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Jun 27, 2014)

InfinityCollision said:


> Read. Please.



He said his point was that V's are uncomfortable. They are not.


----------



## yingmin (Jun 27, 2014)

Spaced Out Ace said:


> He said his point was that V's are uncomfortable. They are not.



You may want to read this.


----------



## Explorer (Jun 27, 2014)

Dude, I was joking. I highlighted what I thought was relevant, all the stuff about wrist angle that you completely tossed to the side, and then joked that you were right to ignore everything I said and to find a hidden meaning.

Please, reread the stuff about the wrist angle. If you really can't read it because you can't ignore the pictures, I'll replace it to soothe your aching heart.

*Short version: I was talking about good and bad wrist angles. 

You pulled the V stuff out of nowhere. I agreed that I had inserted a hidden message, just so you'd see how ridiculous that idea was. 

You ran even further with the ridiculous idea. 

I'm now apologizing for confusing you, and for not believing that you honestly found a hidden message where I hadn't actually inserted one. 

Srsly? You couldn't figure that out on your own? 
*


----------



## Murmel (Jun 27, 2014)

I find saying that having the thumb behind the neck being the most ergonomical, safe and correct way to play is misleading. You get a much more neutral wrist position from putting your thumb slightly diagonal or above the neck.

But whatever floats your boat. I personally pretty much only play thumb over neck.


----------



## Halowords (Jun 27, 2014)

Explorer said:


> And lastly, able to reach across 12 strings with pretty much straight wrists and no strain at all....



For those with 8-or-more string guitars, how many strings do you find people with average-sized hands are able to play barre chords across? For that matter, how important does it end up being being able to play 9- or 10- (or 12!) string barre chords? I play thumb-behind-the-neck and can move my thumb wherever I need to for reaching wherever I have to. I'm not sure I could bar across 9 or 10 strings at the 1st fret though, or if that is (or should be) a consideration.

-Cheers


----------



## boxsmiley (Jun 27, 2014)

Halowords said:


> For those with 8-or-more string guitars, how many strings do you find people with average-sized hands are able to play barre chords across? For that matter, how important does it end up being being able to play 9- or 10- (or 12!) string barre chords? I play thumb-behind-the-neck and can move my thumb wherever I need to for reaching wherever I have to. I'm not sure I could bar across 9 or 10 strings at the 1st fret though, or if that is (or should be) a consideration.
> 
> -Cheers



I could barely do it across 9, but it really is not important. Even at 6 strings you dupe tones in a barre chord. Its about choices and range for me. Not how many things I can cram into a chord. My hands are on the larger size.


----------



## shawnperolis (Jun 27, 2014)

I don't typically play bar chords on my 9 stringer. I use the ERG in a much different way than I use 6 or 7 string guitars. That being said, it is possible to play regular bar chords on the super wide neck if you really want to.


----------



## yingmin (Jun 27, 2014)

Halowords said:


> For those with 8-or-more string guitars, how many strings do you find people with average-sized hands are able to play barre chords across? For that matter, how important does it end up being being able to play 9- or 10- (or 12!) string barre chords? I play thumb-behind-the-neck and can move my thumb wherever I need to for reaching wherever I have to. I'm not sure I could bar across 9 or 10 strings at the 1st fret though, or if that is (or should be) a consideration.
> 
> -Cheers



Consider that, unless you deliberately tune it for the express purpose of playing barre chords, you can't even play more than a four-string barre chord on a 7-string if the root is on the 7th string. Barre chords exist because of standard tuning.

A practical example: Here are standard barre chord shapes in standard tuning

```
--5--A----5--A--------
--5--E----7--F#-------
--6--C#---7--D--------
--7--A----7--A--------
--7--E----5--D--------
--5--A----------------
```

Now, let's look at what happens if you remove that major third between the second and third strings, so that it's now tuned all in fourths (like a 6-string bass). Suddenly you're adding some notes that you probably don't want.

```
--5--A#---5--A#--------
--5--F----6--F#--------
--6--C#---7--D---------
--7--A----7--A---------
--7--E----5--D---------
--5--A-----------------
```

How would you actually have to play a barre chord to make it work?


```
--4--A----4--A---------
--4--E----6--F#--------
--6--C#---7--D---------
--7--A----7--A---------
--7--E----5--D---------
--5--A-----------------
```

Add another string, and it becomes even more untenable.


```
--3--G#--
--4--E---
--4--B---
--6--G#--
--7--E---
--7--B---
--5--E---
```

True, you could transpose those lower three notes up, but that really isn't a movable chord shape.


```
--3--G#--6--B---
--4--E---7--G---
--4--B---7--D---
--2--E---5--G---
--2--B---5--D---
--0--E---3--G---
--0--B---3--D---
```

Alternately, leave it in standard tuning with that extra string


```
--4--G#---
--5--E----
--4--B----
--6--G#--
--7--E---
--7--B---
--5--E---
```

That major third is what makes barre chords (as well as open chords) possible. Short of tuning in alternating fourths and fifths on an ERG, or tuning to an open chord, or some other solution specifically engineered to enable barring, barre chords aren't really a relevant consideration on an ERG. "Standard tuning" on guitars is standard specifically because it enables simple open and barre chord shapes.


----------



## Halowords (Jun 27, 2014)

yingmin said:


> Consider that, unless you deliberately tune it for the express purpose of playing barre chords, you can't even play more than a four-string barre chord on a 7-string if the root is on the 7th string. Barre chords exist because of standard tuning.



My thought process went approximately to this point:

EBEADGBE tuning on an 8-string.

Short-sighted, but fairly effective for extending the E-shaped barre chord if/as needed and keeping the basic patterns in-play. But yeah, 7-string rooted chords throw things off unless adding a lower note 5th or minor-6th to the chord (which I will probably play with all the time to be honest).

But your point is definitely taken.

-Cheers


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Jun 27, 2014)

Explorer said:


> Srsly? You couldn't figure that out on your own?
> [/B]



I guess not. 

C'est la vie.


----------



## Explorer (Jun 28, 2014)

I've been thinking about this, and I am sorry.

I sometimes have periods where I present information and people focus on something which not only wasn't my intention, but results from misreading what I actually present. 

In this case, I got sarcastic, but I realize I was mean. 

I'm sorry, Space Out Ace. I took out some frustration on you which you didn't deserve.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Jun 28, 2014)

Explorer said:


> I've been thinking about this, and I am sorry.
> 
> I sometimes have periods where I present information and people focus on something which not only wasn't my intention, but results from misreading what I actually present.
> 
> ...



That's not necessary at all dude. I appreciate it though.


----------



## Halowords (Jun 30, 2014)

I have been thinking about this quite a bit. In light of Shawn's post...



shawnperolis said:


> I don't typically play bar chords on my 9 stringer. I use the ERG in a much different way than I use 6 or 7 string guitars. That being said, it is possible to play regular bar chords on the super wide neck if you really want to.



Two questions.

First, how low a note is feasible for playing through a typical guitar setup? By that, I mean what actually sits in the mix well through a guitar amp and guitar pickups in a traditional band setting with an actual bass (with the bass pickups/amp) and maybe another guitar. I ask because, I would ultimately like to jam with people and they are not likely to have more than a 6-string in 99.99% of the cases. While in theory, I like the idea of more, I do not want to go out my way to get a 9 or, God forbid, a 10 if I will never use those notes a/o they change the ergonomics for the worse.

Second, how do you play differently on an ERG than your 6/7 stringers? The reason I ask is, I would like an ERG that I can still play all the six-string stuff but have the other range open. I am also thinking of how I might use those lower notes (planning eight, but seriously considering nine after drinking some of the Kool-Aid in this thread ). However, I guess I never really looked into how how people played differently, whether in so-called standard 4th tunings all the way to maintain the same scale shapes (and some of the repeating chording patterns). Also, just curious, do you tend to do more chord-work down low, lead/melody stuff, or a blend? I'm wondering in terms of tonal properties (i.e. how clear/muddy things sound that low), and ergonomics of the reach (single note runs vs. chord shapes) at the lower positions.

Hopefully that all made sense.

-Cheers


----------



## shawnperolis (Jun 30, 2014)

Halowords said:


> First, how low a note is feasible for playing through a typical guitar setup? By that, I mean what actually sits in the mix well through a guitar amp and guitar pickups in a traditional band setting with an actual bass (with the bass pickups/amp) and maybe another guitar.  I ask because, I would ultimately like to jam with people and they are not likely to have more than a 6-string in 99.99% of the cases. While in theory, I like the idea of more, I do not want to go out my way to get a 9 or, God forbid, a 10 if I will never use those notes a/o they change the ergonomics for the worse.



I play with a low B0 and my amp setup works. I don't even have a super nice amp, I run a Line6 HD300 effects processor into some 100watt Kustom combo amp I got on the craigslist. That being said, I used to jam with my 9 string in my band but it does tend to get a little muddy if everyone is playing in that register. I'm getting a 10 string in the near future (It should have been here in April...) and I doubt I'll play it in my band unless I write something specifically for that setting. We've done some cool stuff with the 9 stringer though so it is definitely possible to play in a band setting - you just have to be a little conscious of not stepping on the bass player. We also do some punk covers and I won't play that kind of music on my 9 string because it is heavy and taxing. The ERG guitar is, in my opinion, not a substitute for a 6 or 7 string guitar. It has its uses and can be really awesome but sometimes it is just not practical to play for certain types of music.



Halowords said:


> Second, how do you play differently on an ERG than your 6/7 stringers? The reason I ask is, I would like an ERG that I can still play all the six-string stuff but have the other range open. I am also thinking of how I might use those lower notes (planning eight, but seriously considering nine after drinking some of the Kool-Aid in this thread ). However, I guess I never really looked into how how people played differently, whether in so-called standard 4th tunings all the way to maintain the same scale shapes (and some of the repeating chording patterns). Also, just curious, do you tend to do more chord-work down low, lead/melody stuff, or a blend? I'm wondering in terms of tonal properties (i.e. how clear/muddy things sound that low), and ergonomics of the reach (single note runs vs. chord shapes) at the lower positions.



I play my ERG in a weird funky kind of way. I don't use a pick a lot of the time and I do lots of two handed tapping. I've been experimenting with slapping/thumping with my thumb on the lower strings and chording up higher to get a really cool mix of tones and a big range in a single riff. That is super fun! Recently I've been playing jazz chords fingerstyle and then tapping over them while trying to "walk" the bass line between the chords. You can do so much cool stuff on the ERG, don't let people convince you that it is purely a chugging machine... Although my Agile 9 does indeed chug like a goddamn beast!

Ergonomics are an issue with chords. They are totally fine if you are just playing in the 6/7 string part of the neck, but they do get kind of muddy and hard to play if you play them on the lower strings. Sometimes I'll just tap the bass note of the chord I'm playing for a cool effect though. Every player is different, so I bet a more competent guitarist than me could make the super low chords work.


----------



## Halowords (Jun 30, 2014)

This is kind of an open-ended question. While this is actually my scenario I suspect there are others also in the same boat and I'm fishing for opinions. So . . .

I would like a multiscale semi-hollow ERG. My plan was to get an 8-string guitar set up for a EBEADBE drop-E on the 8th string sort of tuning to preserve the basic playing style ala. Tosin Abasi. However, provided I can reach across a 9-string, and I'm fine with treating an ERG a bit differently anyway (as well as willing to get custom strings and practice to make sure I am playing the whole guitar and not JUST chugging away on the lowest notes possible), what would be the notable cons for just going for as many strings as you can reach (or in my case, going for a 9-string just to have the extra range available over a 9-string)? Provided I am diligent about practicing, and going to 8-strings anyway, as long as I can reach the notes, what's the downside of just one more?

If it makes a difference, I'm thinking of a semi-hollow headless multiscale, which might help with the weight and balance. But I am just trying to get some more opinions on the pro's/con's coming from the flip side of the coin of the OP. Instead of why, why _not?_ I would not make any rush decisions on this, just trying to garner more opinions.

-Cheers


----------



## Alex Kenivel (Jun 30, 2014)

I've got tons of wrist problems. I play a lot. A freakin lot. For years and years and years ive been a strat man. I'd play for too many hours a day on top of working myself into disability. Tendonitis, ulnar fasciitis, all that.

I've recently gotten myself a thirty inch scale eight string, with an obviously larger, and flatter fretboard. Now granted I don't have the time to play and play and play like I used to, but I still play for hours every day. 

I could be trippin but I think playing on my Agile is less damaging to my wrists compared to my little strats. I can't comfortably go back to my sixes. Now I'm not playing huge extended barre chords or anything, but it seems easier for my large hands and long fingers to play on my Agile.


----------



## Necris (Jul 1, 2014)

Explorer said:


> This is the single biggest problem I see across the board when people play, in rock, metal, and other styles.
> 
> I went through a period where I had wrist problems. The solution, according to the therapist and the orthopedist, was to not have to bend my wrist while working my fingers. Using the fingers extensively with the wrist bent makes the tendons bend a corner, which causes all kind of problems. *Now I play with the neck nearly upright, the same position as an upright bass or a Chapman Stick, with the headstock near my left ear.
> *
> ...




 I have never met anyone else (online or in person) who plays that way until now. Everyone who sees me play thinks it looks really weird.  

I came to the conclusion that playing in a more or less vertical position might help alleviate my own wrist issues on my fretting hand a little over a year ago. I've only had wrist issues once since changing to that style from classical position, and that time it may have actually been aggravated by heavy lifting rather than playing an instrument. 

Also, interestingly, in that position a V could actually be comfortable (I never found them particularly uncomfortable anyway), although it may feel more like you're playing a bass due to the length of the instrument.


----------



## Explorer (Jul 1, 2014)

Halowords said:


> First, how low a note is feasible for playing through a typical guitar setup?
> 
> ...Second, how do you play differently on an ERG than your 6/7 stringers? The reason I ask is, I would like an ERG that I can still play all the six-string stuff but have the other range open.



I know those questions were directed at someone else, but i have some thoughts.

I use a full range amp and full range speakers. When I was tuned down to Ab0, there was no muddiness because the system was already designed for full reproduction of any instrument from a bass to a flute. Any distortion/OD comes from processing, not from driving the amp. 

If a guitar amp and cab can cover the full range of what you're pushing through it, that's great. If it won't handle bass frequencies flat or at all, then you'll want something else for an ERG which hits those frequencies. 

When I was tuned in full fifths, the chording and fingering I was using was derived from cello, upright bass and violin, as well as cittern/bouzouki/mandola/mandolin. I can use all six strings/courses on my mandophone, but it wasn't practical across 8 strings because I don't have enough fingers. So, tapping, double stops and some chording. The thing is, you don't often hear a bass playing chords anyway, because of the way it crowds the bottom frequencies. Listen to classical music for bowed strings, and do some reading on how to compose for string quartets, and you'll get an appreciation for how to use wider intervals at the bottom and tighter intervals at the top.


----------



## yingmin (Jul 1, 2014)

Explorer said:


> The thing is, you don't often hear a bass playing chords anyway, because of the way it crowds the bottom frequencies. Listen to classical music for bowed strings, and do some reading on how to compose for string quartets, and you'll get an appreciation for how to use wider intervals at the bottom and tighter intervals at the top.



Sorry for commenting across threads, but this is actually one of the things I liked about the idea of NST, but didn't care as much for in the execution. I think that if the top TWO strings were tuned in thirds, rather than just the top string, the difference in tuning would be more useable. Something like C G D A C E, so that you still have effectively a mandocello on the bottom four strings, with the top three strings forming a major chord (sort of like a banjo). I may try that some time soon.

edit: Hmmmm....or use a 7-string, for C G D A C E G. Now I wish I had a second 7.


----------



## ElRay (Jul 1, 2014)

coffeeflush said:


> For more range.



O, because you like dense, piano-like chords and you want the same range?


----------



## Explorer (Jul 2, 2014)

yingmin said:


> ... I liked... the idea of NST, but didn't care as much for in the execution. I think that if the top TWO strings were tuned in thirds, rather than just the top string, the difference in tuning would be more useable. Something like C G D A C E, so that you still have effectively a mandocello on the bottom four strings, with the top three strings forming a major chord (sort of like a banjo). I may try that some time soon.
> 
> edit: Hmmmm....or use a 7-string, for C G D A C E G. Now I wish I had a second 7.



NST emerged in the midst of all the experimentation happening in the DC area in the '70s and '80s. That was when I was first experimenting in vain to get to b4 on the top string, with the thought of tuning in full fifths (CGDAEB). There was a huge amount of Celtic and American folk music, and instruments in fifths were everywhere. I couldn't get above G# though, and the typical acoustic guitar doesn't push enough air to have great tone below that low C2, so I didn't go for FCGDAE. 

In the midst of all this, Fripp declared that the tuning had just come to him... but I'm convinced that he just couldn't get that last note higher, and so he decided to make a virtue of necessity. He knew what was happening, since he even ordered the guitars to resell to his Guitar Craft students from Boe's Strings in Frederick MD, which is a folk music store involved in that traditional music scene. (I think it's still there on Market Street.)

Although a lot of the Craft guys would tell me that there were advantages to having that one string out of pattern, I've never heard anyone really leverage it. The brilliance of full fifths is that it's completely symmetrical across the entire fretboard. Even Craig, the awesome guy behind the JazzCittern.com website, agrees that there's no good reason to have completely regular patterns, and then to ruin it for the last string. 

Anyway, in case it's helpful to you, in my run-up to deciding to commit to the 12-string mandophone, I started tuning and playing in CGDDAE, which you can do without restringing. I also picked up the excellent Getting into Jazz Mandolin by the wonderful Ted Eschliman, which teaches playing with Four Finger Closed Position (FFCP) so you don't have to rely on open strings. You can find exercises for FFCP for free on JazzMando.com.


----------



## Halowords (Jul 8, 2014)

Explorer said:


> When I was tuned in full fifths, the chording and fingering I was using was derived from cello, upright bass and violin, as well as cittern/bouzouki/mandola/mandolin. I can use all six strings/courses on my mandophone, but it wasn't practical across 8 strings because I don't have enough fingers. So, tapping, double stops and some chording. *The thing is, you don't often hear a bass playing chords anyway, because of the way it crowds the bottom frequencies. Listen to classical music for bowed strings, and do some reading on how to compose for string quartets, and you'll get an appreciation for how to use wider intervals at the bottom and tighter intervals at the top.*



So I have been thinking and re-read the above post (the emboldened part being most relevant to my upcoming question).

I'm wondering, would a tuning like AEAEADGBE, AEBEADGBE or ADADACFAD make sense for preserving the patterns and chord shapes on the top six strings while also repeating 4ths/5ths for the bottom strings? I am trying to think of ways to have the open strings make sense for the E or A-rooted string chords (to add low open notes), and also preserve the ability to easily add 4th/5th notes to chords by just barring a bit lower. I also think, for me personally, having the strings repeating other strings could make it easier to do lower-string melodies and keep track of where I was at various locations.

As for why that's relevant to the above post, it has me thinking of the top strings (six or seven) as more suitable for chords as well as upper-note runs/melodies (the usual stuff) and the lower notes for adding to the chords, but also thinking about ways to spread the lower notes out so it does not get crowded like it would if a bass player played the notes too close together. Hopefully that makes sense. But I am thinking since most play a lot in C/Am, and I play a lot in Bm, having those notes often used in open chords (namely the E, A, and maybe B string) available as lower open notes for playing complimentary chords/melodies up and down the neck might be a fairly easy way to incorporate the lower notes without just using them as root notes in barre chords, for instance. I already do that playing, for instance, the open-E string and playing in E, Em, B(m), G, etc., etc. where adding the low-E sounds good (complimentary or for some intentional dissonance).

Just musing...

Edit: FWIW, I'm thinking something like ADADGCFAD on a 24-fret multiscale guitar where you had E-standard tuning for the top six strings at the second fret with standard scale length at the 2nd fret (so ~24.75" or "25.5" or whatever) and either capo-ing or barring if/as-needed to keep standard tension and tonal feel for a LP/Tele/Strat/whateveryouplay but be able to drop down to Eb or D and still have the lower open strings tuned to whatever makes sense and you can find a usable string/tension setup. But feel free to shoot that down if it's unfeasible a/o the ADAD tuning on the bottom strings would be too redundant or the notes would be spaced weird for most uses.

-Cheers


----------



## Explorer (Jul 9, 2014)

Regarding having open notes, that's absolutely a valid application if you're into that... but my personal choice is to not be reliant on given pitches. I personally find that such reliance makes any compositions arising from their use to sound similar in some ways. 

In my imagining on my 8s, chord shapes are generally 4-note or greater groups which skew lower on the bass end. I ran some chord sheets years ago when I was first starting in both full fifths and bass-plus-downtuned-guitar tuning, and figured out how to do certain chord shapes which could be done with one hand for major, minor, diminished and so on. Some of the shapes have one finger barring across two different frets, but most of them are about sketching the chord by having, at minimum, the third, seventh and any relevant extension tones near the top, and the bass and or fifth at the bottom. I'm not a jazzer, but I *love* funk, and the playing of Leo Nocentelli of the Funky Meters combines that moving melody/horn/bassline paradigm into one guitar. With ERG, I can drop the bass where I want to hear it. 

Here's my best suggestion: See how you can test whatever aspects of a tuning with what you have. You might not be in the same octave, but with just a six you can test the same bottom intervals as what you're suggesting by tuning to DGDGCF. Give it a spin and see if it's usable. The exact pitches don't matter, just that those intervals allow you to play what you're imagining.

And, go to a website with a guitar scale/chord generator which allows as many strings as you designate and in whatever pitches you want. When you run the various chords through it, keep your eyes open for chords which would allow clusters of notes to happen in a line as open/barred strings, and treat those as your barre chords. 

Good luck!


----------



## shawnperolis (Jul 9, 2014)

Explorer said:


> *And, go to a website with a guitar scale/chord generator which allows as many strings as you designate and in whatever pitches you want.* When you run the various chords through it, keep your eyes open for chords which would allow clusters of notes to happen in a line as open/barred strings, and treat those as your barre chords.



Mind sharing your favorite? I've looked for one before but could never find one that let me do 9/10 stringed instruments. Right now I just use Guitar Pro 6 but it can only do 8 string guitars.


----------



## Halowords (Jul 9, 2014)

shawnperolis said:


> Mind sharing your favorite? I've looked for one before but could never find one that let me do 9/10 stringed instruments. Right now I just use Guitar Pro 6 but it can only do 8 string guitars.



Ditto.



Explorer said:


> Here's my best suggestion: See how you can test whatever aspects of a tuning with what you have. You might not be in the same octave, but with just a six you can test the same bottom intervals as what you're suggesting by tuning to DGDGCF. Give it a spin and see if it's usable. The exact pitches don't matter, just that those intervals allow you to play what you're imagining.



First off, thanks! I really appreciate it.

Second, as for playing with intervals... If it helps, I'm exploring Jazz theory and would like to extend lower in a manner that would be conducive to playing more interesting chords and melodies. By "interesting" I mean Jazz chords, and being able to play chords or melodies, intervals, and copping your idea I like the idea of having the 3rds and 7ths and extensions close enough to play interesting double stops of say the 1st & 7th, or just something conducive to playing chords and sensible patterns all the way up and down the neck.

My thought with something like a hypothetical ADADGCFAD or BEADGCFAD tuning or the like was to maintain similar intervals throughout the guitar and be able to just barre across for a built-in 5th "power chord", or more likely extend the 1/5/1/5 or 1/5/1/4 sort of pattern. I use open notes when they make sense or sound good in chords moving up the neck, or using the open notes as root notes to chord/scale off of. But I agree, I do not want to just be reliant on what scales/patterns can riff off of those five open notes I have available either. It's more that I _tend_ to play in the keys of A(m), E(m), and B(m) more than, say, F# or C# even though I can certainly use them within the appropriate scales. However, I think having (and being able to use) the patterns, sort of ala an extended CAGED sequence (or a modified 9-string variant) would be more pragmatic for me than basing things on having a low-A unless it otherwise makes sense to do so.

Anyway, that's enough rambling from me for now. The short version was just more or less that I am asking for a logical starting point for playing with my six-string to come up with what might work best for me. Particularly with the goals of integrating Jazz theory, and possibly some Classical influences, Funk, Hip Hop, etc.

-Cheers

Edit: Please feel free to let me know if I should move this to a new thread, or if anybody knows if there are other threads addressing the same question so I can avoid redundancy. Thanks!


----------



## Explorer (Jul 10, 2014)

Here's a basic chord/scale generator. You can enter your custom tuning, using mine as an example, by typing in the characters in the quotes (not including the quotes): "E,A,D,G,C,F,A,D" 

A "b" or lower-case B will flatten the note before it, and a # will sharp it.

Fretboard Diagrams | Tools | StudyBass

You can also use the old flash version, linked on that same page.

----

By having your bass notes locked into that root/fifth/root/fifth pattern (EAEA), you'll only have root-fifth easily available five chords on the first five frets by barring (E through A). Even EBEA will get you another 4 chords. Doing all the strings in fourths (EADG, for example) will getyou all twelve chords in the first five frets. 

If you wanted to do, say, c, then you'd be able to bar at the third fret... but if you then wanted the fifth, the G, then you'd need to add fingers two frets above to that barre on all the stirngs which are the same pitch and not in that barre. I'm not sure if I'm saying that very well. *laugh*

-----

If you're interested in expanding your jazz horizons, especially with the greater bass range available, you might consider getting books like "Teaching Your Guitar to Walk" by Paul Musso, or any of a number of books which focus on walking basslines on guitar. A lot of times, it's just a matter of having exercises and working them, rather than just flailing, so I don't mind if a book seems simplistic while covering what I need to master. It's in the working one gets it down, rather than in the reading. 

I do like the Leo Nocentelli DVD set for funk guitar, as it deals with adding a bassline.


----------



## Halowords (Jul 10, 2014)

Hey Explorer, thanks for the reply.



Explorer said:


> By having your bass notes locked into that root/fifth/root/fifth pattern (EAEA), you'll only have root-fifth easily available five chords on the first five frets by barring (E through A). Even EBEA will get you another 4 chords. Doing all the strings in fourths (EADG, for example) will getyou all twelve chords in the first five frets.



I also think using all-4ths lets me mirror the BEAD of a standard bass and have the top six strings mirror a 6-string starting at the 2nd fret. Provided I think of this as a BEADGCFAD tuning where my standard EADGBE-tuning is right there at the 2nd-fret. It also preserves most of the shapes and patterns I already know. This may all be pretty obvious to everybody else, but it took me a while to wrap my head around that. I could see starting out with BEADGCFAD at least to begin with, and playing with it from there. I could go with ADGCAFBbGC, I suppose, if there were any real need or advantage to getting it down to A0, or in having C-standard tuning on the standard six strings. I'm not sure I see any major perks to that, but if there are I'm all ears. But I like the symmetry of it, and think BEADGCFAD might be nice to be able to reflect the standard bass tuning and preserve the patterns (and keeping all 12 chords achievable within the first five frets) and I can capo if I want to for E-standard then more/remove it for Eb or D-standard tuning if I'm lazy and do not want to barre.

Also, the Fretboard Diagrams website is pretty cool. I'll have to play with that a bit.



> If you're interested in expanding your jazz horizons, especially with the greater bass range available, you might consider getting books like "Teaching Your Guitar to Walk" by Paul Musso, or any of a number of books which focus on walking basslines on guitar. A lot of times, it's just a matter of having exercises and working them, rather than just flailing, so I don't mind if a book seems simplistic while covering what I need to master. It's in the working one gets it down, rather than in the reading.
> 
> I do like the Leo Nocentelli DVD set for funk guitar, as it deals with adding a bassline.



Thanks for the recommendations. I am definitely interested in expanding musical horizons and stretching myself, so I appreciate those a lot.

Thanks again though. That does help me sort things out in my mind.

-Cheers


----------

