Mark Sandman did with 2 ! Have to say , I did like him and his whole thing...
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Mark Sandman did with 2 ! Have to say , I did like him and his whole thing...
I think it would be really interesting to play a purpose-built 3 string. I feel like it would make you interact with those same 3 strings differently than you would with 4 strings in the equation. Might be a good training exercise, actually..
Great performance using a period instrument by Gagliano.
(please see attached photo GSR205)
Tony Levin played a 3 because the funk fingers made it hard to hit the right string on a normal 4 - with only 3, the strings could be spread apart further. The photo above shows a 3 string upright - there were lots of uprights with different numbers of strings many years ago - 3 was a pretty common number if you go back far enough.
If I wanted to play a 3, I think I'd buy a narrow necked 5, and take 2 strings and their tuners (and bridge saddles) off, so I'd end up with wide spacing.
Hi Micguy. This is EXACTLY what I had done on a GSR205. I removed the B and G strings and kept it at (as Tony Levin said: "E,A,D of course") . I plugged the tuner holes up with black plastic caps. I also loosened the truss rod and raised the action slightly as the neck was no longer under as much tension. All of this could be put back to be a 5-string if needed without harm. Just experimenting.
Oh okay, I get it now. That is a very good idea and still not requiring heavy mods to the instrument. Very cool.You kept the strings close to each other - I'd go for wide spacing using the B, A, and G tuners and string paths - abandoning the E and D. I have huge hands; close spacing is not my thing.