Now that 6-string basses are easy to find, I wonder: why not tune in major thirds, e.g. 4 half-steps rather than 5 between strings? A 6-string tuned in thirds would have the SAME range as a normal 5-string, i.e.
B.D#.G.B.D#.G = BEADG.
The attractions would be:
MUCH more nimbleness;
arpeggios lie more naturally;
Chromatic scales require no shifts (so neither does any other scale);
Easier to play chords if you want;
easier for duffers to play without looking; and
might be an easier shift to fretless.
Each hand position gives you 24 notes, so you get two octaves with just one finger extension.
If I've counted right, here are some fingerings:
A major scale can be fingered e.g. 35.34.24.23, or (for two octaves, using six strings) 24.235.35.24.235.35.5*.
(Using pianists' numbers for the fingers, a . to show string changes, and a * to show finger extension.)
A major chord or arpeggio can be e.g. 3.3.2.3.
Fifths can be 3..2 etc.
Octaves can be 3...3 or ..5 or 5....2.
10ths can be 3....3 or 2*...5*.
I-IV-V can be 3.4.2.
A five string gives you a bit more than a normal 4-string range, e.g. Eb G B Eb G, and gives you 20 notes in each position. This might be more practical for people who like 19mm spacing and don't have super long fingers.
A four string gives you 3 half steps less than normal range, e.g. E.G#.C.E, but the extra nimbleness might make this attractive. For soloing up the neck you might want to do some position shifts like pianists do, where you use one note to gauge a shifted position for the next one.
This tuning isn't nearly as attractive if you're not doing one finger per fret, so I'm guessing it wasn't ever used for double bass - does anyone know? It may have been tried for guitar or lute long ago, but that's a different world.
I'd love to hear frank comments, especially from people who are better players and/or better musicians than me. I'll have to string one of my beaters this way, and see how it feels.
B.D#.G.B.D#.G = BEADG.
The attractions would be:
MUCH more nimbleness;
arpeggios lie more naturally;
Chromatic scales require no shifts (so neither does any other scale);
Easier to play chords if you want;
easier for duffers to play without looking; and
might be an easier shift to fretless.
Each hand position gives you 24 notes, so you get two octaves with just one finger extension.
If I've counted right, here are some fingerings:
A major scale can be fingered e.g. 35.34.24.23, or (for two octaves, using six strings) 24.235.35.24.235.35.5*.
(Using pianists' numbers for the fingers, a . to show string changes, and a * to show finger extension.)
A major chord or arpeggio can be e.g. 3.3.2.3.
Fifths can be 3..2 etc.
Octaves can be 3...3 or ..5 or 5....2.
10ths can be 3....3 or 2*...5*.
I-IV-V can be 3.4.2.
A five string gives you a bit more than a normal 4-string range, e.g. Eb G B Eb G, and gives you 20 notes in each position. This might be more practical for people who like 19mm spacing and don't have super long fingers.
A four string gives you 3 half steps less than normal range, e.g. E.G#.C.E, but the extra nimbleness might make this attractive. For soloing up the neck you might want to do some position shifts like pianists do, where you use one note to gauge a shifted position for the next one.
This tuning isn't nearly as attractive if you're not doing one finger per fret, so I'm guessing it wasn't ever used for double bass - does anyone know? It may have been tried for guitar or lute long ago, but that's a different world.
I'd love to hear frank comments, especially from people who are better players and/or better musicians than me. I'll have to string one of my beaters this way, and see how it feels.
Last edited:
