Why play a 6 string?

[SGD Lutherie]

True. But I've noticed that few contemporary western stringed instruments feature more than 4 strings unless chords are intended to be played. And those instruments, in my experience, usually suffer tonal degradation as the result of having more strings.

If you are going to make a statement like that, than give an explanation why that is.

I don't agree with you, however. It's only based on tradition. The electric bass had 4 strings because uprights had 4 strings, and it was intended to be a cross over instrument. But Fender also made 5 and 6 string basses, and six string basses like Fender Bass VI's and Dano's were very popular around the dawn of electric bass. They are used on many recordings along with an upright player for that "tic-tack" bass sound.

And it's about what gets popular. You don't see tenor guitars much anymore. And you also don't see bass mandolins.

When the bass instrument in popular music didn't do much more than root and fifth, 4 strings was fine. Then synth bass was popular and a lot of bassist got low B fives to cover that range. As music evolves, so do the instruments that make it. That's why we have round wounds now. It only takes one forward thinking player to move things along.

The low "E" on most guitars, for instance, usually has less tonal integrity than the rest of the strings - it's approaching the lower bounds of the instrument's useful range. Ever listened to a 7-stringed guitar's low B? It's certainly not to my taste.

That's not my experience with low E or low B strings. There wouldn't be so many songs written in E if the low E sounded so bad on guitar. And then the original post I responded to said the low E on the bass sounded better on a 4 than a 5, so why wouldn't the same be true of the bass' low E string on a 4 string? If the low E is bad on guitar, why not bass? Sometimes it's about the gauge. .040 and lighter G strings can start to sound thin.

Now one thing is the farther up the neck you play that E string, the duller the notes sound compared to the thinner strings. It's not optimized for high notes. But most players use that to good advantage. Sometimes you want to play up higher on the fat strings for that tone.

The reason behind these things is the construction and gauge of the particular string and the scale length.

Getting back to the low E on a guitar... they sound a lot more twangy on long scale guitars, like fenders, than they do on Gibsons. Same holds true for basses. Shorter scales sound thumpier. Longer scales sound more like a piano.

Some builders went to 35 and longer scales for 5 string basses, but I think my low B's sound just like the E's on my basses. Nice and clear.

Another place for minor differences on the outside two strings are the pickups. Pickups with pole pieces, like a Strat, are lacking the extra magnets adjacent to the string, as with the inside strings.

Re: the piano, it doesn't sound good across its entire range! And it can't, ever. The same properties that enhance and enrich the lowest piano tones will prevent the higher tones from ringing true, and vice versa.

As someone else has mentioned, piano strings are of different lengths across the soundboard, like a harp. A good quality piano sounds nice and balanced from the lowest to highest notes. Grand pianos also have a soundboard that is shaped to bring out the best tone from the strings, and really good grand pianos are very long.

A masterfully built stringed instrument can be, at its best, a good compromise between the demands being made of it, and the trick with each is to see how well the compromise has been handled. It's hard for me to see how a 7-stringed bass guitar could produce good tonality across its entire range, but I'm in no way suggesting it can't be done, just as I am in no way suggesting pianists use shorter scale lengths.

Why wouldn't a seven string guitar produce good tonality across its entire range? What's different about it? They added a low B string. The rest of the strings haven't changed at all. Take off the low B and it's a 6 string guitar. Same thing with 5 and 6 string basses. One of my pickup testing basses is a 5 string without the low B. That makes it easier to get the pickup in the slot. It sounds just like a 4 string bass. I used to play it with the B and that sounded good too.

Now on a standard scale length guitar the low B might sound a bit tubby, because it's too short, and then you need a fatter string. But I've been doing some recording with a guy with a 27" scale guitar turned down to B, and that sounds great. So it's kind of like a 7 string without the top string. The difference is the scale length. Has nothing to do with the number of strings.

So I stand by my statement that adding a low B to a bass wont effect the tone of the E. It can't. They are separate strings. If there was an effect, then removing all the strings but the E should change the tone of the E, and it doesn't.

 

[ashtray9]

I think wider intervals with less motion is the best reasoning I've heard to own a six-string bass.

With that said, are most guys on a six throwing in advanced jazz harmony? Playing classical? Hitting extended chords?

I'd like to see a poll.

 

[wideyes]

Now we're getting somewhere!

If you are going to make a statement like that, than give an explanation why that is.

Sure. I think there is more going on than just a change in vogue. If an instrument is to be played solo, or designed to cover unique musical contexts, then sure, let it have whatever size, shape and range it can muster. But when you introduce a group dynamic to your music, there are advantages to keeping instruments within their respective ranges. Orchestras would struggle to sound balanced and cohesive with too many instruments jockeying for the same slice of the frequency spectrum. When I see a 6-string bassist playing in a rock band with two guitarists, I have to wonder what range he will need to be covering that the other guys can't handle. Narrow-mindedness, you say? I think these are pragmatic divisions made to preserve the idea that collective musicianship requires balance and a lack of the kind of gear-driven ego that I see plaguing many of my stringed brethren, guitarist and bassist alike.
That's a bit off-topic, however - the main point I was trying to make when examining these instruments was that the lower string count of the orchestral strings means that they more likely to optimize their useful frequency ranges. Scale length and string tension/thickness are vital in deciding this, but so too are body size and shape. Perhaps I wasn't clear in addressing this... obviously, adding an extra string will not degrade the quality of the other strings inherently. But the quality of the tone produced on THAT extra string may suffer as the result of being "grafted" on to an unsuitable scale length, OR the instrument as a whole may suffer from a reduced tonality as the result of a change in overall architecture to try and provide a "happy medium" over its greater string count. Fanned frets are definitely intriguing, and could well be a good solution to this problem! I don't know, I haven't layed fingers on such an instrument. Still, body size and shape play a role too, and a larger, heavier bass is less likely to reproduce a good high-pitch tone than a guitar that is smaller and lighter. The ideal environment for any plucked string is to be mounted at its optimum scale length, with optimum string thickness, on a body of optimum size and shape (all give or take a few measurements, to taste!) to maximize the reproduction of its particular frequency range, and each string pitch will have different optimum measurements - thus, the more strings you add to an instrument, the more compromises must be made to serve the reproduction of so many different frequencies. This is all I'm trying to assert! Obviously you don't want a bass with one string, and four seems a good balance of these compromises to me. My observation based on this assessment and my personal experience with many-stringed basses has led me to rule them out as an option, for the moment. Maybe I'll play one I like, but then I would have to ask myself why I want the higher strings?

That's not my experience with low E or low B strings. There wouldn't be so many songs written in E if the low E sounded so bad on guitar. And then the original post I responded to said the low E on the bass sounded better on a 4 than a 5, so why wouldn't the same be true of the bass' low E string on a 4 string?

Well, I'm going with my ears here, of course! But low E's on guitars often sound phasey, unfocused, and of slightly indeterminate pitch - they struggle to sound well in tune with the rest of the guitar. My best guess is it's the string tension at fault. Tuning the A string to the reference of the E's fifth fret can be misleading on a guitar. High-quality instruments can mitigate this, but it is an example of the compromise I'm talking about. It is my belief that because a bass guitar has only 4 strings, it's better serving the tonality of those four than the guitar is of its six, based on the reasoning outlined above. Yes, the guitar is tuned to E, so naturally there are lots of songs in that key, but that is no proof in itself that the low E sounds good! When played in chords, the tonality of the low E is not under as much scrutiny. It's probably the lowest pitch the architects of the 6 string guitar wanted to try and get away with. Ever played a guitar in drop D? Floppy and muddy. It is my belief that all instruments sound best in the middle of their ranges. As mentioned by a previous poster, you don't see guitarists often soloing on their low E's.
The piano may be the best example yet of an acoustic instrument capable of reproducing all the meaningful pitches we've decided upon to date. Having said that, it is very difficult (and expensive!) to make one sound good across the board, and I still assert that the lowest and highest octave on the piano do not have the same balance of integrity, clarity and richness that the middle notes do. Part of this is our preference for the frequency range we as humans hear best, what we call the "midrange", because our ears behave by all the same acoustic rules that our instruments do. But a high pitch is best served by a smaller instrument, and vice versal for a low pitch. The piano is one leviathan compromise.

 

[spade2you]

I'd quote ya, but there's a lot of points...and I'm feeling lazy today.

Guitars tuned below E generally don't sound great, but don't blame physics for the shortcomings of musicians. I'm in the process of ordering a fanned 7 string acoustic guitar, although we aren't sure of the exact fan at the moment, perhaps 27"-25".

Playing the extended range has some limitations, but we're in a place where there are luthiers employing better technique such as fanning, being able to get a tight B in 34" scale (and a few capable in 32" and 33" scale), fanned scale lengths, etc. Equally as important as the luthiers would be an amazing assortment of strings available these days!

I'll agree with you that when it's not done right, guitars in the lower register sound like pure mud and basses in the upper register sound extremely thin. Guitars will never sound like a bass and vice versa. Granted, a lot of opinions will depend on our personal tastes, which may vary, but I think there is some pretty impressive stuff out there at the moment and there's a lot to come!

 

[SGD Lutherie]

Sure. I think there is more going on than just a change in vogue...

You changed the subject. What you were supposed to be explaining is why adding a low B changes the tone of the E.

Well, I'm going with my ears here, of course! But low E's on guitars often sound phasey, unfocused, and of slightly indeterminate pitch - they struggle to sound well in tune with the rest of the guitar. My best guess is it's the string tension at fault.

Sorry, I have 6 guitars and none of them sound like that. The phasey part is often heard on bass strings too, but on a guitar could be having pickups with alnico poles too close to the strings. That phasey stuff is often just the brand of string. I used to get that a lot with Rotosounds, and actually thought it sounded pretty cool.

Strings are not all created equally. This is especially apparent on low B strings for 5-string sets. Some low B's are abysmal. I've used about every brand of string made, and don't care for many of them. They all sound fine when you first put them on, but how long they last is the big deal.

Scale length does matter, but if you match up the string gauge with the length, it helps. I prefer 25.5" guitars and 34" basses.

All the other stuff you are talking about with tuning is from a poorly intoned guitar, or crappy strings that weren't stretched.

But hearing is believing, so I pulled my Tele style guitar (that I built) out of the case with 6 month old D'Addario XL's and recorded this clip. I'm using the low E a lot, and you can hear it sounds just like the rest of the strings. (yes the guitar was out of tune when I took it out of the case). On the phrase from "Dance of Maya" I play the low E up and down the neck.

Link Removed

So I say if your low E sounds funky, change your strings!

 

[SGD Lutherie]

Playing the extended range has some limitations, but we're in a place where there are luthiers employing better technique such as fanning, being able to get a tight B in 34" scale (and a few capable in 32" and 33" scale), fanned scale lengths, etc. Equally as important as the luthiers would be an amazing assortment of strings available these days!

+1

My observations is it's all about the stiffness of the neck. I think I get a really tight low B on my 34" basses. And it doesn't get thumpy sounding... sounds just like the E string, only lower. I attribute that to the neck construction, in my case two truss rods, carbon/graphite rods, and a phenolic fingerboard, plus a few other tricks.

If your neck is too flexible, the recoil from the weight of the strings makes the head and neck flex and dissipates energy, giving a rubber band tone to the low strings.

 

[buddyro57]

Back to the original question, why play a 6 string? I have played bass for 40 years, I play or have played four five and six string instruments, fretted, fretless, acoustic dreadnought, Chapman stick, hauled a minimoog around the country, and have played uprightbass in small groups, big bands, orchestras, chamber groups, bluegrass groups....anyway you get my drift.
I switched to 6 string pretty late in the game, about 3 years ago. I like it because I THINK differently on it, therefore there is a different concept at work, more harmonic and melodic possibilities are there, simply because of the logistics. I find myself playing many more wide interval leaps, many more doublestops, and seeing more possibilities without so much shifting... I would not go back unless there were a good musical reason to do so (like playing a certain style that would call for a particular instrument).
Lastly, don't allow your band mates to influence you on this, they need to be supportive of your choices and your aspirations (do you ever exercise veto power over their choices? no I didn't think so!).
Good luck!

 

[Honk'n_down-low]

...I like it because I THINK differently on it, therefore there is a different concept at work, more harmonic and melodic possibilities are there, simply because of the logistics. I find myself playing many more wide interval leaps, many more doublestops, and seeing more possibilities without so much shifting... I would not go back unless there were a good musical reason to do so (like playing a certain style that would call for a particular instrument)....

+1 Well stated and I agree.

 

[spade2you]

+1

My observations is it's all about the stiffness of the neck. I think I get a really tight low B on my 34" basses. And it doesn't get thumpy sounding... sounds just like the E string, only lower. I attribute that to the neck construction, in my case two truss rods, carbon/graphite rods, and a phenolic fingerboard, plus a few other tricks.

If your neck is too flexible, the recoil from the weight of the strings makes the head and neck flex and dissipates energy, giving a rubber band tone to the low strings.

Very much so. Then you can add in the witness point angles at the headstock and/or bridge and I'm sure there are plenty of other tricks to enhance the B. I also have a bass with a semi-synthetic (Dymondwood) fingerboard and the B is nothing short of amazing.

I guess the rate limiting step with most 6+ string basses and 7 string guitars is that it's pretty hard to get experience with the good ones. I know when I started bass in 2000, I hadn't heard any bands with a good low B or played anything in town that was worth a crap. Granted, I didn't know of chat rooms n' stuff, so I can understand that it's often hard to grasp certain concepts if you don't have "proof". The unfortunate thing about most prevalent opinions out there is that they're based on experiences with older instruments that were good for their time, but can't compete with the learning experience of later instruments, are simply based on experiences with cheap instruments, or perhaps are based on experiences with old cheap instruments. So, a 1990's $200 active 6 string _____________ might sound like a tin can, have a weak B, and a nasal high C. Fortunately, I only need to reach for something in my arsenal to prove this wrong.

 

[Captain_Arrrg]

But when you introduce a group dynamic to your music, there are advantages to keeping instruments within their respective ranges.

This is the same old, tired range debate that leaves us with a 2 string bass with 7-9 frets. It fell flat then, and it does now.

When I see a 6-string bassist playing in a rock band with two guitarists, I have to wonder what range he will need to be covering that the other guys can't handle. Narrow-mindedness, you say? I think these are pragmatic divisions made to preserve the idea that collective musicianship requires balance and a lack of the kind of gear-driven ego...

So this is what this is all about- You've stuffed yourself within a paradigm that doesn't allow you to see the benefits in this situation.

Maybe you should check your "gear driven ego".

 

[SGD Lutherie]

Very much so. Then you can add in the witness point angles at the headstock and/or bridge and I'm sure there are plenty of other tricks to enhance the B. I also have a bass with a semi-synthetic (Dymondwood) fingerboard and the B is nothing short of amazing.

Exactly. I had decided to try phenolic because my business partner in SGD at the time was working with Ned Steinberger on the NS Double bass prototypes, and I though the way they laminated the bass with maple and carbon fiber was really cool. And phenolic is made from paper... so we get back to impregnated wood products, sort of. It needed extra stiffening, so I laminated it with wood. This was back in 1993, so it was pretty uncharted territory.

I guess the rate limiting step with most 6+ string basses and 7 string guitars is that it's pretty hard to get experience with the good ones. I know when I started bass in 2000, I hadn't heard any bands with a good low B or played anything in town that was worth a crap.

I had a similar experience. I bought my first 5 string, an Ibanez SR-885 LE back in 1987 when they first came out. It's a nice bass (and I still have it), but there were things I thought could have been improved upon, like neck stability, plus I wanted a six string. I couldn't afford any of the really nice six strings, so I decided to make my own. Of course in the end I spent more money on machines and tools! But I came up with a design I liked. Ironically I never did make myself a six string, and have been playing five strings ever since.

I spent a little time with a few six strings I was doing work on, and I do like the way they open up new ideas. You end up playing things that would require a position shift, and intervals that are just not comfortable to play.

ashtray9 asked what kind of stuff do people play on sixes. I don't play a six, but my thing is trying to play things I never heard or played before. That's not in a regular band context, but even then I try to play parts that fit the music, and are still harmonically interesting and even unexpected. Too much music is genre based, and in that all you hear are clichéd parts that sound like every other song of that genre.

But it's like fashion. Fashionable people wear what is in fashion, so they aren't being themselves, they are being what is expected of them. They are wearing what everyone else wears. Music can be like that too, which is a shame, and why I don't listen to the radio (except KEXP and WFMU).

 

[Gard]

Because I CAN.



If it bothers the guitarist, I tell him to refill his Viagra prescription and shut it.




...it's what you DO with the instrument that matters, now how many strings it has, what it is made of (I prefer unobtanium myself... ), blah, blah, blah...if your bandmates are making value judgments based on string numbers, try asking them how many fingers and toes they have, that should keep them occupied long enough that they forget you are getting the 6er..

 

[spade2you]

Maybe you should check your "gear driven ego".

Meh, just remember that opinions are like a-holes, we all have one. As one of the few 6 string and boutique players in a mostly indie town, you wouldn't believe the kind of crap people say about what I do and the gear I use....naturally, I'm the snob. Then again, I was successfully blacklisted as a guy with bad technique, tone, and attitude. Keep in mind that 90% of TBers will say that only a Fender will work, but I keep sitting well in the mix using what I use.

Exactly. I had decided to try phenolic because my business partner in SGD at the time was working with Ned Steinberger on the NS Double bass prototypes, and I though the way they laminated the bass with maple and carbon fiber was really cool. And phenolic is made from paper... so we get back to impregnated wood products, sort of. It needed extra stiffening, so I laminated it with wood. This was back in 1993, so it was pretty uncharted territory.

I initially went with Dymondwood because I wanted a fingerboard that could take unprecedented amounts of roundwound abuse with minimal wear. Sure, the tone is a tad brighter, but the low B enhancement and durability is neat. I'm also enjoying how it doesn't seem to move with my climates extreme changes in humidity.

I also have a bass on order with an acrylized fingerboard, which ACG has been doing for a while. I'm interested to see how this compares.

My only gripe so far is that the tone tends to be a bit bright, but nothing a good 'ol EQ can't fix.

 

[SGD Lutherie]

But when you introduce a group dynamic to your music, there are advantages to keeping instruments within their respective ranges. Orchestras would struggle to sound balanced and cohesive with too many instruments jockeying for the same slice of the frequency spectrum.

Are you assuming there would be no score to follow and the parts haven't been arranged? Everyone is just playing willy nilly?

I've played in orchestras (on tuba mostly). A lot of the instruments have ranges that overlap others. What about pianos? If what you are saying had any logic to it, than pianos would have three octaves, right?

When I see a 6-string bassist playing in a rock band with two guitarists, I have to wonder what range he will need to be covering that the other guys can't handle.

He will be handling his parts, even if the range overlaps the guitar. After all if we wanted no over lap you would lose the G and D string and not play over the 5th fret or so, right? Everyone plays their own parts. They could even be in the same octave!

The thing you are missing is people don't play every note all the time. Back in the early 90's I played in a band where more often than not, I ended up playing the solo while the guitarist was playing chords. Why? it just happened that way, not because I wanted to be the soloist. Other times he was doing the solo. We only had one guitar, so I would often move my parts up higher to fill in the space left by him no longer chording.

Two examples (recorded live in the studio):

[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

It's all about arraignments. In Disorderly I play just about every note on the fretboard at some point in the song. Good musicians know how to not step on each others toes. They have good ears. Guitarist with less good ears use way too much low end, and that takes up too much space. Just look at Metalica! Do they even have a bass player? I can't hear him (which is a shame because he's damn good!).

So the bottom line is being creative enough, and having good taste, to use an instrument like a six string bass. Anthony Jackson (and others) certainly is.

 

[Bryan R. Tyler]

But when you introduce a group dynamic to your music, there are advantages to keeping instruments within their respective ranges. Orchestras would struggle to sound balanced and cohesive with too many instruments jockeying for the same slice of the frequency spectrum.

That's a bit off-topic, however - the main point I was trying to make when examining these instruments was that the lower string count of the orchestral strings means that they more likely to optimize their useful frequency ranges.

That's again ignoring the fact that most orchestral instruments have had a greater string count in their past, and will likely again in the future. And when's the last time you saw a full-sized orchestra without at least four violins and cellos, etc.? Making any claims that multiple instruments occupying the same range will decrease the balance of the music would dictate that no more than one of each instrument should be played. That would be a pretty ludicrous statement, as nearly any orchestral music fan will tell you it fills out the sound more. Just as having multiple different instruments whose frequencies cross can fill out the sound, and even enhance it as the same frequencies the tonalities of the different instruments will likely be different and give more depth to the same notes.

When I see a 6-string bassist playing in a rock band with two guitarists, I have to wonder what range he will need to be covering that the other guys can't handle. Narrow-mindedness, you say? I think these are pragmatic divisions made to preserve the idea that collective musicianship requires balance and a lack of the kind of gear-driven ego that I see plaguing many of my stringed brethren, guitarist and bassist alike.

The minute you start listening with your eyes, you've corrupted yourself as a listener. There's a simple way to resolve any "issue" you're bringing up here- listen to music. Every one of your worries is disproven on a daily basis by bands and orchestras that use multiple identical instruments, instruments that cross into each other's ranges, etc. Make any claim that the tonality of the low E on a guitar is less than ideal- it will in no way reduce the beauty and listenability of a Pat Metheny solo that uses the E string extensively. Make any claim that a six-string bass will reduce the tonal integrity of a band as it would cross into other instrument ranges- it will in no way reduce how perfectly an Anthony Jackson bassline that covers all six strings fits into a Lee Ritenour tune. If you start thinking that there's a way music should sound, you might as well stop listening to it, as you're going to miss out on all the stuff that contradicts your ideas but still sounds great.

 

[David Jayne]

Make any claim that a six-string bass will reduce the tonal integrity of a band as it would cross into other instrument ranges- it will in no way reduce how perfectly an Anthony Jackson bassline that covers all six strings fits into a Lee Ritenour tune.

True, but AJ is really, really, really good. In the right hands a 6er(or even more)is great, but, like guns or explosives, in the wrong hands they can be deadly.
I feel that would-be 6 string players should have to pass some kind of exam before being allowed to purchase one. As I feel keyboardists should, before being allowed to use the lower half of the board.

 

[Bryan R. Tyler]

True, but AJ is really, really, really good. In the right hands a 6er(or even more)is great, but, like guns or explosives, in the wrong hands they can be deadly.
I feel that would-be 6 string players should have to pass some kind of exam before being allowed to purchase one. As I feel keyboardists should, before being allowed to use the lower half of the board.

Suckage is not limited to string count- I've heard way more wanky bass playing on a four than I have on a six

The point is that it's the player, not the instrument, that determines how well they fit their instrument into a band context.

 

[SGD Lutherie]

I feel that would-be 6 string players should have to pass some kind of exam before being allowed to purchase one. As I feel keyboardists should, before being allowed to use the lower half of the board.

That could be said of anyone... including 4 string bassist and even people planning on having kids!

I had a band once and I told the keyboard player to only use his right hand! But that was based on the music we were doing (new wave)

For 4 string bassist that play simple parts and rarely go above the 7th fret on the G string, a six string would be useless.

And playing simple isn't easy either! It's all about taste and not overplaying. I know from my stint playing in a church band. But everyone there loved my 5 string bass, and I'd have people tell me how nice it sounded, and how pretty it was, and these weren't musicians! Not a single one thought "oh he has a coffee table bass with one too many strings... what's he going to do with that!"

 

[FootieSoxx]

That band sounds like they're full of themselves. If they want to dictate what kind of bass their bassist plays, they'll have to take that up with themselves.

Go buy whatever bass you want (that Ibanez does look pretty sweet) and try to find a band with a little more dignity.

 

[rodneyat]

i mean, shoot. i have basses with strings older than you, and they still sound good .

I think this may have to end up in my signature..