Anyone using extended range (8+) guitars for other than technical and/or metal?

[ohmanthisiscool]

I do funk/jam (I can play counter to the bass, then groove on a melody and then solo all with the one guitar, its great!), pop punk(blink-182 and plus 44ish) and yes I use the 2 lowest strings usually as long sustaind notes into bridges and choruses. sometimes I will mimic the bass notes right after he hits his notes to give it a wierd delay effect, as well as the baritone spaghetti western stuff.
Also I started doing kaki kingesque stuff but lower. I stated that on a 7 with AEBEF#be tuning and fell in love with it, on my 8 I just try to get the sounds in standard with BIG stretches.

 

[capo_fez]

Well, after seeing this thread I have to say that this is definitely an interesting debate over terminology. What someone uses the instrument for is really up to them. I personally use my 8-string for synth heavy electronica based material. I do play a lot of metal/pop-ish type riffs on it, like stuff in the style of anywhere from Meshuggah (but in 4/4), to Taproot, to Nirvana, to Steve Vai, to some really off the wall sound effects. Would this be techinichal if it's doing more then just low tuned chug chug, or metal if it's using distortion in ample amounts with power chords and single notes? You can define my lower chords, and I can take a tasteful solo on it. I can play some really dark riffs, and I can go to some awesome sounding pop stuff. To pull off what I use this thing for would take either 2 guitars or some really fancy footwork with octavers and capos. I use a capo in one song (a cover of Pendulum's "Propane Nightmares") to get the full effect of an Eb Maj done in a C open position. If I could do all that I do on anything with less strings I would. I worked it out tonight that one of my pieces could be done on a detuned 7-string if it had 26 frets. Other than that, most of my stuff needs voicings that could only be done with an 8-string or more than one guitarist. Yes, I think it fits the criteria of the original question. No, I am not bragging about it. Yes, I know it looks like I am, but this only in response to the question. I do think that disqualifying "technical" playing is a bit too vague, but if you mean guys like Meshuggah, Dream Theater, Vai, etc, are in that category you're right. What about some of the really good country guys? Brent Mason or Danny Gatton? What about them? Were they not technical as well? What about jazz? Django and Wes Montgomery? Or even George Van Epps!!! He's one reason why we even know what an ERG is today!!! He revolutionized guitar playing with his 7-string drop tuned to A! Bernie Rico! 8-string jazz guy. Watch a video on him and tell me he's some technical metal, dime a dozen, shedder that has no taste. Look, if you wanna brag or talk trash, fine, just let it be known that most of the time almost no one cares. If you wanna be close minded and reject what anyone else thinks, again, who cares. If you wanna have a real discussion about style on here, be able to back up your opinions properly, or admit your original thoughts are wrong and open your mind. It looks like the 7-string fadsters are making a reappearance for the 8-string uprising. Well, they were wrong once, and history is said to repeat it self. 8-stringers, now is the time to unite for a common cause. We may not all get along great for stylistic reasons, but for Pete's sake, lets get together and demand fairness in the world of music!

First order of business... How about a set of strings for us!

 

[SevenString]

Okay, this is cool. With all of your help, this thread seems to have morphed into the sort of discussion I was hoping for.

Sorry about the snarky comment earlier, Explorer. I plead "lack of coffee" when I made that post.

 

[Explorer]

Actually, I hadn't read snarkiness in your post. I thought that perhaps you were frustrated with others not understanding where you wanted to go, so it seemed fruitful to try to be sure we were all using the same terms.

----

Here's my bigger thoughts on new inventions/technologies: The first folks to adopt them are innovators purely because they are the first to make use of the easiest characteristics. Once that easy territory has been largely explored, then it becomes harder and harder to do things which are considered novel.

You can see this aspect in terms of modern classical music. Many composers today work with concepts which are highly theoretical, but which are not as pleasing to the ears as classical harmonic concepts. They go there because no one has explored it yet, and they want to find something new.

Jazz musicians also go this route. Hardcore jazzers play solos which are highly technical... and which rarely alight on pleasing rest tones or transitional tones. If one isn't educated as to what is desirable in such music, it can be unlistenable.

Skateboarding tricks become more and more extreme as the easiest territory is mastered by a larger group.

----

Using all that as an example, what about eight-string?

As metal always had low crunchy tones, djentlefolk were quick to adopt the low tuned instruments for that easy chugging. That was the easy part. Shredders also used the instruments for their needly work.

However, there was also a convergence from another instrument... extended range bass. Some bassists had already moved beyond 4 strings, and it's logical that they started adding strings at both ends. There is also a history of bassists exploring how to maximise the instrument, even if they only used four strings (think of that "country" track off of Stu Hamm's "Radio Free Albemuth," using many guitar ideas played both in guitar and bass ranges).

At this point, eight-string just isn't as inexpensive as a six-string guitar. Until it is, most folks who buy an eight-string will do so because they know what they want to do with it... and it will normally either be the needly djent, or it will be someone who wants to push the boundaries of what they're doing. It will be a rare person who says, this is an awesome chord machine, and that's as far as I'll take it after spending so much money on it. *laugh*

Now I'm feeling guilty, of course, because I should be spending more time on getting the instruments set up perfectly for my needs. Since I'm waiting on some touchstyle guitar instructional material to arrive, though, I've gotten distracted and bought an inexpensive 6-string electric violin. My neighbors are on the verge of murder, suicide, or both, and I've found a new money pit, as I'll be buying a new carbon fiber bow soon and a better case. Then I'll look at geared violin pegs, and I'm sure something else will occur to me after that....

 

[Gitte]

I play in a modern rockband and the low string just gives me this chunky edge i was dreaming of
in another thread i posted a cover song of lady gaga's paparazzi. Feel free to check it out

 

[ralphy1976]

I play in a modern rockband and the low string just gives me this chunky edge i was dreaming of
in another thread i posted a cover song of lady gaga's paparazzi. Feel free to check it out

that cover is sweet!!!!! what about the bass player though?!!!! do you really need one now you have 8 strings?!!! (only kidding)

 

[hufschmid]

You know what would be serioussly epic?

Somebody who tunes an 8 string like a lute and who would actually play old lute covers with his 8 string electric solid body...

 

[Fred the Shred]

Send me the tuning you want, as there were some variations, and I'll see what I can do.

 

[ralphy1976]

Fred :

taken from Wikipedia

Lutes were made in a large variety of sizes, with varying numbers of strings/courses, and with no permanent standard for tuning. However, the following seems to have been generally true of the Renaissance lute: A 6-course Renaissance tenor lute would be tuned to the same intervals as a tenor viol, with intervals of a perfect fourth between all the courses except the 3rd and 4th, which differed only by a major third. The tenor lute was usually tuned nominally "in g" (there was no pitch standard before the 20th century), named after the pitch of the highest course, yielding the pattern [(G'G) (Cc) (FF) (AA) (dd) (g)] from the lowest course to the highest. (Much renaissance lute music can be played on a guitar by tuning the guitar's third string down by a half tone.)
For lutes with more than six courses the extra courses would be added on the low end. Due to the large number of strings lutes have very wide necks, and it is difficult to stop strings beyond the sixth course, so additional courses were usually tuned to pitches useful as bass notes rather than continuing the regular pattern of fourths, and these lower courses are most often played without stopping. Thus an 8-course tenor Renaissance lute would be tuned to [(D'D) (F'F) (G'G) (Cc) (FF) (AA) (dd) (g)], and a 10-course to [(C'C) (D'D) (E♭'E&#9837 (F'F) (G'G) (Cc) (FF) (AA) (dd) (g)].
However, none of these patterns were de rigueur, and a modern lutenist will occasionally be seen to retune one or more courses between performance pieces. Manuscripts bear instructions for the player, e.g. 7e choeur en fa = "seventh course in fa" (= F in the standard C scale).
The first part of the seventeenth century was a period of considerable diversity in the tuning of the lute, particularly in France. However, by around 1670 the scheme known today as the [2]"Baroque" or "d-minor" tuning became the norm, at least in France and in northern and central Europe. In this case the first six courses outline a d-minor triad, and an additional five to seven courses are tuned generally scalewise below them. Thus the 13-course lute played by [3]Weiss would have been tuned [(A"A') (B"B') (C'C) (D'D) (E'E) (F'F) (G'G) (A'A') (DD) (FF) (AA) (d) (f)], or with sharps or flats on the lower 7 courses appropriate to the key of the piece.
Modern lutenists tune to a variety of pitch standards, ranging from A = 392 to 470 Hz, depending on the type of instrument they are playing, the repertory, the pitch of other instruments in an ensemble and other performing expediencies. No attempt at a universal pitch standard existed during the period of the lute's historical popularity. The standards varied over time and from place to place

 

[Fred the Shred]

Thanks, Ralphie - that's the whole issue, as the article states some of the tunings used back in the day, so I was wondering what would fit a 27" behemoth best.

 

[ralphy1976]

well, apparently a
Renaissance lute tuning: E-A-d-f♯-b-e' on a classical guitar. So maybe there is a mathematical way to get to an 8 string 27" equivalent tuning?

 

[Fred the Shred]

Hmmm.... This could work by adding low C and D drone strings and playing around that to get the 6th to root passing notes (or whatever the piece implies). Off to get some sheet music. Any suggestions?

 

[ralphy1976]

Lute: "new" tuning: 8-course E# B A D G C# E A (descant tuning: see below)
"new" tuning (Virdung ca. 1500): G C F A D G (the "viel accord")(alto)
"old" tuning: 8-course E# B A D G C# E# A (descant tuning: see below)
"Sharp" tuning: G C F A C E
"Flat" tuning: G C F Ab C Eb
"Accord Nouveau": A D F A D F (17th Cent.)

Or check your pms