R/E/P Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 15   Go Down

Author Topic: I.M.P 4 discusion.  (Read 23297 times)

MorningStar

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 54
Re: I.M.P 4 discusion.
« Reply #60 on: February 23, 2006, 06:31:03 pm »

j.hall wrote on Thu, 23 February 2006 18:01

i'm waiting for more people to chime in.  there is little point going with craig's tuning if every one is going to hate it!



heres a vote against it. I've got 12s on a Les Paul. Its sloppy and doesnt feel good. If we must use this at least let us transpose it up if we want.

garret

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1012
Re: I.M.P 4 discusion.
« Reply #61 on: February 23, 2006, 06:46:04 pm »

Before chucking craig's tuning, how about folks try my variation... it's the same notes, just rearranged a bit.  And it's a piece of cake to set up.

Logged
tomorrow is already here - http://www.worksongs.net/

craig boychuk

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 409
Re: I.M.P 4 discusion.
« Reply #62 on: February 24, 2006, 02:35:17 am »

MorningStar wrote on Thu, 23 February 2006 17:31

j.hall wrote on Thu, 23 February 2006 18:01

i'm waiting for more people to chime in.  there is little point going with craig's tuning if every one is going to hate it!



heres a vote against it. I've got 12s on a Les Paul. Its sloppy and doesnt feel good. If we must use this at least let us transpose it up if we want.


Yeah, it's not gonna the greatest on a les paul. I forgot about shorter scale lengths. boo.

Why don't we allow transposing? We'll still be confined to specific intervals, so the exercise won't really loose any substance or validity or whatever.

But hey, if most people don't like it, that's cool with me. It was just a suggestion. I enjoy pretty much anything that's not standard tuning, so this whole deal is a treat for me.



-craig
Logged
Capture the pasture rapture.
www.cbaudio.com

starscream2010

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 220
Re: I.M.P 4 discusion.
« Reply #63 on: February 24, 2006, 10:11:04 am »

So what's the tuning going to be?
Logged
"Three thousand years of beautiful tradition, from Moses to Sandy Koufax... "

Nick Evans

www.nickolusevans.com

j.hall

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3787
Re: I.M.P 4 discusion.
« Reply #64 on: February 24, 2006, 10:45:02 am »

D# A# G# D# G C

that's high e to low E
Logged

craig boychuk

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 409
Re: I.M.P 4 discusion.
« Reply #65 on: February 24, 2006, 02:35:27 pm »

Excellent.
Logged
Capture the pasture rapture.
www.cbaudio.com

scott volthause

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 143
Re: I.M.P 4 discusion.
« Reply #66 on: February 24, 2006, 03:06:46 pm »

craig wrote on Fri, 24 February 2006 14:35

Excellent.


X2
Logged

max cooper

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 414
Re: I.M.P 4 discusion.
« Reply #67 on: February 25, 2006, 09:05:30 am »

j.hall wrote on Wed, 22 February 2006 15:40

stop being a bunch of cry babies.  we already agreed that if you can't hang, you can dial it up a step.  that will get you D on your low E string.

don't you guys listen to kyuss?

that's A




One night I was at a Kyuss gig at the Whiskey and they were tuning by ear (stage volume, natch!) and it was pretty funny 'cause they got to the lowest string and they weren't anywhere near in tune but as soon as it was within a whole step, they launched into the first song.

Those of us who use .013's will probably have an easier time with the prescribed tuning.
Logged
I'm infinitely baffled.

floodstage

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 543
Re: I.M.P 4 discusion.
« Reply #68 on: February 26, 2006, 05:12:53 pm »

j.hall wrote on Fri, 24 February 2006 10:45

D# A# G# D# G C

that's low E to high e


(Sorry I'm late, been out of town)

Here we go again.  Are you sure that isn't high to low?  
(and I mean in pitch, not in relation to the floor)

(I had a friend who calls the high (pitch) E,  the Low E, because it's closest to the floor (thus low) and it took FOREVER for us to  figure out why we couldn't communicate)

Using the D# A# G# D# G C tuning assuming D# is lowest pitch string, the strings that are normally D & G strings will be stretched super tight (6 or more 1/2 steps).

Reversing that layout would put the D & G strings within one 1/2 step of standard tuning.

Please clarify once again.
Logged

John Ivan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3028
Re: I.M.P 4 discusion.
« Reply #69 on: February 26, 2006, 05:34:06 pm »

Hi all. I guess J has chosen the tuning? cool with me. I plan on setting up a giter' just for this purpose. I'll get my 79 Hamer out!! It sounds pretty cool. It needs some love but it's playable..

Sorry I'm sorta late.. I'm still in. Should be fun.
Logged
"Transformation is no easy trick: It's what art promises and usually doesn't deliver." Garrison Keillor

 

garret

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1012
Re: I.M.P 4 discusion.
« Reply #70 on: February 26, 2006, 08:29:27 pm »

floodstage wrote on Sun, 26 February 2006 17:12


Using the D# A# G# D# G C tuning assuming D# is lowest pitch string, the strings that are normally D & G strings will be stretched super tight (6 or more 1/2 steps).

Reversing that layout would put the D & G strings within one 1/2 step of standard tuning.

Please clarify once again.


I wasn't gonna ask, but I'm glad you did. Smile

I believe I proposed the altered tuning that J chose... but he had it backwards from how I'm using it.

From low pitch to high pitch, C G D# G# A# D#

E drops down two steps to C
A drops down one step to G
D goes up a half step to D#
G goes up a half step to G#
B goes down a half step to A#
E goes down a half step to D#

-Garret
Logged
tomorrow is already here - http://www.worksongs.net/

max cooper

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 414
Re: I.M.P 4 discusion.
« Reply #71 on: February 26, 2006, 08:29:50 pm »

You think the drums'll be in 4/4?

Anything's cool with me, but just wondering.
Logged
I'm infinitely baffled.

max cooper

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 414
Re: I.M.P 4 discusion.
« Reply #72 on: February 26, 2006, 08:31:56 pm »

floodstage wrote on Sun, 26 February 2006 16:12



Using the D# A# G# D# G C tuning assuming D# is lowest pitch string, the strings that are normally D & G strings will be stretched super tight (6 or more 1/2 steps).

Reversing that layout would put the D & G strings within one 1/2 step of standard tuning.

Please clarify once again.


Now you've got me wondering.

Is the fattest string the D# or the C ?  Not to beat this dead horse anymore, but that's a lot of stretching from D to G#. Very Happy
Logged
I'm infinitely baffled.

floodstage

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 543
Re: I.M.P 4 discusion.
« Reply #73 on: February 26, 2006, 09:13:31 pm »

garretg wrote on Sun, 26 February 2006 20:29

I believe I proposed the altered tuning that J chose... but he had it backwards from how I'm using it.

From low pitch to high pitch, C G D# G# A# D#

E drops down two steps to C
A drops down one step to G
D goes up a half step to D#
G goes up a half step to G#
B goes down a half step to A#
E goes down a half step to D#

-Garret

This makes sense.  
Tried the tuning out.  
Not my favorite, but I can make it work.
Let's get some drums!


Bitching over (for me)
Let's rock!
Logged

floodstage

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 543
Re: I.M.P 4 discusion.
« Reply #74 on: February 26, 2006, 09:17:27 pm »

max cooper wrote on Sun, 26 February 2006 20:29

You think the drums'll be in 4/4?

Anything's cool with me, but just wondering.

From my read on the rules, you can edit the drums all you want, so if you want them in 4, or 7, or 13, you can make them that way no matter what they are originally.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 15   Go Up