Blackjack Guitar

Hello All

I've been going over the previous on Blackjack and found the guitar
suggestions. Was a consensus reached ever on the open string tuning or
are there a range of options still?

Kind regards

--- In tuning@y..., Alison Monteith <alison.monteith3@w...> wrote:
> Hello All
>
> I've been going over the previous on Blackjack and found the guitar
> suggestions. Was a consensus reached ever on the open string tuning
or
> are there a range of options still?
>
> Kind regards

Hi Alison.

Please see

/tuning/topicId_12590.html#28841

The advantages over Dave Keenan's design are spelled out in the
message.

As I see it, one might as well have the full Canasta scale, as it
contains no smaller steps than the smallest steps in Blackjack. Note
that this design is centered on A, so that not only will on have the
Blackjack scale you're putting on your marimba, but also those 1 to 5
secors higher and those 1 to 5 secors lower. You will also be able to
complete 16 of the incomplete 11-limit hexads in Blackjack, which
could be useful if you want your singers to sing hexads and be able
to listen to reference pitches on one of the instruments.

You could get a fingerboard like this outfitted by the folks over at
FreeNote (microtones.com).

--- In tuning@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., Alison Monteith <alison.monteith3@w...> wrote:
> > Hello All
> >
> > I've been going over the previous on Blackjack and found the
guitar
> > suggestions. Was a consensus reached ever on the open string
tuning
> or
> > are there a range of options still?
> >
> > Kind regards
>
> Hi Alison.
>
> Please see
>
> /tuning/topicId_12590.html#28841
>
> The advantages over Dave Keenan's design are spelled out in the
> message.
>
> As I see it, one might as well have the full Canasta scale, as it
> contains no smaller steps than the smallest steps in Blackjack. Note
> that this design is centered on A, so that not only will on have the
> Blackjack scale you're putting on your marimba, but also those 1 to
5
> secors higher and those 1 to 5 secors lower. You will also be able
to
> complete 16 of the incomplete 11-limit hexads in Blackjack, which
> could be useful if you want your singers to sing hexads and be able
> to listen to reference pitches on one of the instruments.

Of course, if you want a Canasta guitar, the Blackjack design at
http://dkeenan.com/Music/Miracle/BlackjackGuitar.gif
can be filled out to the full 31 frets. You could even build the
Blackjack fingerboard and see how you like it, and then add the other
10 frets later if you want to. They would split every 83.3c step into
a 33.3c and a 50c step. Email me if you need to know where these frets
should go.

Note that the Blackjack guitar, as it stands, has a few extra notes
which allow the playing of a hexad or two, and a JI major, minor and
arabic scale.

Now let's compare my _Canasta_ design with Paul's.

The only significant differences are:

Open string tuning:
Erlich: Standard 500 500 500 400 500 (cents between strings)
E A D G B E

Keenan: By thirds 350 350 383 350 350 (cents between strings)
e.g. Eb^ G< Bb^ D F] A (centered on D)
or Bb^ D< F^ A C] E (centered on A)
(Note: If a 7th string were desired, it should be tuned
500c below the low string shown above.)

All frets continuous:
Erlich: No (7)
Keenan: Yes

Number of fretlets per octave:
Erlich: 79
Keenan: 31

Regards,
-- Dave Keenan

Welcome back, Dave!

> Now let's compare my _Canasta_ design with Paul's.
>
> The only significant differences are:
>
> Open string tuning:
> Erlich: Standard 500 500 500 400 500 (cents between strings)
> E A D G B E
>
> Keenan: By thirds 350 350 383 350 350 (cents between strings)
> e.g. Eb^ G< Bb^ D F] A (centered on D)
> or Bb^ D< F^ A C] E (centered on A)
> (Note: If a 7th string were desired, it should be tuned
> 500c below the low string shown above.)
>
> All frets continuous:
> Erlich: No (7)

Not necessarily true -- if one were to use bent frets a la Glen
Peterson, they would all be continuous.

> Keenan: Yes
>
> Number of fretlets per octave:
> Erlich: 79

Only 31 on each string.

> Keenan: 31

OK . . . how can you say those are the only significant differences?
Don't you think the ability to play any subset of the scale in any
position on the neck, or diagonally, or on any string, is important?
As a professional guitarist, I'd say these are very important
features, unless one is playing, say, Indian-style melodies over a
drone (which is what the Shrutar is for) . . .

--- In tuning@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> Welcome back, Dave!

Not back. This message will be the last for some time.

> > All frets continuous:
> > Erlich: No (7)
>
> Not necessarily true -- if one were to use bent frets a la Glen
> Peterson, they would all be continuous.

Ok. So change the heading to "All frets straight and full width?:"

> > Keenan: Yes
> >
> > Number of fretlets per octave:
> > Erlich: 79
>
> Only 31 on each string.

Yeah but mine's the same in that regard, so what.
>
> > Keenan: 31
>
> OK . . . how can you say those are the only significant differences?
> Don't you think the ability to play any subset of the scale in any
> position on the neck, or diagonally, or on any string, is important?
> As a professional guitarist, I'd say these are very important
> features, unless one is playing, say, Indian-style melodies over a
> drone (which is what the Shrutar is for) . . .

I don't find it very significant because:
(a) You can't really play anything in _any_ position. You could only
do that if it was a 31-tET guitar. You must still take notice of wide
and narrow scale steps to make sure you don't fall off the end of the
chain of generators.
(b) It was more significant with the Blackjack guitar that there
were 5 notes missing on one string (and lesser numbers on other
strings). But they are as far from the nut as possible and they are
all up one end of the chain of generators, so with a chain of 31 notes
5 missing notes at the end of the chain (on one string etc) is not
very significant.
(c) If you really want all 31 notes on all strings you can easily add
them to my design, either as additional straight-full-width frets, or
as you have done, by breaking (or bending) frets. This will result in
FAR fewer broken frets if done to the tuning-by-thirds design than the
standard tuning (I guess only 5 broken frets, possibly fewer, and
some only broken at one place instead of two). Email me if you want it
exactly.

Goodbye again,
-- Dave Keenan

--- In tuning@y..., "Dave Keenan" <D.KEENAN@U...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> > Welcome back, Dave!
>
> Not back. This message will be the last for some time.

Arrrggghh . . . I'm back on my own as regards the uncertainty thing.
I think Dave was onto something, though.

>
> > > Keenan: Yes
> > >
> > > Number of fretlets per octave:
> > > Erlich: 79
> >
> > Only 31 on each string.
>
> Yeah but mine's the same in that regard, so what.

So there's no distinction in terms of the frets being to crowded to
allow comfortable fingering of notes.

> >
> > > Keenan: 31
> >
> > OK . . . how can you say those are the only significant
differences?
> > Don't you think the ability to play any subset of the scale in
any
> > position on the neck, or diagonally, or on any string, is
important?
> > As a professional guitarist, I'd say these are very important
> > features, unless one is playing, say, Indian-style melodies over
a
> > drone (which is what the Shrutar is for) . . .
>
> I don't find it very significant because:
> (a) You can't really play anything in _any_ position.

Huh?

> You could only
> do that if it was a 31-tET guitar. You must still take notice of
wide
> and narrow scale steps to make sure you don't fall off the end of
the
> chain of generators.

I said, "any subset of the scale", Dave!!!

> (b) It was more significant with the Blackjack guitar that there
> were 5 notes missing on one string (and lesser numbers on other
> strings). But they are as far from the nut as possible

Not an advantage, except on the Shrutar or something with a similar
philosophy.

and they are
> all up one end of the chain of generators, so with a chain of 31
notes
> 5 missing notes at the end of the chain (on one string etc) is not
> very significant.

True -- but I find the standard tuning of open strings very
significant.

> (c) If you really want all 31 notes on all strings you can easily
add
> them to my design, either as additional straight-full-width frets,
or
> as you have done, by breaking (or bending) frets. This will result
in
> FAR fewer broken frets if done to the tuning-by-thirds design than
the
> standard tuning (I guess only 5 broken frets, possibly fewer, and
> some only broken at one place instead of two). Email me if you want
it
> exactly.

Microtonal guitarists tend to use open tunings close to standard. I
know Neil H. and Jon C. do -- what about Dan S.? Also, the only
advantage I can see to straight vs. bent frets is economic, and
considering the investment Alison is already putting in, this should
be negligible, especially if she has the fretting done though
FreeNote (microtones.com).

Paul Erlich wrote:

> --- In tuning@y..., Alison Monteith <alison.monteith3@w...> wrote:
> > Hello All
> >
> > I've been going over the previous on Blackjack and found the guitar
> > suggestions. Was a consensus reached ever on the open string tuning
> or
> > are there a range of options still?
> >
> > Kind regards
>
> Hi Alison.
>
> Please see
>
> /tuning/topicId_12590.html#28841
>
> The advantages over Dave Keenan's design are spelled out in the
> message.
>
> As I see it, one might as well have the full Canasta scale, as it
> contains no smaller steps than the smallest steps in Blackjack. Note
> that this design is centered on A, so that not only will on have the
> Blackjack scale you're putting on your marimba, but also those 1 to 5
> secors higher and those 1 to 5 secors lower. You will also be able to
> complete 16 of the incomplete 11-limit hexads in Blackjack, which
> could be useful if you want your singers to sing hexads and be able
> to listen to reference pitches on one of the instruments.
>
> You could get a fingerboard like this outfitted by the folks over at
> FreeNote (microtones.com).
>

Interesting. I'll have to go over the recent postings thrown into the mix by Dave to compare the
two designs.

Many thanks.