Standardising "Grip" terminology

[basilh]

Whilst teaching students I've found that a standard method of describing various grips is very beneficial to understanding, and isn't prone to misinterpretation.

So the question is, "Is there a standard or am I on "Virgin" territory ?"

At this time I use self defined grips 1-2-3-4-5-6. and find that to call out the number of the fret, top string, and the number of the grip, completely describes the required note combination.

For example "fret 5, string 3, grip 1."

I'll not elaborate on MY definitions YET, as I don't wish to appear to stray from the accepted norm, unless of course there isn't one.. and then I will.

[Kevin Hatton]

Smart.

[Mike Wheeler]

What an interesting subject, Basil. I'm teaching my wife to play and this would be very useful for her. I've never heard of any system that gives names to the various string grips. I'd love to hear what your approach entails.

[Richard Damron]

Definitely heading in the right direction. Expand, please.

Richard

[Herb Steiner]

Bas
Interesting topic, for sure. I've thought about this very concept in my own teaching and I've come to the conclusion that there's so much variation in string grips to be standardized, at least in my teaching system, that the memorization capacity of the student would be taxed more than necessary. For me, naming the grips is be less efficient than simply calling off the strings to be plucked.

As an example, the basic strings for E9 grips using pedals A, B, and the F lever, as we know, are 10, 8, 6, 5 4, 3. So within that group, there are the closed voicing grips, which could be Grip 1 (345), Grip 2 (456), Grip 3 (568), and Grip 4 (6810).

Then there are the open voicing grips, which could be Grip 5 (358), and Grip 6 (4610)

Bringing string 2 and 7 into the mix, as when the E lever is being used, the grips then might become Grip 7 (125), Grip 8 (257), Grip 9 (457), Grip 10 (578), Grip 11 (7810).

We're at eleven grips now and that's just for major chords; minors, dominants, and the various extensions have yet to be addressed. That's a lot to be memorized for a student not yet familiar with all the possible combinations of strings/pedals/levers.

I usually just say "hit 3-5-8, with the E lower lever," or some such designation.

I also eschew using "lever E," "lever F" et al., and prefer using "E lower lever," "E raise lever," etc., since it specifically tells the student what the lever does. Lack of standardization is the problem. For example, Buddy Emmons' nomenclature for levers is different than Jeff Newman's. Using "raise" and "lower" gives more specificity.

This is just my teaching system, of course. There are many ways to skin that cat, as we all are, or should be, aware.

In a handout sheet I give to my students... using only pedals ABC and levers DEF... there are 20 grips for a major chord, 17 for a minor chord, and 22 for a dominant chord.

[Fred Shannon]

Herb when I read your post I thought I was back in the 70's. Julian Tharpe (the one and only "Ho Daddy") used almost the same as you described. The grips were numbered from the 3rd string up, taking 3 strings at a time. Just as you described. He did get me to the point I could take the tape off the top with all the letters on it and finally could play 'Harbor Lights' without using pedals.

While I was trying to teach, and never did too good a job, I used this same method. You'll get some fits from us older guys about the terminology "standard". Leaves a bad taste in some folks' mouths.


phred

[Ryan Barwin]

I'd just refer to the grips by the string numbers and fret (e.g. 10, 8, 6, at the 5th fret.)

On a 10-string neck, using 3 picks, there's 720 grips. Obviously, you wouldn't play many of those grips, and they're too wide to play anyway. Rather than memorizing a system of grip terminology, it's much easier to refer to refer to the strings directly. Also, you'd leave out a lot of potentially useful chords by not including the less common grips in the system.

[Bo Legg]

If you visualize the neck in scale numbers as I do, the grips for E9 are related to standardized chord positions in scale number possibilities.
The chord positions on the E9 neck have become standardized over the years, so all I have to do is associate the scale numbers with the chord position on the neck.
Using the thumb and 2 fingers there are 6 standard grips for each standardized chord position.
This will also apply to multiple positions out of the standardized chord positions.
Example:
Starting with the highest note
These are scale numbers not string numbers
Major = (153) (135) (531) (513) (315) (351)
Minor = (15 b3) (1 b35) (5 b31) (51 b3) (b315) (b351)
If I have to omit notes from the chord, I try to keep the 3rd
9th = (3 9 b7) (3 b7 9) (9 b73) (9 3 b7) (b739) (b793)
13th = (63 b7) etc.
Minor 9th = (b39 b7) etc.
Etc. etc..
IMHO, just telling someone what strings a grip is on is not enough info to be very useful.

[basilh]

Interesting !
Being as we're "Gripping" the strings prior to plucking or releasing them, # 1, I think that a grip can only refer to a combination of three or more strings, personally I think of two notes as just melody + harmony and a grip as extended 3 part harmony or just a chord, depending on how I'm using it.

I was also thinking more of the grip referencing JUST the pick combination, NOT pedals FRETS OR STRINGS, after all the grip to me means just the unique combination of the thumb and fingerpicks.

As an example, not suggesting this is the way to go, but to demonstrate my way and what's behind the thinking.

Grip # 1 = Thumb and finger picks picking adjacent strings.

Grip # 2 = Fingers adjacent, one string gap before thumb

Grip # 3 = Thumb and 1st finger adjacent, one string gap to 2nd finger

Grip # 4 = one string gap between all.

Grip # 5 = first and second adjacent, TWO strings gap to thumb.

Grip # 6 = First and second adjacent, THREE strings gap to thumb

And whatever other USEFUL combinations there are.


My grips are NOT reference to a particular tuning, and I think that the universality should be maintained by not associating 'Grips" with anything other than the "Grip" of a certain combination of strings.

Using this system we THEN can describe accurately and concisely, what notes and where.
I'll post a video later today demonstrating what I mean.

If I call to the students "Fret 3, string 3, grip 1 and pedals A+B, that would mean "C" (First inversion Triad)
No need to say E9th tuning, the terminology of pedals A B C and related knee lever designators would indicate the tuning. Beside that, whatever the tuning used, it would be referenced initially.

[Barry Hyman]

I'm with Herb 100% on this. There are too many possible grips to tax the student's mind learning arbitrary grip "definitions." We grip the strings that we want to hear at that moment. Numbering all the possibilities strikes me as a way to make a complicated situation even more complicated.

Strings have numbers. Steps of the scale have numbers. Chords in the chord scale have numbers, or at least Roman Numerals. Frets have numbers. Intervals have numbers. Complex chords (D7 or E9) have numbers. Why do grips need numbers too? There are too many possible grips, especially on a 12 string.

[basilh]

"Why do grips need numbers too? There are too many possible grips"

Possibly 12 or so but only a handful! of usable ones.
Well if you digest my previous post, using my suggestion there are only 6 or 7 grip numbers to remember.

[Mike Wheeler]

I kinda thought that's what you were referring to, Basil. I think that would be useful to a student. Could even become useful in Tabs.

I'm gonna cogitate on that...might just test it out on my wife.

New ideas are always welcome in my house, Baz. Thanks.

[Georg Sørtun]

Basil, just so I can understand what you mean by "USEFUL grips", how would you use them to teach something like this to a student?

[John McClung]

Herb and I are so often on the same page, it's scary!

(Howdy, Herb, how ya doing?)

I, too, number the main grips as 1 through 4, just like Herb does.

The only other ones I name are ones I frequently use a lot, that fall in between those 4 main grips.

So, picking strings 5-6-7 (usually with pedals A+B for a minor or minor 7) I call grip 2.5, since it falls between grip 2 (4-5-6) and grip 3 (5-6-8).

And there's grip 3.5, string 6-7-10, again usually with A+B engaged, and it falls between grips 3 (5-6-8) and grip 4 (6-8-10).

The two main "wide" grips, 3-5-8 and 4-6-10 I usually call "wide grip 1" and "wide grip 2."

I probably should come up with a name for grip 1-2-5, I use that one a lot. Any suggestions?

Other random grips I call out manually by string number, as many of you do.

[John McClung]

Herb and I are so often on the same page, it's scary!

(Howdy, Herb, how ya doing?)

I, too, number the main grips as 1 through 4, just like Herb does.

The only other ones I name are ones I frequently use a lot, that fall in between those 4 main grips.

So, picking strings 5-6-7 (usually with pedals A+B for a minor or minor 7) I call grip 2.5, since it falls between grip 2 (4-5-6) and grip 3 (5-6-8).

And there's grip 3.5, string 6-7-10, again usually with A+B engaged, and it falls between grips 3 (5-6-8) and grip 4 (6-8-10).

Other random grips I call out manually by string number, as many of you do.

[Brint Hannay]

At this time I use self defined grips 1-2-3-4-5-6. and find that to call out the number of the fret, top string, and the number of the grip, completely describes the required note combination.

For example "fret 5, string 3, grip 1."

Seems as though saying "Fret 5, strings 3-4-5" is no less efficient.

[Jim Eaton]

John,
I think you should call that 1-2-5 grip "Bert"!
JE:-)>

[chris ivey]

wasn't norm the guy on cheers? be careful when you ask for the 'norm'!

[John McClung]

Eaton: huh???

Btw, Jimmy, you need to add your new Mullen SD-12 to your signature, it's clear you don't have enough guitars yet.

[Dave Mudgett]

This thread has been up for a while, and I've had a chance to think about it.

Basil's idea for grips vs. the standard string number notation is much like the difference between thinking about chords in terms of their chord names - which correspond to a root note plus intervals - vs. simply naming chords by their individual notes. Both get the job done, but there are advantages and disadvantages to each.

I like to think about chords in terms of the root and the note intervals, so thinking about grips in terms of the starting string and string intervals might be useful for me. But a communication tool is only useful if it's widely adopted, so to use this as a way to communicate grips, I think exactly how to name them is critical. If the different qualities of chords didn't have some type of intuitive meaning that related to how the chord is constructed, I don't think chord names would be so useful.

I mean - you could just call major chords "1", minor chords "2", diminished "3", augmented "4", and so on, but I don't think that would have ever been widely adopted. Seriously - a C1 chord for Cmaj? It would be more efficient, but also more confusing to me.

One could number the intervals - in other words a grip 3-11 could denote a grip starting with string three with adjacent strings (345), while grip 4-112 would be 4568. It's not any shorter, but conveys the meaning in a different way that some might find useful.

Personally, I prefer to think from the bottom up, so one could reverse this, and denote the 8654 grip as 8-211. To me, this reversed approach gets to the heart of the way I think about grips - start with the thumb and work up - in other words, number in the order of the fingers used, but linearly related to the distance to the next string.

There would need to be some provision for not using all the fingers. One way would be to have an interval for each finger, regardless of whether or not it's used. One could user either a "0" or perhaps and "x" to denote that a finger isn't used. For example, if you wanted to notate a 4-finger grip starting at string 8 but use only thumb, middle, and ring fingers, one could write 8-x31. I think this would cover pretty much any situation except a grip where the thumb isn't used at all. I guess one could add a suffix to the first string note if it wasn't going to be the thumb - e.g., if you have a 3-note grip 654 with just Index, Middle, and Ring, you could write 6I-11. One could just say that the default is 'start with thumb' - no need for special notation - and then use I, M, or R if you start with a different finger.

I think it's useful to think about this kind of stuff. I suppose some might think you need to be a mathematician to figure this out, but I don't think it's particularly complex. YMMV.

[Allan Jirik]

Just a comment: When I was first learning in the early 70s, I was taught only the basic grips. The 1st, 2nd, 7th and 9th strings were just kind of "there". Now relearning steel after playing other instruments for decades, I'm having a ball discovering what those other strings can do. I really appreciate this kind of discussion as there is much to learn and contemplate. Thanks!

[Ken Metcalf]

Joe Wright has a system that is like this.
First or lowest string is the number like 10.
The next parts are the strings between.
10,9,8 would be 10 0 0
10,8,6 would be 10 1 1
8,6,5 would be 8 1 0
8,7,6,5---------8 0 0 0

Personally I think it's easier to say 8,6,5

[Dave Mudgett]

Very interesting - my suggestion is exactly isomorphic to Joe's - I'm surprised I've never noticed any discussion about this on the forum. His interval is strings skipped, not the number of strings to the next string - i.e., just subtract 1 from what I suggested. Does he have any method to denote fingers on the grip?

I think it's useful to be able to see things in different ways. I think it's better to be able to read notes and interpret them in terms of intervals - I guess I'd make the same argument here. The interval approach lends itself to an obvious visual geometric interpretation.

[Randy Brown]

When I first started taking pedal steel lessons, my teacher referred to them as "Bass", "Baritone", "Tenor", and "Alto". I'd have to dig through my old lesson material to be sure but this is how I remember them.

Alto = 5,4,3
Tenor = 6,5,4
Baritone = 8,6,5
Bass = 10,8,6

That made it pretty easy for verbal communication... "use the Tenor grip at fret 3" real simple...

I'm not sure that this methodology holds well for Extended E9 or Universal tunings, since those have lower grips. In fact I play a Uni now but I don't really think about the grip names any more.
Anyway I hope this helps.