E9 top 2 strings chromatic strings...why?

[Dennis Montgomery]

So my newest 8 string just arrived and I plan to put an E9 copedent on. Question is whether I go for the highest 8 strings or the lowest 8.

I've heard many people refer to the 2 highest strings of the E9 as "the chromatic strings" and was wondering can someone explain why?

Also, what would be the advantage of going with the lowest 8 vs the highest 8? I'm looking to learn parts from the West Coast players like Jerry Garcia, Sneaky Pete, John McFee, etc...

[Paul Sutherland]

If it was my steel, I'd go with the higher strings and sacrifice the lower two. There is a lot of useful music to be found on the bottom two strings of the normal 10 string E9 tuning. But there's even more on the top two strings.

In the no pedals position the second string is the seventh scale tone and the first string is the second/ninth scale tone. It's always useful to have scale tones close by. You can drop the second string down a half tone, and now it's a flatted seventh, good for a dominant seventh chord or arpeggio. Drop the second string a full tone and it's the sixth scale tone. Then if you also raise the fifth string with the A floor pedal you have unison notes, which can lead to some interesting licks.

You can work things out in similar fashion for the pedals down position, and you will find scale tones on those top two strings. Sometimes you will really want to be able to lower the second string down a half tone. I hope you have such a knee lever.

Does this make sense to you?

[Brint Hannay]

I've heard many people refer to the 2 highest strings of the E9 as "the chromatic strings" and was wondering can someone explain why?

Short answer: No.

Longer answer: Some people think it makes no sense, others see a justification for it. Depends on the conceptual lens through which one views the tuning.

One thing I think is indisputable: Really only the 2nd string of the standard "E9 Chromatic" tuning has any possible claim to be a "chromatic" string. The 1st string F# is simply a note of E9 (like the 7th string), so no reason to call it a "chromatic" string.

[Bob Russell]

I always thought the term was a carryover from so-called "chromatic" banjo style (or "Keith style"), in which the player uses string-skipping strategy to play fast melodic lines. The "chromatic" strings on E9 steel are often used in a similar manner.

[Brint Hannay]

Interesting. Having no contact with the banjo world I didn't know of such a use of the term for banjo. Certainly there is a parallel there. Though in both cases it seems a (not unprecedented) re-purposing of an existing musical term.

I learned the general meaning of the word "chromatic" in musical terminology before I ever took up steel: according to the Schirmer Pocket Manual of Musical Terms, "Relating to tones foreign to a given key (scale) or chord; opposed to diatonic."

[Paul Sutherland]

Like the others, I think the term chromatic is really a bit of a misnomer when applied to the E9th tuning. No big deal.

As to why drop the bottom two rather than the top two: Those top two strings are right in the range you will want to use for almost all solo work, and a good portion of the backup work. The lower strings are simply too low in pitch to have that much use when the bandleader tells you to take it. I play the top two strings of my 10 string far more than I play the bottom two. I'd really be hamstrung without those top two strings. I could get by without the bottom two.

[Richard Wilhelm]

Another option is to just use the F# on top (a knee lever can pick up the D# if you need it). This leave you with 3 bass strings. It also makes for good strumming. If your new addition to your fold is an earlier 400 then you might want to tune your E9 to a D9. String breakage ceases to be a problem and the tone is nicer IMO. Sneaky, Jerry and Ralph Mooney are just about my favorite musicians.

[Richard Alderson]

I was in your situation for years. I am a slow learner, so I played the bottom 8 for about a year, but ultimately ended up playing the top 8 as being the most useful. At that point I knew I had reached the limits of an 8 string set up, and it was only a matter of time before I would get the full ten strings; but I needed those stages in my development. You'll need the chromatics for virtually all the available instructional material, so top 8 gets my vote here.

[Jeff Harbour]

Due to the players you referenced, I would suggest that you go with the bottom eight. I think having the full range will be more beneficial. If you had mentioned a few Nashville players, then the "chromatic" strings would come more into play to get that sound. Not sure about Garcia and the others, but Sneaky Pete Did Not use the "chromatics". Al Perkins didn't back then either, I don't think... anyone have Winston's book handy to confirm this?

[Jeff Harbour]

Okay, Here's Sneaky Pete's tuning (B6):
http://b0b.com/tunings/stars.html#b6pk

...And, Here's an old post about Al Perkins' E7 copedant, which would likely be a good "West-Coast" E9 alternative for an 8-string:
http://bb.steelguitarforum.com/viewtopi ... s+copedant

I think it's something like this:
G#
E
B
G#
E
D
B
E

[Dennis Montgomery]

Thanks for the feedback everyone! I'm going with the top 8...even though those "chromatic strings" aren't really very "chromatic" at all

[Dave Mudgett]

We've had discussions on the 'who started it' and 'why' of the chromatic name. Buddy Emmons got on one of them and said he wasn't sure either, so I'd say nobody really knows for sure at this point.

So I sure don't know exactly why, but using those strings with their changes does give some nice possibilities for chromatic runs, much like some of the more chromatic-sounding Keith/Thompson banjo runs. I don't know if that's the reason for the name, but it doesn't bother me to call them 'chromatic'.

On the choice - here's an alternative to "top 8" vs. "bottom 8" that you might think about. If I get down to cases, I can live (sort of) without string 1 and string 9, but never without string 2 and string 10 of a standard E9 setup. String 2 and its D#=>D=>C# changes are essential for contrary-motion phrases like the Emmons Cross and I also use string 2 for many melodic phrases. Similarly, I really need to be able to get the low pad chords that string 10 offers.

Don't get me wrong, I think strings 1 and 9 are important too. But IMO, the marginal utility of 2 and 10 are higher. In fact, I had an Emmons S8 set up that way for a while, and I have an 8-string guitar that I use for slide guitar also set up with the D# on the top string for similar reasons.

[Jeff Harbour]

Dave's idea is a good compromise. To me the useable range is extremely important. I always thought the standard E9 was limited enough in that it only goes down to that B... But if you only have the top eight, your low end will be the E, a whole octave above a standard guitar! That may help you learn some licks, but in a real-time playing situation with other musicians, something will be missing.

It's probably best that you try it one way... then, when your strings get old try it the other way. Then you will truly know your preference.

[Mark van Allen]

I think this whole thread has become a great exercise in understanding just why the E9 evolved into a 10 string tuning!

[Tom Wolverton]

I read in an old forum. Someone asked this very same question to Buddy Emmons. He said to go with the top 8.

I'll add this: try to set up a KL to drop the low E to a D if you can.

[Mike Perlowin RIP]

I think this whole thread has become a great exercise in understanding just why the E9 evolved into a 10 string tuning!

Agreed. At least 10. Preferably 12.

[Jeff Harbour]

Agreed. At least 10. Preferably 12.

I guess this wouldn't be complete unless this thought is expanded to say that 14 has been tried and been successful... But proven to be awkward and therefore not a popular choice. Sort-of like using a one-iron on a golf course.

So there you go. The industry standard has leveled off at 10 & 12.

[Dave Zirbel]

It's probably best that you try it one way... then, when your strings get old try it the other way. Then you will truly know your preference.

Yes. Good advice.

To me the useable range is extremely important. I always thought the standard E9 was limited enough in that it only goes down to that B... But if you only have the top eight, your low end will be the E, a whole octave above a standard guitar! That may help you learn some licks, but in a real-time playing situation with other musicians, something will be missing.

Good point! You can find the notes of the F# and Eb "chromatic" strings with a pedal or moving the bar but you won't find any notes lower than middle E......or Eb if you lower it.

My experience with my 8 string Fender journey has been great. I'm basically a 10 string player and went to 12 for awhile....and 11 still sometimes, but I think I learned more about the neck from playing around the so called "limitations" of 8 strings because it forced me to find the intervals elsewhere. I'm not saying it's better than 10 either. And of course this is only my opinion.

But like Jeff said, you won't really know unless you try both, or several.....I've tried a good handful of tunings on my 400 over the last 5 or 6 years....I think I'm getting close...

Keep us posted Dennis!

[Dennis Montgomery]

Agreed. At least 10. Preferably 12.

I guess this wouldn't be complete unless this thought is expanded to say that 14 has been tried and been successful... But proven to be awkward and therefore not a popular choice. Sort-of like using a one-iron on a golf course.

...or playing a renaissance 14 course Theorbo lute with 12 drone strings back around 1690

[John Billings]

"
Quote:
Agreed. At least 10. Preferably 12."

I've often thought that 11 strings would be perfect for me. I'd love to have a low E string!

[Jeff Harbour]

Okay, here is another combination you should consider:
F#
G#
E
B
G#
F#
E
B

I know the F# on top will be practical, because it is the same interval as having the D on top of the C6 neck (which is preferred by many).
On the other end you will have the B to complete the low range.
Skipping the low D will probably be okay as well, since this is what the Universal players do. If you have enough pedals, you could lower the E to get it.

...or playing a renaissance 14 course Theorbo lute with 12 drone strings back around 1690

Now I see why you're switching down to "8"!

[Jeff Harbour]

"
Quote:
Agreed. At least 10. Preferably 12."

I've often thought that 11 strings would be perfect for me. I'd love to have a low E string!

Worked for Brumley!

[Mike Perlowin RIP]

My fantasy guitar would have 13 strings, with a high B string that would lower to Bb.

[Dennis Montgomery]

Now I see why you're switching down to "8"!

Julian Bream the premier modern lutenist has said he spends more time tuning than actually playing

Found a 15 course lute once and went to the music store to try it out. After spending an hour trying to get those cat gut strings and tied on frets setup I gave up and went home

[Todd Clinesmith]

This may have been discussed before here, but I would think the chromatic strings on the pedal steel, or at least the idea came from Speedy West's and Herb Remington's F#9 tuning. It had the high D# and F# in the bass end of the tuning.

I believe it had many variations during the tuning trial days of the 40's and 50's but it started out like this, high to low:

E
C#
G#
E
B ( from a Bb with pedal)
F#
Eb high
F# high.

Later on the tuning evolved to some thing like :
G#
E
C#
B
E
Bb
Eb high
F# high