From: owner-wanderer-digest@smoe.org (wanderer-digest) To: wanderer-digest@smoe.org Subject: wanderer-digest V2 #16 Reply-To: wanderer@smoe.org Sender: owner-wanderer-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-wanderer-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk wanderer-digest Monday, March 11 2002 Volume 02 : Number 016 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: For the Roses [Catherine McKay ] Re:For the Roses [Linda Worster ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2002 11:07:39 -0500 (EST) From: Catherine McKay Subject: Re: For the Roses - --- Lisa and Ken Theriot wrote: > > "The bottom string is not ever struck intentionally, > but is tuned an > octave lower on an acoustic guitar so that it would > sound okay if you > hit it accidentally. It would sound better if you > could tune it the > same as the 5th string, though, which you could > easily do with a VG-8 > since you don't have to worry about breaking > strings." > > I tuned the low E string UP to G. It seemed that to > go down to a G would > result in a very loose string. Besides, while I > agree that one reason for > tuning it to G was to make sure it would not sound > the wrong note, there > may be another reason. I haven't played this song in a while, but I think I tuned the low E-string to either D or C and it worked OK. (I'll try it out today to see if I remember this right, but I've never tuned it down to G - you're right, it's way too loose.) ______________________________________________________________________ Find, Connect, Date! http://personals.yahoo.ca ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2002 13:36:16 -0500 From: Linda Worster Subject: Re:For the Roses Hi Ken and Greetings to all- I too had some consternation about that low G... WHY would so tune it so low??? I had it tuned to C for a while and it sounded pretty good. But, as I listened to Joni, I was confounded by how she got that little slapping sound she does just before the repeated guitar figure... Lo and behold.... when I tuned that low string down to G, I hit it just before the riff and VOILA! There was the sound! The slackness of the string makes that fantastic sound as it hits the fretboard. Other than that, the string is not needed, though it doesn't sound bad if you hit it accidentally. Yet another example of the genius of our Joan! Linda >Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2002 21:32:33 -0500 >From: Lisa and Ken Theriot >Subject: For the Roses > >Hi. I learned "For The Roses" last night and was delighted to learn that >most of what I thought was right was that way in the two tabs posted for >this song. I just would like to add one possible difference to what has >already been posted. One tab had this to say at the beginning: > >"The bottom string is not ever struck intentionally, but is tuned an >octave lower on an acoustic guitar so that it would sound okay if you >hit it accidentally. It would sound better if you could tune it the >same as the 5th string, though, which you could easily do with a VG-8 >since you don't have to worry about breaking strings." > >I tuned the low E string UP to G. It seemed that to go down to a G would >result in a very loose string. Besides, while I agree that one reason for >tuning it to G was to make sure it would not sound the wrong note, there >may be another reason. I preface thisnext opinion by saying that I have >never met or even seen Joni play in real life. I only go by the sounds >form the record. I started off doing the little beginning riff with the >5th string, which seemed the likely place to start, given that the open >note is the first note of the riff. but I wasn't getting the little hitch >at the end like Joni. I wondered why the transition to the 4th note in the >riff was smooth and "hitchless," when I accidentally hit the top (low) >string instead. When I used THAT string for the first 3 notes in the riff, >and had to skip a string (5th) to hit the D string for the fourth note, I >got the hitch! I think she DOES in fact play that top (low) string the >whole time. It is very intuitive and natural once it is tuned to the same >note as the 5th string. > >Therefore I posit the following (in relation to the capo on the 3rd fret) > >D-----------------------------5 >B-----------------------------3 >G-----------------------------5 >D------------------0----------- >G------------------------------ >G----0---3---4---------0------- > >Does this sound plausible? Did this come out readable?:). > >Ken > >------------------------------ > >End of wanderer-digest V2 #15 >***************************** ------------------------------ End of wanderer-digest V2 #16 *****************************