Talk:Major thirds tuning

Requested move

Resolved The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved early per primary editor's request. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:41, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

---

All-thirds tuning → Major thirds tuning – No source in the article uses "all-thirds" as a description for the tuning. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:34, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea. All-thirds tuning was named to be similar with the NPOV all-fourths, all-fifths tuning (not perfect fourths and fifths). However, since there is a "minor thirds tuning" (in theory), "all-thirds" could be ambiguous. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:30, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Did you know nominations/Major thirds tuning

The DYK nomination still needs to be reviewed.

Thanks! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:11, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to the reviewers. The hook appeared, and is recorded at the top of this page next. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

"Major thirds tuning" or "Major-thirds tuning"?

The article is titled "major third tuning" but the introduction reads "major-thirds tuning". Which one should it be? Hyacinth (talk) 09:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Major-thirds tuning > major thirds tuning

The adjective "major" modifies the noun "thirds". The modifier "major-third" modifies "tuning". WP:MOS and standard English suggest that the hyphen prevents ambiguity, particularly the mis-reading that "major" and "thirds" separately modify the noun "tuning".

I assume that Sarek chose the non-hyphenated form for simplicity. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Chord diagrams

Resolved

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I'm going to deposit some files from the Wikimedia foundation here. These can be used for major-thirds exposition. My labeling assumes the (low)

C-E-G♯-c-e-g♯

tuning, to avoid the D#.

• 
  b Minor
• 
  G Major
• 
  b(Major)7

Would that some angel redraw them for consistency! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:20, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Kiefer for your comment on my page, you encouraged me to lift it up a bit! I deposited 2 files as requested:

• 
• 

I used TuxGuitar to create them. Cheers --Alexandre Oberlin (talk) 13:08, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much Alexandre!

You really drew great diagrams. Every line adds information, and the proportions increase visibility. You also have avoided adding labels to the diagrams, which follows recommended practice at Wikipedia, and so allows the diagrams to be reused for chords on many more tunings!

Trying TuxGuitar, I could create a diagram of the score (including the unwanted staff/stave). How do I export just the chord-diagram?

It would be great to add a reference to your website in the text (rather than merely in the see also section): Let me know if any academics or music magazines etc. refer to your website, please. (A reliable source citing a website increases its reliability.) If you have an academic connection, or write in refereed publications, then of course your site would be reliable, also. To avoid being declared nonreliable (along with Wikopedia), it is best not to cite Wikipedia as a reference, but only list it as suggested further reading.

Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:58, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Kiefer,

I cropped 1x1 pixels to remove lines top and left so that the diagrams appear clean on white background. I also reset the graphic’s page information to ease further edition on it (I use ImageMagick).

I just composed the chords in TuxGuitar in Beat / Chord / Insert chord and manually cropped the screenshot.

For the referrers, I’ll watch ;-)

Cheers,

--Alexandre Oberlin (talk) 09:27, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

LaTeX and PDF

Hi Alexandre!

That explains my difficulties. I had hoped that it would be less work. I shall look at ImageMagick! :)

I shall look around for LaTeX resources, also.For editors fluent in LaTeX, the gchords package enables the one-line typsetting of guitar chord-diagrams in the form of pdf files. (I recommend the TexMakerX package.)

(I reformatted your response. I'd be happy to undo this reformatting if you like.)

Thanks again! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:59, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

It is possible to import images form pdf files. I quote from Wikipedia's tutorial on images:

This is page 2

Images can be excerpted from ... PDF files, with an optional page parameter. For example:

[[File:Cinderella (1865).pdf|thumb|left|150px|This is page 2|page=2]]

Thus, it seems simplest for me to create one PDF file with the images alone on individual pages. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:56, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Major thirds tuning guitar chords.pdf

Fretboard

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:05, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

GIMP

It was easy to export snapshots from PDF to PNG format, using the open-source GIMP software. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Gauges for strings

I record suggested string gauges, two by reliable sources (and one by me, trivially calculating the correct tensions for my Ovation's recommendations for lightest strings), (c.f. a blog and D'Addario).

Major-thirds tuning (M3)	G♯=A♭	E	C	G♯=A♭	E	C	G♯=A♭	E	C
M3 Ralph Patt (24 5/8 inches)	.007-8	.010	.013p	.022w	.026w	.032w	.042w	.052
M3 Ole Kirkeby (round wound) (25.5 inches)		.010p	.013p	.020w	.028w	.036w	.044w	.052w
M3 KW (Light, 25.25 inches)	.008-9	.010p	.0135p	.022w	.028w	.035w	.044w	.055-.056w	0.052-0.60 (or 0.064 by calculator)
Gypsy tuning	?	?	?	?	?	?	?	?
Gypsy light		.010p	.014p	.023w	.026w	.034w	.044w
Gypsy medium		.011p	.015p	.024w	.028w	.035w	.045w
Open-G DBG-DBG-D		D	B	G	D	B	G	D
Russian 7-string		.012	.014	.019	.024	.030	.039	.051

This is good information, and I suggest that this chart, or a variation thereof, be included in the article.

I will point out that 7-string "open G tuning", "Russian guitar tuning", and "gypsy tuning" are identical -- they're three different names for the same thing. From low to high: D2, G2, B2, D3, G3, B3, D4.

Also, that string-instrument tunings, and string gauges, are most commonly given from low-pitched string to high-pitched string, a convention which is followed in most Wikipedia articles on stringed instruments -- you have these reversed in the chart.

74.95.43.249 (talk) 19:53, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Gypsy-strings?

Can anybody explain why "Gypsy strings" (from e.g. D'Addario) suit major-thirds tuning?

(The Russian guitar's open-G tuning is major-thirds "on average", and so I list its gauges. It may sometimes be called a gypsy tuning. Is it related to Django's?)

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:13, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Good article

{{GA|05:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)}}

Reliable sources

Wikipedia is not a forum. Discussions of M3 tuning that are not focused on improving this article may occur at a jazz-guitarist newsgroup:

• Major-thirds tuning discussed by jazz guitarists

While not reliable source, its discussions mentioned this article, and so may suggest ideas for improvements. Its discussions also mention reliable sources.

Thanks! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:00, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Needs Balance

This is an interesting and informative article, but it only mentions the presumed advantages of playing in major-thirds tuning. It would be more encyclopedic to also make some mention of the disadvantages of the tuning. For example,

• M3 tuning decreases the overall range of the guitar (this is why Patt eventually resorted to 7- and 8- string instruments, to regain that lost range)
• M3 simplifies closed voicing, but it makes certain common open voicings more difficult, or even impossible
• M3 facilitates moving 3- and 4-note chords up or down an octave, but it makes the fingerings for 5- and 6-note multi-octave chords more complex and awkward.

This is not to say that the tuning is "better" or "worse" than standard, or any other tuning. But it is different, and it's important to note the significant differences, both pro and con. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.249 (talk) 19:41, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Major thirds tuning. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111021185726/http://www.luth.org/backissues/al69-72/al72.htm to http://www.luth.org/backissues/al69-72/al72.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120529074627/http://v3p0.m3guitar.com/ to http://v3p0.m3guitar.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:32, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Major thirds tuning. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120726002836/http://v3p0.m3guitar.com/html/fretmaps_intervals.html to http://v3p0.m3guitar.com/html/fretmaps_intervals.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120725085754/http://v3p0.m3guitar.com/html/fretmaps_chords_major.html to http://v3p0.m3guitar.com/html/fretmaps_chords_major.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120725085759/http://v3p0.m3guitar.com/html/fretmaps_chords_minor.html to http://v3p0.m3guitar.com/html/fretmaps_chords_minor.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130208010431/http://v3p0.m3guitar.com/html/fretmaps_chords_dominant.html to http://v3p0.m3guitar.com/html/fretmaps_chords_dominant.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120725090129/http://v3p0.m3guitar.com/html/strings.html to http://v3p0.m3guitar.com/html/strings.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:05, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Article review

It has been a while since this article was reviewed, so I took a look and noticed lots of uncited statements, including entire sections like the "Ergonomic Advantages" and "Disadvantages" sections. Should this article go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 17:54, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Major thirds tuning

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Issues appear to have been resolved. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:45, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Lots of uncited statements, including entire sections like the "Ergonomic Advantages" and "Disadvantages" sections. Z1720 (talk) 03:02, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

• Keep — I've removed the two sections you mention. As they were not part of the original GA nom, and are (as you noted) completely uncited. Actually, they verge on AI phrasing (but online detectators were negative) and don't really seem like things that RS talk about to begin with. Both added by IPs last year ( ). I've also removed another uncited section added by random IPs . Otherwise, this article is very well cited and thorough enough, especially so for a nom as old as 2012. Seems worthwhile to keep as a GA. – Aza24 (talk) 21:12, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

• @Aza24: I have added some citation needed templates to the article. Z1720 (talk) 21:20, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Thank you! I will make a note to adderess this in mid April, when I return from vacation. – Aza24 (talk) 21:29, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

    It looks like we've just got three left:

    • The most viable M3 tunings are: [list] – added since the GA nomination, and seems like OR. If there's no objections, this could easily go.
    • For fundamental-chord fingerings, major-thirds tuning's simplicity and consistency are not shared by standard tuning – was introduced uncited. I'm wondering if this is even needed, since later sections directly contrast the challenges and boons of using each system. Again, this could easily go.
    • chords with five-six strings have greater volume than chords with three-four strings and so are useful for acoustic guitars (for example, acoustic-electric guitars without amplification) – I actually think this verges on SKYISBLUE: a chord with more vibrating strings will be louder than a similar chord with less. There's a slight tinge of OR with the last part, but this could be solved with a rephrase to "chords with five-six strings have greater volume than chords with three-four strings without external amplification".

    Thanks, UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 13:35, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

• Thanks @UpTheOctave!: for the analysis of the remaining uncited passages. I managed to readjust the first one slightly to remove the uncited info, but keep the other tuning I was finding reference to. I agree that the third is too obvious to warrant inclusion (and indeed I was unable to find a ref for it). I think the second can be removed as well without concern. I think we are good here @Z1720:. – Aza24 (talk) 21:57, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

  Just noting that these changes get a thumbs-up from me; thank you for being proactive on this. UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 00:20, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

User:UpTheOctave!, User:Aza24, User:Z1720: What is your assessment of this article now? Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:38, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

As with Aza, I see no reason not to retain the article at GA, as long as Z1720 has not found any other issues. UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 22:40, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. Citation concerns are resolved and I don't have any further concerns. Z1720 (talk) 01:25, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lead image

Is the lead image of this article the clearest way to visualize this subject for a general reader? Trumpetrep (talk) 20:49, 5 May 2026 (UTC)