13

I learned early in my guitar playing journey that what I would naturally assume would be the first string (the fattest string) is actually known in proper guitar anatomy parlance as the sixth string. And the skinniest string you play (which is the last string) is known as the first string.

This seems very counterintuitive and is very confusing for almost every beginning guitar student and often causes much tribulation and frustration when they forget what they learned in the first chapter of the lesson book. And for those aspiring guitarist who start out on random YouTube lessons, it may hinder their progress until they stumble across something that tells them that the strings are named the opposite of what they (logically) assumed.

On a piano the first key is the lowest key. On a harmonica, the first hole blow is the lowest note. Why is it opposite on guitar (highest string is called first string even though it's the last string)?

The down strum is the most natural strum on guitar and the one most beginners learn first. The FIRST string you strum in a down strum is called the sixth string. Why not call it the first string?

When you look at your guitar from playing position, the first string you see is the sixth string. Why can't we call that the first string?

I have googled this but can only find multiple articles that recite what I already know - (basically that the first string is the last string and vice versa).

I am absolutely certain it would be far less confusing if the "first" string (you come to) was called the first string and the 6th string was called the sixth string.

Does anyone know the origin of this illogical naming convention for strings on a guitar and can anyone offer any logic for it? I can't think of anything that makes any sense at all personally.

Improve this question
5
  • 2
    The number one is small, whereas 6 is bigger. So small (gauge) string is a smaller number??
    – Tim
    Commented Mar 2, 2016 at 16:11
  • @Tim - your "guess" is as good as mine. There is some logic there. But logic better suited for string manufactures and not for musician learning the instrument.
    – Rockin Cowboy
    Commented Mar 2, 2016 at 16:16
  • 1
    Let's face it. There's a 50:50 on this. Not great odds. If it's not one way...and who said the first note on a piano is the lowest? Just 'cos it's on the left? And - you don't get a first key on saxes, etc! However - it's a moot point, and I want a good answer.
    – Tim
    Commented Mar 2, 2016 at 16:23
  • 1
    I never refer to strings by a number, I'd say low (or bottom) e and high (or top) e, as that way how my guitar teacher always indicated strings. But it would confuse me sometimes because the string that is lowest in pitch is the string which is highest in altitude and vice versa.
    – Dave Halsall
    Commented Mar 2, 2016 at 16:32
  • music.stackexchange.com/questions/22181/…
    – user6164
    Commented Mar 2, 2016 at 16:55

6 Answers 6

Reset to default
5

It had to do with the evolution of guitar. And the fact that we've been extending the range ever since it was originally an ancestral instrument.

5-course baroque guitars

From Wikipedia:

...Meanwhile, the five-course baroque guitar, which was documented in Spain from the middle of the 16th century, enjoyed popularity, especially in Spain, Italy and France from the late 16th century to the mid-18th century...

Followed by:

...The Spanish vihuela, called in Italian the "viola da mano", a guitar-like instrument of the 15th and 16th centuries, is widely considered to have been the single most important influence in the development of the baroque guitar. It had six courses (usually)...

These short excerpts showed that although many shapes resembled the guitar (and most tunings as well), no one really agreed on the number of strings. They still don't actually.

But music was being written for it. And that's a problem when one note appears 5 times or more on a traditional instrument. Guitar staff notation should include string/finger markings.

Since guitar evolved, and added strings over time, the tuning became more and more standardized. Someone must have imagined that more strings would be added (presumably lower) over time, and so a reasonable assumption about string numbering was to start with the constants and add from there.

This theory is sound, even to the 9 and 10 string guitars we see now (With the exception of the Yepes 10-string Classical). The 9th is always assumed the lowest, and the 1st is always that high E we know and love (assuming no down-tuning). However, when people take 6+-string guitars and begin extending the range in the opposite direction, we run into a problem with this. Although it is still acceptable to assume the 1st string is always the highest in pitch.

Some of this answer is speculation, but I'm filling in holes as I come across evidence.

Improve this answer
8
  • 1
    How would your theory work with bass guitars? Normally 4 string, but would you say G is the first string? If going on to 5 stringers, it's the 5th when there's a low B, maybe, but with a high C instead, does that become string 0?
    – Tim
    Commented Mar 2, 2016 at 17:13
  • Yes, and no. I mention the fringe case where extended range is above the norm instead of below: Although it is still acceptable to assume the 1st string is always the highest in pitch.
    – user6164
    Commented Mar 2, 2016 at 17:28
  • 1
    @Tim I've never seen a "5 string bass" with a high C instead of low B. I'm not saying they don't exist, just that saying "the fifth string is the low B" makes perfect sense to me because it takes into account the vast majority of situations.
    – Todd Wilcox
    Commented Mar 2, 2016 at 18:56
  • 1
    I like that theory. If I read you right, you are saying that it is more likely to add heavier strings to the bass end if one is inclined to extend the range of a guitar like instrument by adding additional strings. I suppose there is a limit to how far you can go in the thin direction and still have a string that will have enough mass to vibrate the soundboard of an acoustic instrument. But you can add beefier strings with no problem. You may be on to something - plus 1.
    – Rockin Cowboy
    Commented Mar 3, 2016 at 0:10
  • 1
    Carcassi's method uses this numbering. I don't know if he was the first, but he certainly would have set a precedent.
    – hpaulj
    Commented Mar 4, 2016 at 7:47
2

Lutes, the predecessors of guitars, were notated in lute tablature. The highest string (like the highest notes in other scores) were written on the top of the system. Why would you number other than from top to bottom? Particularly because lutes came with various resonance strings (usually not fingered or even struck) and a varying number of bass strings. The top strings, in contrast, were rather dependably available and tuned and played.

Improve this answer
6
  • 1
    In maths, graphs with positives number from bottom to top.
    – Tim
    Commented Mar 2, 2016 at 17:07
  • 2
    At the moment the Lute connection looks the most likely to me. I'm not a historian but I believe the top lute string (the Chanterelle) was usually single, rather than a double course, and intended for playing the melody. Is there a Lutenist in the house?
    – Andy
    Commented Mar 2, 2016 at 17:08
  • 6
    @Andy Not I, I've had to go luten-free for (mental) health reasons.
    – Todd Wilcox
    Commented Mar 2, 2016 at 20:56
  • We number the notes on the musical staff from top to bottom. C4 is below C5, which is below C6... Why wouldn't we do the same for lute tablature?
    – Edward
    Commented Dec 14, 2022 at 0:46
  • @Edward yet the lines of the staff are numbered from bottom to top, at least in modern usage, for example when designating clef positions (C1=soprano, C3=alto, C4=tenor, F3 or C5=baritone, etc.).
    – phoog
    Commented Dec 14, 2022 at 9:03
1

This is probably one of those more or less arbitrary conventions that must simply be learned. If I had to guess why the highest sounding string of the guitar (and most stringed instruments as far as I know) is called the "first" string, I would say because it is the string most likely to play the melody. But I doubt we'll ever know for sure why this convention arose.

Improve this answer
2
  • If it is indeed arbitrary - as is quite likely, I wonder what it would take to change the conventional nomenclature to a more logical system that would name the first string first string.
    – Rockin Cowboy
    Commented Mar 3, 2016 at 0:06
  • 1
    @Rockin Cowboy- I think the reason that it's arbitrary in this case is that there isn't really a more "logical" system. The lowest pitched string and the highest pitched string can both be "logically" considered to be the "first" string, no?
    – Scott Wallace
    Commented Mar 3, 2016 at 14:50
0

It's simple. The guitar strings are arranged top to bottom (high to low). So the top strings (the highest strings) begin at the top (i.e. strings 1,2,3) and the bottom strings (i.e. the lowest strings 4,5,6) are, well, at the bottom. That's why they are referred to as the 'bass' strings.

It would be far more confusing to the beginner if he or she was told to play a 'bass run' on the 'top' strings??

Improve this answer
0
0

A student learning classical guitar starts on the highest string. This makes a lot of physical sense since it is much easier to reach those notes. It also makes it easier for them to learn the relationship between the frets before having to reach all the way across the neck to the lowest string. The first string learned, the first string one physically arrives at, is the first string.

Improve this answer
7
  • Except the first string isn't the one you first arrive at - 1st string is the thinnest string. The one closest to the ground.
    – Doktor Mayhem ♦
    Commented Dec 31, 2018 at 15:28
  • 1
    The thinnest string is the highest string (pitch, not distance from floor.) My answer is correct.
    – Heather S.
    Commented Dec 31, 2018 at 20:40
  • 2
    @DoktorMayhem, my husband teaches guitar. I asked him what the first string taught (and he uses a curriculum) was, and he said the thinnest string. I also do not understand what you mean by not the 1st arrived at since it is closest to the first finger. Please explain. I suppose which string is first taught is dependent on which book one is using. I assumed (I guess wrongly) that this was standard.
    – Heather S.
    Commented Jan 1, 2019 at 15:03
  • 1
    That's maybe the problem. There are many differing ways to come at this. I also teach classical and spanish guitar. And the low E is often the first we will teach on. So I don't think there is a fixed standard :-)
    – Doktor Mayhem ♦
    Commented Jan 1, 2019 at 15:08
  • 1
    I would also say that the thin string isn't necessarily the first string tackled when learning the guitar. Can't think of any particular reason why it should be favoured over the fat string, or any other.
    – Tim
    Commented Dec 13, 2022 at 16:52
-2

Why is the first string the top one? Because the first strum you do is from top to bottom. Because the lower tone has lower frequency. Because when you place guitar in its up position the first string is from left to right. Because when you play the guitar you press on frets from left to right to get higher notes. Because you start the scales from the lowest note.

Improve this answer
1
  • 3
    You do know that the first string is the highest skinniest string and the bass or fattest string is called the sixth string? Seems counterintuitive and that is why I asked the question. So the open sixth string is the lowest note on the guitar. I think it would make more sense to call that one the first string.
    – Rockin Cowboy
    Commented Apr 2, 2016 at 13:29

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.