What are the advantages and disadvantages of an all-fourths guitar tuning?

Question

What are the advantages and disadvantages of an all-fourths guitar tuning being E, A, D, G, C, F (the high E and B strings being raised a half-step from standard tuning).

One reason to do this is that the fretboard now follows a symmetry of the circle of fifths.

As a consequence a second advantage is that chords can more easily be translated to other fretted instruments tuned in fourths (tenor banjo, mandolin, ukulele, etc.)

Answer 1

I've tried all-fourths tuning quite a bit. To me, it definitely makes purely monophonic playing a lot more instinctive (even having got used to standard tuning) - any little one-octave scale shape you learn can be moved anywhere on the neck.

… but many things relating to chords become more difficult. In standard tuning, The D, G, and B strings make a lot of major and minor triads easy - barred, they constitute a major chord by themselves:

and from that, a two-finger hammer-on can be used to get to a chord a fourth up (as per the standard C-shape), which is a motion found in many rock riffs:

there's a minor shape playable that spans only one fret (as in the standard A minor shape), that would span two frets in an all-fourths tuning:

There's also a major shape that spans two frets (as found in the standard E major shape) that would span three frets in an all-fourths tuning:

...as would the similar minor shape:

Another thing that makes barre chords a lot easier in standard tuning is that with a full barre, the E, B, and top E strings constitute root and fifth (of an F-shape barre).

In rock soloing, the way that this minor third played on the G and B strings can be easily be bent to a major third by bending the B string is one of the archetypal sounds of bluesy playing - and that would be harder in all-fourths.

Subjectively, when 'mucking around' in all fourths tuning, I'd also say I came across many fewer 'happy accidents' in terms of stumbling across interesting-sounding chord shapes and riffs. Standard tuning may seem illogical, but a lot of good stuff seems to 'fall out'!

As a consequence a second advantage is that chords can more easily be translated to other fretted instruments tuned in fourths (tenor banjo, mandolin, ukulele, etc.)

It would do if they were tuned in fourths, but often they're not - mandolins are normally fifths (like violins), the ukulele typically has a re-entrant tuning with the same tuning kink as the guitar, and banjos often use open tunings. All-fourths tuning does make the guitar more similar to bass tuning, though. (Note it may make more sense to tune bass - even 5-or-more string instruments - to all fourths if you are focusing on monophonic playing, which may be more common with bass).

You might find some other information at Why is the guitar tuned like it is?, although I don't think that's been asked or answered from quite the same perspective as this question.

Answer 2

Right off the bat, barre chords are pretty much ruined. Some of the open chords are still ok, but others you'd have to mute the top strings in some cases where you don't currently have to. Some open chords (the C major shape, for example) free up a finger from one of the strings but then you have to use the finger on another string, so it's a wash (e.g., for the C major shape you can leave the second string open but you have to fret the second fret on the first string, or mute it).

Regarding scales, I'm not sure if there's a clear advantage or disadvantage because it just changes the pattern and for a given scale, some parts of the neck get easier and others get harder.

My mental exploration of this (to really get to the bottom of it, I think I'd have to actually try an all fourths tuning for a day or two) doesn't show me one solid advantage, and the loss of barre chords is a pretty significant disadvantage, and that's probably why the standard tuning for guitar has that major third in the first place.

Answer 3

Similar to the tuning on most 6 string basses. One of the points for playing a 6 string bass is that chords can be played - albeit 3 or 4 string chords, as much more gets muddy. And often not strummed, as one would with a guitar. But individual strings with individual fingers/thumb. This would work for a similarly tuned guitar, and every pattern in each key would be identical, obviating that M3 interval between 3rd and 2nd strings. So, playing individual runs/scales would be easier to learn and transpose.

Downside? Mainly the fact that barre chords would not be as effective. There would have to be changes in fingering, but mainly it would lose the bottom/top string double octave. As mentioned on bass, any solo work would be far easier to transpose across strings. But, as the guitar is a chordal instrument - I guess 80% of most guitar playing is strumming chords - the disadvantage would outweigh the advantage.

Answer 4

I started playing all-fourths a couple of years ago and I immediately noticed that my ability to construct chords from intervals improved, as I was able to visualise the intervals much more easily. It also improved my ability to play in different registers, as I now only need to memorise a single moveable chord shape for a given chord rather than different ones depending on the set of strings used.

Many of the answers mention barre-chords, and this is definitely a disadvantage if you're playing the kind of music that calls for lush six-string chords. If the music can live with four-string chords then you might want to consider all-fourths.

Answer 5

If one wants to play a triad with a repeated octave on four strings tuned in fourths, the last bottom string will need to be played three frets above the top string. This situation applies to the bottom four strings of the G chord, and it would work fine when playing chords on four strings. Playing a rooted triad on five strings without skipping notes, however, would add another fret to the required stretch, which would put it just beyond the range of practicality. Shrinking the gap between G and B by one fret reduces the reach required to play a five-string major chord, making it much more practical.

Using an all-fourths tuning (e.g. E-A-D-G-C-F) there are a few ways one could try to play a five-string chord barre chord which skipped one note from the triad. One could try A-C#-E-A-E (5-4-2-2-4) which would be playable, but having the only third be more than an octave below the top note probably wouldn't sound good in most contexts. Trying A-C#-E-C#-E (5-4-2-6-4) would require an excessive reach. Trying A-C#-A-E-A (5-4-7-9-9) would require an even worse reach. A-E-A-C#-E (5-7-7-6-4) would be workable, but the only opportunity to fret two strings with one finger would be on the 7th fret, where it would be awkward.

Having the B string tuned down a fret makes five-string and even six-string barre chords much more practical. Indeed, Standard tuning is in some ways mathematically optimal from the standpoint of allowing a maximum number of practical and useful five-string and six-string chord voicings to be played with a barre finger plus three others that are within three frets.

Personally, I use a different tuning which places the upper strings much closer together (minor thirds) so that when playing consecutive notes of a chord the higher strings get played with fingers higher on the fretboard rather than lower. That tuning, however, does not allow for chord notes to be skipped between the upper strings the way Standard Tuning does (the lower strings are much more widely spaced, so chord notes are automatically skipped there). Having developed and explored my tuning, however, has given me an increased appreciation for Standard.

Answer 6

The "symmetry" of all 4ths in guitar tuning is a huge red herring. No one will likely play all the same chord type throughout a song. In fact the tuning of the guitar actually allows you to use the EXACT SAME FINGERING for all chords in the minor ii V7 i (e.g. B-7(b5) --> E7 --> A-7) in one position. You can't really get more symmetric than that.

I will not provide chord charts but consider the above progression in the key of D minor (F major) played at the 5th fret (A phygian mode, C-form for F maj). Playing E-7(b5) in it's first inversion (3rd on bottom), the fingering is equivalent to the D-7 but playing on the string group (D, G, B, E). That same fingering works for the D-7 with (A, D, G, B) string group, and finally for the A7 with (E, A, D, G) string group. Most guitarists would not play the progression exactly like this but (1) it works harmonically, and (2) makes soloing over the progression very easy and smooth as the arpeggios of those chords connect very nicely. The same idea works for many other three string and four string groupings in that common geometric structures are embedded in all the chords of a typical progression. Think of the history of the guitar, what type of music was traditionally played on it and the most common keys and progressions for those tunes. The tuning as is is pretty optimal.

Answer 7

I play in 4ths tuning sometimes, and there are some pros/cons, as well as some misunderstandings.

Misconceptions:

• "you can't play open cowboy chords." These generally work fine, but you'll play an open F instead of an open E. Think of the instrument as being in the key of C.
• "you can't play barre chords." Again, these chords are not as hard as you might think: you just barre diagonally across the frets. Angle your finger so that the first two strings are -1. A nylon string or half-size travel guitar makes this even easier.
• "barre chords are important." Musically, the bigger question is should a guitarist play giant chord blocks by default? As Nile Rogers noted, often a guitarist adds too much sonic information, where a smaller chord shape might sound more interesting or bigger in a mix. In the worst case here, you can just add two guitar tracks if you want a thicker sound. Less is sometimes more.
• "It would be confusing to play 4ths tuning." But a guitarist already uses this tuning for 5/6 of the strings. You can think about it like playing the bottom of an 8 string guitar.

Pros:

• The fretboard layout is extremely simple and logical. All chords and scales follow the same basic patterns. Notes are exactly where you expect. As with standard tuning, it's sometimes confusing to use different shapes for the same type of chord, when shifting strings.
• If you understand piano, or like patterns, it's much easier to translate that understanding to fretboard shapes. Standard tuning adds at least 3x cognitive load, as there are 3 times as many patterns for basic triads. Whereas in 4ths tuning, all major chords are constructed from three basic shapes: 320xxx, 200xxx, 332xxx (triad inversions).
• Transposing a part around on the fretboard (up/down a string) is trivial.
• The standard-tuning chord shapes translate into unusual and interesting chords. Example: a simple D shape translates into flat-5 chord. This can spark novel composition ideas. For example, here's a composition that was written in all-4ths tuning, then translated back to standard tuning: https://soundcloud.com/red-squirrel-one/street-lamps

Cons:

• The biggest downside is if there is an awkward chord shape, there's no escaping it. In standard tuning, you can shift +-5 to get alternate fingerings for the same chord. No such relief is available with an equal-interval tuning. If you don't like a chord shape, there's no escape; it will follow you everywhere on the fretboard. :-)
• Some chord shapes are easier in standard tuning. Such as: the first three strings form a minor chord. The second three strings form a major chord. Whereas in a 4ths tuning, you do lose several "very easy" chord shapes. Although, it is still possible to play one-finger chords by angling your finger diagonally across frets (a wider-spaced classical guitar might help).
• If you are playing a song is written for standard tuning, then sometimes it's more challenging to play in an alternate tuning. Though this is generally true vice versa. A song written in X tuning may be hard to play in Y tuning. It's not a specific problem with the 4ths tuning, but in translating pieces across different tunings.

To note, for rhythm parts, I prefer using the tuning with finger-picking over of a pick, for more precision on which string groups are played.

Answer 8

I think @Tim has given the best answer, but I would add the cost-benefit analysis will depend on the genre of music you play.

The cost-benefit analysis is different for genres where

1. big 5- or 6-note voicings (with or without open strings) are rare, with 3- or 4-note voicings the norm, and
2. there's a large vocabulary of voicings and melodic language to learn.

In this case, not having big barre chords isn't much of a loss because of (1), and being able to learn shapes for voicings and melodic language all over the neck faster is a big pro because of (2).

These are true for jazz and jazz-adjacent genres, and all the guitarists I know who use P4 tuning play jazz or jazz fusion. (Allan Holdsworth once said he would use P4 tuning if he were to learn the guitar again).

(Also, the answer claiming "no solid advantage" is just wrong. In P4 tuning, there are fewer distinct ways to finger a line or to form the shape for a chord voicing when you consider every position on the neck. I don't think this is controversial. This means it is faster to learn to play things all over the neck because there are fewer fingerings to learn.)

Answer 9

Gotta say, one thing that gets waaaaay easier? Quartal Chords! :) Seriously, you can get some great sounds from this tuning, particularly if you like that open, suspended sound.