Talk:Open D tuning

d a f# d a d

Not d a f#

Started improving

I added some hyper links. I also broke the 1 long paragraph into smaller ones for easier reading. Hope this helped.--Guitarist6987876 20:39, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Cheers. Was my first article and was really a trial run. Didnt read any instructions and was suprised it appeared! Am going to read the "how to" pages before I do another. user:DanG 6/10/05

Re: Merging this article

Re: Merging this article. Absolutely not! Each tuning is important enough to have its own section. Entire schools of musical tradition orbit these things - one entry for all open tunings is too general. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.141.113.171 (talk • contribs) 16:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I quite agree. The 'suggest merge' banner has been at the top of the article now for over two months, since 10th December; I propose removing it in a week or so, unless someone can come up with a compelling reason to the contrary. R Lowry 19:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree as well. --RobHutten 02:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: Retitling the Open tuning article

Hi there. I recommend consolidating the various "open tuning" articles under a heading such as "guitar, alternative tunings." This is because some "open" tunings aren't actually open at all -- DADGBE is a good example of this, as is DADGAD. Additionally, chord shapes have been adapted to the various truly open tunings (i.e. those which form a major chord when barred at any fret) to create non-open chords that are able to take an open tuned instrument into the various minor, seventh or other chord types, making the open tuning more useful. --63.26.116.40 08:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)user Ned F.

I certainly disagree with merging all the articles together -- it would be far too unwieldly -- but I take your point about the discrepancy re: 'alternative' / 'open' terminology. Effectively, you are saying that 'open tuning' is actually a subcategory of 'alternative tuning'. My suggestion would be to rename the current Open tuning article as Alternative tuning (guitar) and then have subheadings within that article dealing briefly with the different types of alternative tuning: open; modal; etc, which can obviously then be used as jumping-off points for the more detailed articles on the individual tunings theemselves. I am going to copy this suggestion to the Talk: Open tuning page and see what people think. R Lowry 10:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Merge Open Tuning + Open D tuning + Alternate Guitar Tunings

Even though I was not here to argue for the merging of the guitar tuning articles, I will do so now. I believe that the guitar tuning article should cover every type of guitar tuning briefly, and they should link to these other guitar tuning articles, which explain in further detail. However, the main guitar tuning article doesn't have all of the tunings as shown in the open tunings article, neither does it have the open Dmaj7 tuning (which I would add to the article if I knew it).

Please sign your posts on talk pages. I'll make the point that the material here and in the related articles is already excellent IMO. Some rearranging may be a help, but we're likely to run into the twin problems I've run into at resonator guitar and slide guitar:

• The terminology is not standard across genres.

• People can be quite expert in their favourite genres and still a little naive about very similar ones - and that's even apart from the various inherent POVs (which haven't been a problem AFAIK - for which I'm relieved, thankful and impressed).

eg many bluegrass Dobro players seem honestly surprised to find out that some people play (round neck) Dobro in atandard spanish guitar tuning and style, and even more surprised to find that tricone and biscuit resonators still sell rather well!

FWIW, I tend to use open tuning to mean any alternate tuning. They are all some open chord after all, and for example the standard 8+8 string steel guitar tunings are named after the open chords they represent, despite the fact that these full 8-note chords are very seldom played. Andrewa 03:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Who is Brady Clark, and why does he deserve a mention here?

I had this page mentioned to me by friends who thought I had vandalized the page; I am a musician myself, but do not use Open D often, certainly not often enough to warrant a mention (even if I were better-known). Brady Clark's article does not mention any musical prowess, and neither Google nor MySpace have turned up anybody significant. If somebody does not provide some evidence of his significance, his name will be removed from the article. Brady Clarke 03:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Since nobody else contributed, I have removed the reference to Brady Clark. 203.59.116.41 made no further edits to Wikipedia apart from that; it seems to have merely been advertising for somebody who had nothing to advertise, perhaps. Brady Clarke 14:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

List the string tunings explicitly

There was no actual listing of what each string should be tuned to, so I added it.Gregsinclair (talk) 19:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

"Variations" section

Classifying Open Dm as merely a "variation" of Open D tuning is inconsistent with the article's premise, which qualifies Open D as a corollary of the D major chord. Ordinarily I might recommend removing the subcategory, but the article offers so little information as it is. Kevin Casey, film critic (talk) 07:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Mark Tremonti

I just wanted to mention that Creed's song "Weathered" is also an Open D 5 Song. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.228.194.128 (talk) 21:02, 13 May 2013 (UTC)