barre chords
Question:
>: Does it *sound* ambiguous, or is it ambiguous when you try to analyze it >: with a triad-based bias? A tritone is ambiguous; as every note is >: equally possible as a root. A R5 diad is pretty clear to me. >John, > I meant both. It sounds ambiguous and is ambiguous when you >try to analyze it within the context of triads. > You’re example of the tritone being ambiguous as every note is >equally possibly the root is looking at it from the context of the root. >The ambiguity in sound that I am referring to is within the context of >the flavor of the chord.
You’re still talking about something that isn’t there, though. When I hear an R-5 diad, I hear an exclamation point, not a question mark. > What I mean by that (and I don’t know if this is technically >correct or just my ears and terminology) is that triad based chords all >have a flavor to them, major or minor. The third is what gives the >chord its flavor.
If I grew up on strawberry and chocolate milk, would it make sense to say that plain milk tastes ambiguous, because you can’t tell if its chocolate or strawberry? > The R5 diad is pretty clear in terms of its root, but is not >clear in terms of a major or minor flavor, this is the ambiguity that I >was referring to.
Why is the question of whether they are major or minor being asked at all? How did this question get in people’s heads? I see no reason for this. It’s like finding a primitive person on a desert island, and saying that the person is ambiguous because you can’t tell if they’re a republican or a democrat. I believe that this is a case of taking music theory too seriously. Music theory is man-made, and of arbitrary construction. Currently, 18th century classic tonality is the most commonly held model, and unfortunately, too many people waste their time and thought trying to interpret all music in terms of it. > I’m not sure that I’ve explained myself very clearly, so let me >know if I haven’t. Also as I said earlier, I’m not sure if anything >I’ve said here is technically correct, but it is what I hear. The >terminology is likely to be completely mine as well.
– <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Response:
> Wrong; Daniel brought it up and I replied to what he wrote.
I was hoping you would say that. > They have a relationship to the rest of the music if they have a > context. They are never, however, implied triads when they are in fact > diads.
Then my suspicians tell me that you don’t know a great deal about music, even guitar music, and the art of aural illusions. Triads, among many other things are implied all the time. What I keep trying to tell folks around here all of the time is that it is the -context- that matters. However, I should stop debating at this point because I fail to see what your point is in any of this. Speaking of -context- you appear to either be defending something absurd such as not playing what is written, or you are using this thread as some vehicle for an unrelated argument. >3.) Your scenario tells me that you don’t have the >slightest understanding of the theory, nor its purpose. > I assume you are talking about the theory that tries to fit triads where > they aren’t?
I am talking theory: period. You don’t know what you are talking about and it is showing in every word you are typing. Don’t misunderstand me: it is -not- that I disagree with you, it is that you are not making any sense. I don’t have a problem with arrogance nor ignorance, but the combination is deadly. > My point is that such a question is > only projected on the music by a person who has been trained to look for > implied triads, by failing to take music theory with a pinch of salt, > like the person who hears a song in D Dorian, and declares that it’s in > the key of C major.
See above. > On the contrary, I tend to say unconventional things precisely because I > *DO* think. If I do happen to go astray, I am objective enough to > restructure my thought, incorporating the new knowledge.
And on that point, I have my doubts. Todd Tipton Minneapolis, Mn. 952-285-5758 http://toddtipton.homestead.com "I do not feel obligated to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forego their use." –Galileo Galilei
Response:
>> If you hear a power chord and fell like, "I wish I knew if this were a > minor or major chord", then I think you take existing music theory far > too seriously. > >Three problems here: 1.) There was no discussion of power chords >until you brought them up.
Wrong; Daniel brought it up and I replied to what he wrote. >2.) I can hear chords just fine >whether explicit or implied. They are what they are via the >context.
They have a relationship to the rest of the music if they have a context. They are never, however, implied triads when they are in fact diads. >3.) Your scenario tells me that you don’t have the >slightest understanding of the theory, nor its purpose.
I assume you are talking about the theory that tries to fit triads where they aren’t? > I believe it does not "sound" ambiguous.> >You are entitled to believe what you want. A power chord out of >context is ambiguous in the sense that the word was being used >originally.
It was used originally to denote the fact that it left a big question as to whether it was major or minor. My point is that such a question is only projected on the music by a person who has been trained to look for implied triads, by failing to take music theory with a pinch of salt, like the person who hears a song in D Dorian, and declares that it’s in the key of C major. > When you hear a single note, is it ambiguous because you > don’t know what interval it forms with "the missing note"? >When I hear a single note it doesn’t form with -any- missing >note.
Well, I don’t hear a missing third when I hear a R-5 diad. Same thing. >My good friend, I will assume that there is some point >inspired by enthusiasm in your words. However, I might suggest >you -think- about what you type before actually hitting the send >button.
On the contrary, I tend to say unconventional things precisely because I *DO* think. If I do happen to go astray, I am objective enough to restructure my thought, incorporating the new knowledge. >I don’t take kindly to a mixture of arrogance and >ignorance.
– <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Response:
> If you hear a power chord and fell like, "I wish I knew if this were a > minor or major chord", then I think you take existing music theory far > too seriously. >
Three problems here: 1.) There was no discussion of power chords until you brought them up. 2.) I can hear chords just fine whether explicit or implied. They are what they are via the context. 3.) Your scenario tells me that you don’t have the slightest understanding of the theory, nor its purpose. > I believe it does not "sound" ambiguous.> You are entitled to believe what you want. A power chord out of context is ambiguous in the sense that the word was being used originally. > When you hear a single note, is it ambiguous because you > don’t know what interval it forms with "the missing note"?
When I hear a single note it doesn’t form with -any- missing note. My good friend, I will assume that there is some point inspired by enthusiasm in your words. However, I might suggest you -think- about what you type before actually hitting the send button. I don’t take kindly to a mixture of arrogance and ignorance. Todd Tipton Minneapolis, Mn. 952-285-5758 http://toddtipton.homestead.com "I do not feel obligated to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forego their use." –Galileo Galilei
Response:
Well I’ve made some real progress, whats helped is barreing right next to the fret. Before i started doing that, only every few times I tried did I get most of the strings to ring clearly, Now, most of the time the strings ring fairly clear and sometimes perfectly. Whats killin me now is having the hand strenght to keep this up. Rob – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >: Cheating is fine Rob as long as you learn how to bar first. I learned >: on an acoustic so when I moved to an electric it was easy as pie. I do >: cheat however. For example for a Bb on the bar I’ll play x133xx using >: my index, middle and ring fingers or using my index and ring. A F I’ll >: play 133xxx using my index, middle and ring. > When you’re cheating like this, you are not playing a full >chord; you’re playing the 1-5 diad, also known as a "power chord". >Using your Bb example of x133xx: >The first fret on the fifth string is Bb (the first or root of the >chord/scale). >The third fret on the fourth string is F (the fifth of the chord/scale). >And the third fret on the third string is Bb again (the octave of the >root/first of the chord/scale). > You’ll notice that what you are missing is the third of the >chord/scale which really gives the chord its character. If the third is >a minor third, the chord has a minor flavor. If the third is a major >third, the chord has a major flavor. > By only playing the 1-5 diad, it sounds a bit ambiguous, >neither major or minor. Try playing the full Bb, then the B5 power >chord, then Bbminor, then the B5 power chord again. Do you hear how the >B5 diad is kinda more neutral and doesn’t have the emotional flavor of >the other two? > If you’re playing an electric with lots o’ distortion, you’ll >notice that the full Bb or Bbminor chords sound a bit mushy, but the B5 >sounds more punchy. This is because of the harmonic over/undertones >that are brought out by the distortion. I believe that someone else on >this thread noticed that if they play the full barre while the other >guitarists in the band are also playing the full barre that they get >this mush effect. > In a full band situation, you can play the Bb5 and count on the >rest of the band to fill in the third of the chord to flesh out the >sound, but in a single guitar situation, you are much better served >playing the full chord. >: There are some songs you’ll want to hear all six of the strings so >: you’ll have to learn it right. Like all the others say, practice, >: practice and when you get tired of that practice some more. > You’re absolutely right on this. Practice is the only way to >go. >"You’re just jealous because the voices only talk to me!"
Response:
> Does it *sound* ambiguous, or is it ambiguous when you try to analyze it > with a triad-based bias?
It -sounds- ambiguous. If there was any bias, it merely submitted to the chord required. > A tritone is ambiguous; as every note is > equally possible as a root. A R5 diad is pretty clear to me.
You are absolutely correct but you now are using "ambiguous" in an all together different context. best, Todd Tipton Minneapolis, Mn. 952-285-5758 http://toddtipton.homestead.com "I do not feel obligated to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forego their use." –Galileo Galilei
Response:
: Does it *sound* ambiguous, or is it ambiguous when you try to analyze it : with a triad-based bias? A tritone is ambiguous; as every note is : equally possible as a root. A R5 diad is pretty clear to me. John, I meant both. It sounds ambiguous and is ambiguous when you try to analyze it within the context of triads. You’re example of the tritone being ambiguous as every note is equally possibly the root is looking at it from the context of the root. The ambiguity in sound that I am referring to is within the context of the flavor of the chord. What I mean by that (and I don’t know if this is technically correct or just my ears and terminology) is that triad based chords all have a flavor to them, major or minor. The third is what gives the chord its flavor. The R5 diad is pretty clear in terms of its root, but is not clear in terms of a major or minor flavor, this is the ambiguity that I was referring to. I’m not sure that I’ve explained myself very clearly, so let me know if I haven’t. Also as I said earlier, I’m not sure if anything I’ve said here is technically correct, but it is what I hear. The terminology is likely to be completely mine as well. "You’re just jealous because the voices only talk to me!"
Response:
>> Does it *sound* ambiguous, or is it ambiguous when you try to analyze it > with a triad-based bias? >It -sounds- ambiguous. If there was any bias, it merely >submitted to the chord required.
If you hear a power chord and fell like, "I wish I knew if this were a minor or major chord", then I think you take existing music theory far too seriously. If I hear a power chord, it is two notes; two notes that get along with a high degree of consonance; two notes in which one is obviously the acoustic root of the other. I do not hear a missing 3rd, any more than I hear a missing 4th, a missing 2nd, a missing 6th, or a missing 7th. > A tritone is ambiguous; as every note is > equally possible as a root. A R5 diad is pretty clear to me. >You are absolutely correct but you now are using "ambiguous" in >an all together different context.
You are the one who said it "sounds" ambiguous. That is what my criticism is focusing on. I believe it does not "sound" ambiguous. No one tries to figure out if its major or minor, unless they are trained to do so. When you hear a single note, is it ambiguous because you don’t know what interval it forms with "the missing note"? — <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Response:
> Just keep plugging away at ‘em. I was having the same difficulty with > bar chords for awhile… a lot of practice, a little pain, and all > will be well.
Yeah I can agree to that statement. My firts barre chords sounded so awfull and even 3 finger power chords sounded awfull, but then after some time of practice my fingers got stronger and I got the feeling to play barre’s the right way. Hehehe I started to play guitar on an old acoustic guitar with piano like strings… after that experience, changing over to an electric was just a snap (my fingers got weaker after changing). But even now I sometimes like to play some strange mufflet barre chords during solos because they sound funny and they keep the solo away from the usual guitar masturbation thing. greets Reto
Response:
Rob, Try putting the weakest fingers down first, then put everything down except for the barr
Related Posts