Tuned in Fifths

[Mandoplumb]

This kind of stuff always makes my head hurt. How can anybody think about numbers and math and counting while they play? I guess that is why I'm just mediocre.

I'm just mediocre is why I need these explanations. I don't really think about all this when I play but I need to have some idea of why certain things work in order to use them. The greatest natural musician I knew, my dad, just played what was in his head. He knew nothing about theory or why chords were built the way they are, he just played. I dare say that half the musicians we admire don't worry about all this stuff that "makes my head hurt" like dad, they just play.

[ralph johansson]

Made a short vid for you:




A big problem in guitar (and theoretical/technical) pedagogy is the casual "folk" approach to the instrument, that unfortunately is very popular and probably how 99% of guitar aspirers begin. It does a monumental disservice to anyone aspiring to learn the instrument (in other idioms beyond folk-styles), as I've alluded in the preceding posts.

In other words, from the standpoint of a thorough or complete understanding of the instrument - to be able to apply theoretical/technical concepts to the instrument - the common basis of chordal conceptualization with "open/cowboy" chords is all wrong.

Not sure what your video illustrates except some awkward fingerings of certain chords. If I were to use the "cowboy" C (followed by, e.g., a C7 or C#dim on the four inner strings) I would certainly not forgo the use of my strongest and most independent finger.

Also, I said that some people, including me, would have trouble fingering the full G form up the neck, and you do nothing to disprove that - my hand didn't grow while watching your video. Finally, I said that we don't need such chords at all. A useful rule of the thumb is to avoid chords with more than four notes and to avoid a full barre. Such big chords simply don't connect well.

As for pedagogy I doubt your statistics. If a beginner apporaches a jazz guitarist for lessons to build his competence in this idiom would the latter get him started on "cowboy" chords (where I grew up they were known as Salvation Army chords)?

I never had any instruction on the guitar. I realize in hindsight that a good teacher could have speeded my learning process by one or two years, but a poor teacher may have delayed it by just as much. To me at least the important thing was to begin with individual notes and melodies in various positions before dealing with chords. I simply figured that "learning" chords without knowing the notes they contain, how they connect, how they relate to the melody etc. was completely useless.

[Steve Ostrander]

I'm just mediocre is why I need these explanations. I don't really think about all this when I play but I need to have some idea of why certain things work in order to use them. The greatest natural musician I knew, my dad, just played what was in his head. He knew nothing about theory or why chords were built the way they are, he just played. I dare say that half the musicians we admire don't worry about all this stuff that "makes my head hurt" like dad, they just play.

I think they know. They may not have studied it, and they may not read music, but most pros play so often and practice so much that they can’t help but pick up some theory, even on their own. Honestly, I don’t think you can play at that level without knowing it.

I played cornet in middle school band for three years. I wasn’t very good, but I learned time signatures, meter, notes and scales, melody and harmony. I don’t remember learning the circle of fifths, but later, when I played in rock bands, we would transpose using the circle, and it made sense to me.

[catmandu2]

Not sure what your video illustrates...

Merely to demonstrate that all chords are "moveable" - even the ones that people are conditioned into thinking are not (as evidenced by the suggestions on this thread).

And, of course, many people (I among them) would have trouble fingering, e.g., the cowboy G form cleanly in higher keys.

I was not attempting to demonstrate anything but this point. However...

Also, I said that some people, including me, would have trouble fingering the full G form up the neck, and you do nothing to disprove that - my hand didn't grow while watching your video.

In a comprehensive pedagogic system (classical, jazz, etc) "fingerings" and formations are incidental to sound/harmony/composition - promoting such hand "growth." These "awkward" forms, as you state, are common and necessary in these idioms. Seen from a non-classical view, for example, I'm sure that classical fingerings do indeed appear "awkward" - they certainly were for me when I was first learning. For a classical guitarist, however, these and any number of "awkward" fingerings are de rigeuer - as complex fingerings are found in the music.

*I've tried to be succinct. But elaborating a bit more: an arduous technical pedagogic system (e.g., "classical") teaches optimal use of fingers. It's more like piano in this regard - where each finger is deployed equally. Therefore, requiring technical facility (ability to handle challenging fingerings, etc). It will also tend to encourage a broader view of fingerboard/fingering possibilities, compositional capacities, etc.

I won't belabor the rest of it. I think it's axiomatic.

[catmandu2]

Or I could be wrong about everything, I'm sure I'm abnormal in more than one way! - I'm just putting my feeling about it. It's been fun, in fact, to think about guitar again. I hope more people study it, stick with it, etc.

[ralph johansson]

Merely to demonstrate that all chords are "moveable" - even the ones that people are conditioned into thinking are not (as evidenced by the suggestions on this thread).



I was not attempting to demonstrate anything but this point. However...



In a comprehensive pedagogic system (classical, jazz, etc) "fingerings" and formations are incidental to sound/harmony/composition - promoting such hand "growth." These "awkward" forms, as you state, are common and necessary in these idioms. Seen from a non-classical view, for example, I'm sure that classical fingerings do indeed appear "awkward" - they certainly were for me when I was first learning. For a classical guitarist, however, these and any number of "awkward" fingerings are de rigeuer - as complex fingerings are found in the music.

*I've tried to be succinct. But elaborating a bit more: an arduous technical pedagogic system (e.g., "classical") teaches optimal use of fingers. It's more like piano in this regard - where each finger is deployed equally. Therefore, requiring technical facility (ability to handle challenging fingerings, etc). It will also tend to encourage a broader view of fingerboard/fingering possibilities, compositional capacities, etc.

I won't belabor the rest of it. I think it's axiomatic.

I don't know much about classical guitar but I do believe that chords with more than four notes pose technical challenges. But are you really suggesting that the chord forms you are illustrating have any place in jazz at all? I'm not really a jazz player, but a few tips I absorbed as a beginner, close to 62 years ago, is to 1) avoid chords with more than four notes, 2) minimize the use of open strings (no big deal since much of my practice material was in keys like Bb and Eb -- arguably the most common sheet music keys) 3) avoid full barre chords and 4) avoid dense voicings on the bass strings. E.g., in rooted harmony you need a gap between the two lowest notes for a clear bass line. And in jazz you often omit the root.

Regardless of genre I would say that the cowboy G form you begin with is a completely dispensible chord, with three g notes and two b's. The most obvious note to omit, for clarity, is the low B (the A string is easily muted by the fretting finger on the E string): And I don't think we need the high g' either. And what remains connects very smoothly with other chords, both in higher positions and in open. And, of course, the ideal fingering and voicing of any chord is determined by what comes before and after it.

[catmandu2]

Ya, playing out of a full barre like that is common in classical and flamenco. In formal "jazz" ya not so much but like paco delucia "jazz" and "jazzes" around the world.. composers and improvisors say all kinds of weird and unconventional things. Any way it's just a view of the fingerboard and another of zillions of possibilities.

*I'm going to delete the vid - it occurs to me now that it could be viewed
I'm, like, advocating moving these shapes over playing inversions!

[Mark Gunter]

It's a shame to lose that video from the discussion. I thought it was a good, concrete illustration of the point intended, not belabored, very brief, and exemplified dexterity and good rhythmic qualities, none of which is bad to see in an example video.

Anyway, just wanted to mention an option that folk can use at YouTube. If you post a video that you mean to use only in a discussion and don't intend for general public consumption, you can post it at YouTube as an "unlisted" video. That will keep it out of searches and promos, while allowing access via direct URL links for purposes of discussion.

[catmandu2]

Thanks Mark. Ya I didnt know that was an option.

I'd deleted another vid - hdgfl demo - when I realized it would come up in a tune title search; it was only meant to demo a new fiddle here..

[ralph johansson]

Ya, playing out of a full barre like that is common in classical and flamenco. In formal "jazz" ya not so much but like paco delucia "jazz" and "jazzes" around the world.. composers and improvisors say all kinds of weird and unconventional things. Any way it's just a view of the fingerboard and another of zillions of possibilities.

*I'm going to delete the vid - it occurs to me now that it could be viewed
I'm, like, advocating moving these shapes over playing inversions!

And then, of course, you also have the rasgueado --- perhaps not that compatible with steel strings (no, I never tried it).

[JeffD]

... are not moveable, but neither are open mandolin chords.

Well.... if all your open strings are on one side of the neck, then I consider them moveable. Both up the neck and across the neck actually. There is no rule that all four courses have to be hit with every strum.

Heck I even strum a double stop.