Chords

[Lazz]

I wrote this to see if I could explain what I thought I understood to a friend and you might find it of interest - or you might not. It was originally put on a different forum and refers back to some previous posts about A7s!

Hey Nick,

That's an impressive amount of work to have put in.

How did it go down among the original community for which you wrote it ?

Did they find it generally illuminating, or problematic ?

I find it nearly impossible to avoid and/or resolve ambiguities without the illuminating to-and-fro of active dialogue.

[Lazz]

Thanks for answering, Steve and Nick.

"fundamentally it's very easy to understand"

for me it was fundamentally easy only once I understood

but up until that point I was blinded with a rag-bag of half-digested confusions and accumulated mis-understandings

"someone who wanted to complicate ... and to argue about tempered instruments, pythagoras and the 'truth' about musical theory"

I have met a few of his friends

Thanks for the examples, Nick

There are a couple of 'folk songs' on an old but still brilliant Pat Metheny recording called 80/81

contains a lot of 'just strummin' - but moves very powerfully

I'm sure you'd love it

But Hey Jules !! - you're the guy I want to hear from...

How was it for you so far ?

Anything useful making sense ?

[thelevellers]

Well I've found it all pretty useful, some of it is going straight over my head, but I figure I can come back to this later once I've got my head around the other bits Every time some one else explains this stuff to me I get a little further in the understanding, and am slowly getting there...

Lazz: Your method of finding the key reminded me of a friend's method, he says ' often it's the chord it starts and/or ends with'! Which works to a degree... I think I just need to learn some scales now to make use all this stuff a bit more...

As for the rhythm thing, I fully agree that having rhythm makes a HUGE difference, I know someone who is technically speaking playing the right notes, but somehow I often miss what their playing because the rhythm is out, and it seems impossible to explain what is wrong... :S

Right, on with the guitar amp, time for some playing around!

thank-you all, Rohan

[Steve]

As for finding the Key. I was once told by the musical director of the little theatre, Bristol, that the 3rd note of a piece of music will (almost) always give you the basic key! I have used this theory on many occasions and always found it to work! But the stuff I was trying to work out was pretty simple poppy type stuff!

[Lazz]

As for finding the Key. I was once told by the musical director of the little theatre, Bristol, that the 3rd note of a piece of music will (almost) always give you the basic key! I have used this theory on many occasions and always found it to work! But the stuff I was trying to work out was pretty simple poppy type stuff!

The MD of the little theatre needs a sharp word, I reckon.

You mentioned that theory once before somewhere and so I gave the idea a test-drive.

It failed very quickly.

Here's what arises from turning the first few pages of a fake-book sitting here:

A Felicidade - Key: Eb - 3rd note: Eb - yippee

After Hours - Key: C - 3rd note: G - boo

After You've Gone - Key: Eb - 3rd note: C - boo

Afternoon In Paris - Key: C - 3rd note: D - boo

Ah-Leu-Cha - Key: F - 3rd note: A - boo

Ain't Misbehaving - Key: Eb - 3rd note: Eb - yippee

So - even as a rough rule of thumb it only sometimes works.

Most of the time it doesn't.

Therefore, as an idea, I would assess it as severely broken.

Can we just throw it away, please ?

Edited May 19, 2008 by Lazz

[Lazz]

I fear we have long ago exceeded any potential benefit for Jules and entered deep overload already.

He's only been playing for one year - and apparently enjoying it greatly.

Decodong a few of his previous posts - I thought Jules might be at the right place for a hint about chord and scale tones he's using.

I honestly didn't think he was ready yet to find any value in upper extensions or modalities or the circle of 5ths or substitutions or bitonality or any of that more extreme malarkey.

One step at a time - and at his own pace.

He hasn't even responded in his own thread since we began muddying the waters.

Have we frightened him off ?

[Lazz]

I've had a long journey learning, and more often than not something I had taken as a given was proven wrong. I think I have a fairly good grasp on what's going on now, but I have so much more to learn.

Knew we had more in common than cap and beard

better to start with intervals and scales than with chords.

But you're a keyboard player, aren't you ?

With theory already immediately laid out beneath your fingers.

Jules plays guitar - and guitarists do chords - - you know... E, A, play-in-a-day.

People have to WANT to go further to learn more and guitar-players start with chords

I just find the topic intensely fascinating. Perhaps this other discussion is more appropriate in another thread.

Me too.

Good idea.

Any takers ?

...the circle of fifths is important enough that it should be learned early on. It seems like a lot of information, but it prepares for everything that follows.

That may be so.

Indeed it contains core theoretical organising concepts which I would not could not do without.

But you got to have something to organise with it first or, like all theory, it means shit to a tree.

Jules is on A minor.

He don't need it yet.

[Steve]

The MD of the little theatre needs a sharp word, I reckon.

So - even as a rough rule of thumb it only sometimes works.

Most of the time it doesn't.

Can we just throw it away, please ?

On yer bike matey! It's worked for me on many many occasions! I haven't worked out a song in years! But when I was playing regularly, I was the one working out all the numbers. Usually from a crappy cassette recording. I used this method if I couldn't quickly work out the key! And it worked for me. It may not work on your type of music, but for pop music! It worked fine.

[Lazz]

On yer bike matey!

My bike needs alot of work as well.

[Lazz]

We're free to disagree,

Oh no we're not !!

[thelevellers]

Thanks again guys! I think maybe you're right, I should have posted my question in a new topic, but meh, it's in here now isn't it?!

It was an initial interpretation error, as I want to know how to find the key of the stuff I write! I just play by ear most of the time, but when writing solos I don't have anything to play along to, and often find I slide out of key by accident, only to be discovered when I try and match all my parts up together (and on occasion only when someone with an unbiased ear has a listen!)

Rohan

P.S. Maybe we should make a new 'beginners help' thread, as this one seems to be more advanced than beginners now..? I dunno...

[thelevellers]

I know there's a lot more to it, but for me, for now, I am happy to just have a scale to play with for riffing in the right key...

[Jules]

Jesus...

Better get my reading glasses...

[Jules]

But, seriously, thanks for all this info, particularly Lazz - it might take a while to digest, but it looks to be both interesting and neccessary.

Thanks.

[Steve]

Jesus...

Better get my reading glasses...

[Jules]

Hey, Jules. Sorry if this got a bit out of hand. Bottom line is, music is complicated. But it is also a lot of fun. Just take what's useful now and toss the rest. When you're ready to study more, it's always there. Don't let it overwhelm you.

No need to aplogise - all the information is both (mostly) new to me, and also of great interest.

Thanks to anyone that's contributed to this post!

[aworldcollision]

It's too much. Take a taste instead...Paul Simon..everything he did. My favorite to drive thi point home is blackbird by the Beatles. Finger picking was the original implication and arpeggios took over. Know this, finger picking sounds better. Learn a pattern and practice it. There was a study done (prolly lots by now) that proves we improve almost as much mentally practicing as we do practicing. I used to practice the picking pattern of Blackbird on my desk in the 8th grade over and over. I don't know the technical aspects of music (like most of the stuff in this thread) but do you think these guys are better than me at it. (Don't take that as a challenge because it really isn't). The point I'm trying to make is knowing the science won't make it sound better. It's another tool to help you practice. Only practice will make it sound better. You stated you didn't think you could keep it up for every sone you play...if you really feel that wy, you are correct. Practice and it shall be.

[Lazz]

It's too much. Take a taste instead...Paul Simon..everything he did. My favorite to drive thi point home is blackbird by the Beatles.

Hi - I am uncertain whether I can actually follow the meaning or intention of your post.

The thread issues here are no super big deal and absolutely uncontentious.

I don't know the technical aspects of music (like most of the stuff in this thread) … knowing the science won't make it sound better

If someone isn’t interested in this stuff then there’s no need for them to pay any attention. Jules was interested. And what I attempted to share with him was pretty damned basic, wasn’t it ? An idea of how chords are built. First baby steps. Like learning to use a knife and fork. Not something I would personally think about as overly technical. And certainly nothing deserving to be lumbered with the label of ‘science’.

Do you honestly mean to imply that Jules’ interest is a waste of his time ?

The point I'm trying to make is knowing the science won't make it sound better.

I don’t get that point – we ain’t talking science here, we’re talking a little bit of understanding. And the suggestion that having a better understanding of what you’re doing is not going to help you become a better player is just ludicrous. To offer that attitude up under the guise of advice is something I find offensive.

Practice is also fundamental (of course it is) – but then no-one here has represented otherwise.

And visualisation is far from a novel concept.

Segovia suggested that he spent 75% of his time mentally practicing… often an area that is overlooked.

But neither, in truth, can it be said to be ‘often overlooked’: there is not one single serious pedagogic practice geared towards performance, whether delivered individually or institutionally, that would ever dream of excluding such an important technique.

My perspective is different in a few other areas, too.

There are two paths: one, learn and copy from other people; two, learn what makes music music and forge your own path. These discussion always turn to the "play by feeling" versus "play by mind" with people chiming in all over the place.

To imagine that you can actually learn what makes music music and forge your own path without learning and copying from other people always strikes me as delusional. It’s an ideological position rather than anything real. That old tired ‘feeling’ and ‘mind’ dichotomy is just so much self-justifying fakery when the actual distinction of efficacy should be between practice and performance.

For behaviour to be called ‘practice’ there has to be purpose and reason behind it – what is it you’re practicing ? …. and what for ?. There’s going to be some idea, theories of some kind, lurking behind your goal-driven intentions. When you get down to actually playing – that’s a very different thing.

learning and applying theoretical principles aids you in ways that "playing by ear" alone cannot.

It sure helps anyone playing be ear though.

It’s not an either/or circumstance unless we choose to make it one.

And I’ve never got the point of that.

I don’t want to suggest that I’m criticising you personally, Steve – I imagine we are in fundamental agreement about these fundamentals – just that your text provides me with a few convenient jumping off points for talking my style of trash.

can never make up for talent or intuition, and theory can only help increase talent and intuition.

There are a lot of bullshit myths surrounding the notion of talent.

We all have talent – it’s a natural part of being human. The relevant difference in terms of someone actually in real-life being able to embrace and realise that potential and ‘forge your own path’ depends on supporting the intitial defining passion with focused conscious discipline. To believe otherwise is wilful wasteful delusion. And there is an awful lot of that about already.

Nobody has to study or work at understanding more if they don’t wish to. There is no crime there whatsoever – the ability to bang out a simple tune and have fun with friends is a wonderful beneficial joyous thing to share. But if someone chooses to take a more serious path in learning, I see every reason to help and none whatsoever making it worthwhile calling that decision into question.

Again - not that you were, Steve - not at all - but I sure suspected aworldcollision's post of doing that.

don't think that a case can be made that finger-picking is inherently better than any other technique.

I think there may be a case that picking with fingers can have inherently much more heuristic value than ‘just strumming’ – to the extent you are aware consciously/sub-consciously of what notes are being hit and why.

Edited May 28, 2008 by Lazz

[FinnArild]

Talent isn't what you need. It's nice to have, but determination, drive, thick skin and a bit of luck is the traits that are gonna get you anywhere in this business.

And it's a cutthroat business, I tell you. Someone i know had recently a sort of "oral agreement" of distribution with one of the majors - turns out that when they made the record and had everything ready, they dropped it like a bad habit. Turns out they had a record of their own in the middle of the same segment. They just wanted to get rid of the competition. That's how it is - all the time.

anyway ....

I tend to be more organic than systematic when it comes to my chord progressions. Some times I build them up by playing one and one note - more like you would build up a choir part. Musical systems are great, but ears are better ...

[Lazz]

I think we have to be careful we’re not riding too many horses running madly off in all directions.

Musical systems are great, but ears are better ...

Absolutely.

Ears are everything.

But it doesn’t mean we have to be blind or dumb.

We weren’t (I wasn’t) talking ‘musical systems’ – we were talking simple chord generation.

This may shock you, but there are players who insist that playing by ear is the only way to play

This doesn’t shock me at all.

Might shock you though to discover that I agree with them – all the really great players I know or have met play by ear, too. But it’s a skill they have worked at to develop to a high level – it’s not an either/or zero-sum game – it’s all plus and plus and plus. You sure don’t get very far in it without distilling some cumulative understanding of what it is you’re doing. And it sure doesn’t mean you’re obliged to remain obstinately ignorant in thinking about it.

Certainly none of my teachers ever taught me that (visualisation) and it wasn't in any of my music theory books.

Well – they weren’t teaching you towards performance then, were they ?

I think – as far as I have discussed this concept with people across a broad range of activity – that visualisation has long been a common and widely used technique (I’ll bet even by most folk here) that people slip into as a natural instinctive mode of preparation – even if they didn’t clearly articulate it as such. It’s just another one of those things that we do – geez, even heavy hooligans I have known getting ready for a big battle on the football terraces have used visualisation as a matter of course. Firemen do it, boxers, athletes, surgeons, mechanics, actors, builders…. and, if you wanted to follow music performance as a career and attended Mabel Fletcher in Liverpool, or Leeds College of Music, or Guildhall, or Trinity, or the Royal College, or Juillard, or GIT, or Berklee, you’re guaranteed to get a generous dose of it as consciously articulated preparation and practice.

Yes and no.

Not sure what this ‘yes and no’ refers to.

The dichotomy I was criticising was your one of two paths: learning and copying from others OR learning what makes music music and then forgeing your own path. But now you speak of ‘studying songs and tabs’ versus ‘studying theory’.

Perhaps I misunderstand what you mean.

I don’t see how your context has any bearing on the substantive point I was trying to make (badly) that in the real life world theory and practice are comfortably interacting bedfellows that only get seperated for the purpose of arguments like this. How sophisticated and un-grounded the theory part gets is another issue, but it is a basic unarguable epistemological fact that you can’t have one without the other.

That’s why I said that the opposite viewpoint is an ideological delusion.

There is only one path – it goes from emulation through assimilation to innovation.

Not everybody covers the distance, or wants to, or needs to – but that’s how it is.

I wish that were true

Not sure what this can refer to, either – couldn’t see anything to be disagreeing with.

Sadly, there is a camp that believes learning theory is detrimental.

Yeah – well, they’re just dumb w*nkers with no real idea what they’re talking about.

They have no real interest in self-improvement and are perfectly content with their level of progress or lack of it – as they have every perfect right to be – but it does make them singularly unqualified to comment.

It is the learning of tab which is detrimental.

Again, I disagree.

Again, I am not sure what you’re disagreeing with because so much of what you say is in agreement with what I said.

I believe everyone has talent in something.

It’s a lot more than that.

Everyone is born a genius – it seems to be just attitude and training which messes us up.

Every little baby, from a collection of blurry faces goo-gooing and gurgling over its crib, is able to work out a complete operating theory of language which cannot be replicated by grown-up linguistic philosophers on big-money grants at top-drawer universities. To me – that infant achievement is an incontestable work of absolute deductive genius. And all kids do it. Natural.

can significantly be increased through dedication, perseverance and heart. However, there is no substitution for intuition, that creative spark, that something undefinable … only those with talent can reach a level beyond the norm

Here we differ.

I believe that position is bollocks – i.e., pretty much completely context-free – and part of the bullshit myth of talent again – like the belief that all beautiful people are somehow magical – it’s somewhat self-fulfilling and not at all grounded in the real world.

Bill Evans said he knew everyone around him was far more talented and that he would just need to be more disciplined and work harder than everyone else – and look at what he achieved: the Kobe of the keyboard.

You gotta have passion to start, but discipline to get anywhere considerably further.

Knowing how a chord is built is still a great place to start.