You are not logged in. Please login or register.
Guitar chord forum - chordie → Posts by Astronomikal
nao:
Good for you, but my guess is that the GAS is still there. Oh yeah, you may have resisted, but it's not gone. It's trapped. And we all know how uncomfortable trapped GAS can be. One day, it will work its way out.
"Sooner or later, the GAS always wins." - Blade(?)
Seriously though, I personally would not want to buy a guitar that I haven't held, played and heard. But that's just me.
. . . What kind of guitar was she playing? Anybody know? Looked vintage, . . .
I'm guessing it's a vintage Gibson due to the size and shape of the pick guard.
Electronics added much later.
Great thread topic.
Depends on your musical tastes, but one I really enjoyed (assuming you can find it) is Def Leppard's "Live: In the Round, In Your Face" (1989 I think). It rocks.
Also, if you can find "Queen: Live at Wembley" (1986), that's a GREAT concert.
I guess I'm stuck in the 80's. Oh well, there are worse places to get stuck. 
Congrats on the progress. One of my guitar teachers a while back said, "OK, now it's time to learn to read music."
I can see the benefit, but so far I've resisted because it's something I really don't want to do. I'd rather spend my guitar time learning things that I DO want to learn. So maybe, like you, in a few years I'll bite the bullet.
Again, well done. Forward progress is good progress.
did you pay full retail price?
I paid full retail GC price, which was subtanially less than what is listed as the suggested retail on Taylor's website.
I like Martins and Taylors both, as well as Guild and Breedlove and Seagull and The Loar and ....
You got something against Gibson? j/k
I'm a big fan of Martin guitars (see my Avatar).
However.
I was in GC a few months back and a friend who is a fan of Taylor put an 814ce in my hands. With a twinkle in his eye, he said: "Try this."
http://www.taylorguitars.com/guitars/acoustic/814ce
Ho-lee crap.
I tried to resist. Honestly. I tried to resist. But GAS had been building ever since. Finally the safety relief valve lifted and today I bought the darn thing.
I love it. Bonus: My wife loves it also.
I'll always love my D35 because my wife got it for me, but lord help me the Taylor is SO much easier to play. You don't have to have a freakin' vise for a fretting hand in order to make barre chords and the tone is just magical.
Plus, since I can plug it in, I can actually "hear" myself play for the first time. That's pretty cool, because I realize I'm making mistakes I didn't know I was making and now I can fix them.
Forgive me Christian Frederick IV. I've ventured to the dark side. And I'm happy.
So, some advice: If you have a guitar on your wish list, make it happen. Now. Life is not a dress rehearsal.
New guitars are proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.
Talk about passion, check out my thread on the other forum. Very entertaining!
"Young's Modulus" Really?!
You're right. That was entertaining. It was also weird.
Look, I get that there is a "science" behind almost everything. I'm an engineer, so it's my nature to wonder why certain things work better than others.
However, in the case of guitar construction and what "sounds best", I personally think it has do with the PLAYER as much (if not more) than the instrument and what it is made from. We've all heard the stories about how a guy took a $50 guitar into a guitar shop and the guy behind the counter made it sound like a $4000 Taylor. Maybe those stories are urban legends, but Glen Campbell made some pretty good sounds come out of a guitar that was made outta freakin' matchsticks for cryin' out loud:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2VNdDV6Vzo
Wonder what the Young's modulus is on a matchstick? But I digress.
My point is that regardless of the guitar's construction, there's someone out there who can make it sound good. If it's my guitar, it's ME if I practice long enough. Heck, there's even a wizard who can make MB's aforementioned "Sing-n-Strum" sound good.
OK, maybe not . . .
... it must take a lot of courage (or fortitude, or nerve, or arrogance, etc.) not to give up.
Not necessarily. People rarely become successful at something they are not passionate about. So if you are absolutely passionate about (for example) writing, it becomes relatively easy to persevere because writing is in your nature, and you would be more apt to do it just for fun during slow periods. It would go against your grain to NOT do it. And even doing it just for fun will make you better at it.
There are a number of good quotes around that subject. One of my favorites is: "Whether you think you can or you think you can't, you're right." - Henry Ford (I think).
Here's another one:
"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - (not sure)
That was excellent. Two things:
1. You ought to start a "See if you can top this" thread for people to post their most pretentious guitar description, similar to what we did. This current conversation will get lost since it's off topic. Just a thought. The results might be funny. Your call.
2. I'm sure you have been told before that you are a very creative and descriptive writer. I predict you are going to be very wealthy one day (hit songrwiter, novelist or whatever) if you channel your talents.
The best advice I would give to a beginner is learn more than one picking pattern early. Mix it up, otherwise the sound gets too boring.
As far as anchor vs. no, I say don't anchor (learn to hover). It allows you to move up and down the strings to get different tones. Besides, you're still "anchoring", it's just with your forearm instead of your finger.
And +1 on the comment about the Esteban hat.
. . . but he sounds a little pretentious.
He's not as pretentious as me. I have a guitar that is made out of wood from the heart of one of those giant walking trees from Lord of the Rings. The nut and saddle are made from the solidified lava from a Mars volcano, and it is strung with hair from the tail of a unicorn.
When you play it, it sounds like the Mormon Tabernacle Choir singing Handel's Hallelujah Chorus (and that's when it's out of tune).
It's a pretty good guitar.
...but I liked Robbie Robertson's smile best. On the other hand, Eric Clapton had a really cute purple velvet jacket . . . but Robbie had a killer scarf, so I'm going with him. Yeah.
That was good. My wife insisted on buying our last car purely because she liked the tail lights, so I can relate.
Here's a pretty good guitar war: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_icctfc … ure=fvwrel
BTW, Macchio is actually being overdubbed by Ry Cooder.
I assume you mean this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXkR23N6YO8
If so (or even if not), you're right. It's worth the watch.
So my question is, how in the world are people like Beiber able to get so big? I just don't get it.
My guess is it's because of marketing. I would guess more people have heard of Bieber than Rieu. Also, Bieber audience members are vastly different that what you see here, and they are the ones doing the most iTunes downloading. I might be wrong, but it's a theory which fits the facts.
I'm not a fan, but Bieber is not without talent. I understand he is a multi-instrumentalist. So I guess that means you have to have at least SOMETHING going for you, i.e., if you're a success because of marketing, you have to have something to market.
Just a preference. That's my signature. You can edit yours in your profile.
That's quite a collection you have there!
If I were a betting man, and if there was a way to ascertain the absolute truth, I'd bet my fretting hand that it's PURELY political.
Welcome to Chordie. I personally don't know the song, but a mod will probably move this to the "song requests" section of the forum where you might have better success at getting an answer.
Perhaps the biggest injustice in all of this is the fact that Gibson appears to be the only major manufacturer being targeted. (At least I haven't heard of any others.)
Totally unrelated to this story is an article I read back when the story broke is that someone reported that Gibson's CEO is a Republican donor, whereas Martin's CEO is a Democratic donor. (Not sure about Taylor.)
As I said, totally unrelated . . . right?
RFA Colin wrote:Go and listen to 'Masterplan' if you want a great Oasis song.
Beautiful one that.
Great shout
Jerry
I'll second that. My personal favorite Oasis tune. It also happens to be one that I can play reasonably well, so that helps.
MB, I don't know how old you are, but it makes me feel old by how you described your dad telling you about the song.
I thought the same thing.
Reminds me of a story about my niece. She was 10 years old when Wayne's World came out in 1992. Needless to say I'm a bit older. She came to me one day, very excited, and asked me if I had heard that great "new" song "Bohemian Rhapsody" by "some band" named Queen.
I just looked at her, smiled, and said, "Sweetheart, that song is older than you are."
How many of you play the REAL B barre chord with the high e? I did some checking and lots of people leave out the e like bun does. If you look up a B chord chart it shows x13331. I'm not saying it's wrong to leave out the e I'm just curious. Without the e is it still just a B or something weird like B#add2sus?
I try to include it. As others have said it requires some finger gymnastics but I like the sound so I always try to hit it properly. Right now I can make it sound good about 20% of the time, which is up from zero.
Having said that, it's OK to leave out the high E string. It's still a complete chord.
Example: B major chord = notes B, D#, F# (only)
Playing strings 5 thru 1 (fret in parentheses):
5 (2) = B
4 (4) = F#
3 (4) = B
2 (4) = D#
1 (2) = F#
So you can omit string 1 (high E) because you already have an F# on string 4.
You DO however, want to omit or mute the low E string (6). If you barre it on 2 for a B and play it then technically it's a B/F#. It's an inversion (first inversion, I think) of B major. Still a B chord, but the tonality will sound a bit off because the lowest note is not the root.
Somebody correct me if I'm wrong as I'm not well versed in theory, but if you are playing an E shaped barre chord your low E string is the root note and is barred. In an A shaped barre chord the A string becomes the root and is also barred and the E string is not played. In both examples the high E string is barred and played.
You are correct, i.e., that is normally what you would try to do. But you do not HAVE to play the high E string on either one in order to make the chord. You can mute it and still have the complete major triad covered across 5 strings (E-shape) or 4 strings (A-shape).
I don't know how to explain how to play the B other than to say this: I barre with my index finger and roll it to the inside aspect of the finger (the part of the finger that is "facing" the middle finger. The "meat" of the finger is thinner there and allows the use of your finger bone to come into play. This also allows me to roll my ring finger toward the aspect of the finger closest to the pinky. Again: thinner "meat" and using the bone of the finger to press down on the strings.
I don't play the first string when I barre this way-just the sixth through second.
I do something similar, except I roll my index to the opposite side (side facing my thumb). Less strain on the wrist for me. Also, because my fingers are long, I have to lay my ring finger at an angle across strings 2-4, again, slightly rolled toward the headstock. I've worked on this long enough now that I can usually play the first string with a reasonably clean tone.
Welcome to Chordie!
Assuming you mean this song:
http://www.praisechords.net/2010/05/he-abides.html
I grew up with it in church but the video is a slightly different arrangement. I always heard it as a simple three chord song (G, C, D or A, D, E or whichever 1-4-5 you prefer).
Using G the verse is:
(G) -joicing
(C) walk
(D) hand
(G) see
Then repeat for the second half of the verse.
Put a D or D7 between the last word of the verse and the start of the chorus such that you're singing "He a-" over it, then play a G on "-bides" (as per below).
The chorus is:
(G) -bides
(D) -lujah
(G) me
(C) walk
(D) Comforter (optional D7 on -bides; can also do this in the verse)
(G) me.
See how that sounds.
'Nom
if a piece of music is 4/4 why sometimes are there 5 notes to the bar
It's because you can have something other than four quarter notes in the measure.
Example, count: "one . . . two . . . three-and-four", or the old marching cadence: "left, left, left right left."
If each word is a "note", then that's 5 "notes" over four beats. The one, two and four are quarter notes, and the "three-and" are eighth notes.
I think this is the same thing Russell said, but I'm not sure. Examples made it easier for me to understand.
Guitar chord forum - chordie → Posts by Astronomikal
