551

(15 replies, posted in Music theory)

bensonp wrote:

Learning your open chords with your last three fingers is the way to go.  I didn't do that all these years and it makes it very difficult to do barre chords.  If you learn it that way from the beginniong, you will be that much further ahead.

+1 times 1000.  Great advice.

I wish I had learned to make just an open G with fingers 2-4.  I'm trying to do that now and am failing miserably.

552

(16 replies, posted in Music theory)

Butch8844 wrote:

C/B is a C cord w/ a B bass. It sounds good and makes sense on a piano w/ the B played by the left hand

Yep.  It works well in a rundown from C to Am (C - C/B - Am).  Played as x22010.

I've never heard of them, but I just think that "Super Powered Underwear" belongs in the top 10 album titles of all time.

554

(9 replies, posted in Acoustic)

My D12X1 is due for some new wires.  I was shopping at GC this weekend and noticed that the only strings they had in stock for 12's were "light" and "extra light" gauges.  They had 3-4 brands, but nothing thicker than light.

I've never bought strings for my 12 before, and I'm sure you could find anything from spider webs to barge rope for them on the internet.  (Slight exaggeration, but you know what I mean.)

So the question is, would you normally string a 12 with "just" light or X-light?

If so, I can see why, but I just wondered what your experiences are.

Thanks,
'Nomikal

PS:  The guy behind the counter wasn't much help with this question.

bensonp wrote:

By worse performance, do you mean they didn't sound good either?  Or just didn't last long?  Could they be good for someone who changes their strings real often?

Yeah, sorry Pete.  My last post could have been a bit more helpful.  I was on about my 7th beer when I wrote it (not an excuse, just a fact), and tonight I'm only on my third, so this should be a bit better.

They just (for lack of a better word) died, seemingly overnight.  I was encouraged at first.  Like I said, they seemed to take a bit longer to stretch than the regular Martin SPs, but it seemed like they were going to hold tone OK.

I usually play off an on a couple of hours per day, and am not very well-disciplined at wiping the strings down afterward, so that may have something to do with it.

But what I noticed is that while normally there is a gradual decline in tone, these just seemed to go from "good" one day to "bad" the next.  I picked up my D-35 one evening and hit a few licks and then thought "what the heck is going on?"  I looked at the strings and checked to make sure that they were in tune (they were), but it was like I had picked up a totally different guitar.

Bottom line:  I wouldn't recommend them to anyone for anything, especially not to someone who changes strings as often as they change underwear because of the price.  For that I would go with something much cheaper, such as Topdown's recommendation for JP's, which are about a third the cost of the Lifespans.  (I haven't yet tried JPs, but the cost is appealing.)

I hope that clarifies it a bit for you.

Anyway, this evening I put on my first set of Elixir Nanowebs.  So far, so good.  We'll see how they are in a week or so.

'Nom

Zurf wrote:

play anything in key and SING LOUD. 

- Zurf

Dang straight.  Quote this:  Anything sounds right if you sing loud enough.

557

(26 replies, posted in Chordie's Chat Corner)

"Some men have a six-pack.  I have a keg."
-Astronomikal

558

(30 replies, posted in Chordie's Chat Corner)

Funny (Bizarre?) story re: Facebook.  I'm not on it, but my wife is.  We live in Texas and returned to West Virginia recently for a funeral.

While we were there we ate dinner at a restaurant, and coincidentally a person came in whom my wife had (just a few days prior) accepted a "friend" request from.  They hadn't seen each other in years, but he recognized her immediately and said hello, and she said hello.

And that was it.

It struck us both as weird that someone would make it a point to connect via Facebook and then essentially blow you off when (after several years) they see you in person.

This experience confirmed for me right then and there that it was a bit messed up.

'Nom

I started this thread:

http://www.chordie.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=15545

And Pete asked me to post an update (post #4) after I had played them for a while.  My verdict:  They suck.

These actually turned black and died an exceptionally early death.  Much worse performance than my standard Martin SPs.  I think my fingers leech acid or something.  (Actually, that's probably true for all of us, but never mind.)

I'm going to try Elixirs next, and if those aren't satisfactory, I'm going to try Pearses.  (Calm down,  Topdown -- Elixir before Pearse only because they're easier to obtain.)

Frustrated, but working through it,
'Nom

OK, so apparently, Martin got smart(er) and realized that the biggest complaint about their strings was that they don't hold tone long enough for the typical player.  They bought license/technology from "Cleartone" and have started marketing "Lifespan" strings using said coatings on their strings.

http://www.martinguitar.com/strings/sel … display=21

I bought a set of Medium Phosphor Bronze Lifespans and put them on my D-35. and was impressed with the tone for a couple of days while I was working through the stretching period, but unfortunately had to leave for a week to deal with a death in the family.  When I came back, every string was flat.  However, they still sound brand new.

Admittedly, they haven't been played much, but my take on these strings is that they may hold tone longer, but the stretch period is also longer.

They're pricey, of course (I paid almost $20), but so far, OK.  Just wondering if any of you have tried these strings yet and if so, what is your opinion?

Thanks,
'nom

561

(2 replies, posted in Chordie's Chat Corner)

Hello, Chris.  I'm a Yank who lived in North Yorkshire for three and a half years and visited Scarborough a few times.  Great fun!

I know it's not what you were looking for, but there it is.

'Nomikal

562

(28 replies, posted in Acoustic)

mekidsmom wrote:

The order they are in is the same order that circle of fifths are in.

Ah, of course.  If I had thought for five more seconds I could have avoided an unecessary post.  Thanks.

563

(5 replies, posted in About Chordie)

Thanks.  I "luvmymartins", but that user name was already taken.

564

(25 replies, posted in Music theory)

Thanks again for the info.  I'm learning, but slowly.  I have a community college a couple of miles away from my house.  I'm going to check and see if they have any Music Theory 101 courses I could take.

Now, to this:

Stonebridge wrote:

C minor with an added major 7th [C Eb G B] or any similar chord in another key sounds very strange. I can't say I know of any song which has this chord.

Interstingly enough, this was the subject of my first post on the Chordie forums.  You were involved in the discussion.  (Not that I would expect you to remember that.)

http://www.chordie.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=13405

Apparently Tom Petty's song "Into the Great Wide Open" uses Emmaj7 in a rundown between Em and Em7, which is just about the only way it "works" as a chord.  At the time I was calling it Em#7, until SouthPaw ID'ed it as Emmaj7 in post #11 of that thread.

I now use the same chord progression for sections of "Gentle on my Mind".

Thanks again.

565

(28 replies, posted in Acoustic)

The capo chart is excellent.  Thanks for sharing it.

I'm curious though, is there a reason why the chords across the top are in the order they are, as opposed to C - D - E - F  . . .  or C - C#/Db - D - D#/Eb . . .

Not a nit-pick, just wondering if I'm missing something important.

Thanks.

PS:  MKM - I was going to post this question in the "Capo Conversion Chart" sticky in this section (as you suggested in the second post of that thread), but the topic is closed.

566

(5 replies, posted in About Chordie)

Thanks to both of you for the replies.

Obviously I didn't think it would violate any of the rules either, otherwise I wouldn't have even posed the question.  But I've learned (sometimes tha hard way) that my interpretations of rules don't always match those of others.

MKM - I fully understand and agree with your definition of "unathorized advertising".  However there are no doubt "some" who would say that by posting a company's logo, that I am "technically" advertising for that company.

People like that have way too much time on their hands and should probably pick their battles a bit better, but some people have superiority complexes.  They aren't happy unless thay can feed their egos by denying others a small bit of freedom just because they can.

As far as the copyrighted materials thing, I understand the primary intent is for song lyrics and such, but a company's logo IS copyrighted.  Again, there are "some" who (I thought) would take exception.  If so, then they would also have to question Guitarpix's avatar.  Charlie Brown is copyrighted.  smile

Anyway, I'm glad to see that at least the two of you are OK with it.

Thanks again.
-Nomikal

567

(5 replies, posted in About Chordie)

I'd like to know if it is permissible to use a guitar company's logo as an avatar.

I wasn't sure if this would count as "unauthorized advertising" or even "posting of copyrighted materials", so I figured I'd better ask before doing it.

Thanks,
'Nom

568

(25 replies, posted in Music theory)

Stonebridge wrote:

I hope it has put your mind at rest smile

Thank you, Stone.

Like almost everything else we learn, we first have to forget what we think we know.

I don't want to put words into your mouth, but when you said:

     "The minor 7th is also often called a dominant 7th",

and

     "Over the years, any "minor" 7th has come to be called a dominant 7th because it has the same structure."

I took it to mean they are the same thing.  Maybe that's not what you meant.  I was doing OK with this until I found this page:

http://www.fretjam.com/guitar-chord-theory-3.html

On this page the author draws a distinction between minor 7ths and dominant 7ths, which (to me, a layman) appears to contradict what you said about minor 7ths and dominant 7ths in your earlier posts.

The author explains that a dominant 7th contains a flat 7th:  1-3-5-b7,  whereas a minor 7th contains both a flat 3rd AND a flat 7th:  1-b3-5-b7.


Is the author wrong?  Can you clarify / reconcile?

Thanks.

569

(11 replies, posted in Music theory)

Paul: 

I assume you mean the high E string and not the high G.  My 12 string has a high G, but not my 6.  smile

Kidding aside, you're right, that's a nice sound.  You can also add in an Am and when you play C-F-G-Am, you get Matt Weddle's cover of Hey Ya.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-8nkkOA_AM

'Nom

570

(17 replies, posted in Chordie's Chat Corner)

That is some deep thinking Russell.  It's also probably a world record for the longest sentence ever written.  smile

571

(25 replies, posted in Music theory)

Stonebridge wrote:

The minor 7th is also often called a dominant 7th . . .

Part of the reason I think I would have failed music theory is because I'm a (left-brained) engineer.  Let's examine this:

  > Some synonyms for "Minor":  small, miniscule, unimportant.

  > Some synonyms for "Dominant":  powerful, overbearing, important.

My point is that a thesaurus could very well show that "Minor" and "Dominant" are antonyms.

So when Stonebridge points out that "minor ... is also often called dominant ...", my tekkie brain wants to explode.

I get, but to me it's just not logical.

572

(9 replies, posted in Music theory)

43 views and no responses, so I'll give it a shot.

This is a guess, but it seems to me that an Em7/A would be an Em7 (022030) played with the 5th (A) string open as the root and the 6th string muted:

X02030

Try that and see if it works.

EDIT:  I just realized that this would also be an A7sus4.

Yes, I know:  "Remember, there are no stupid questions, only stupid people." - Mr Garrison (South Park).

Okay, I've been thinking about this for a while now and I don't have ANY answer, much less a good one, so I'd like to hear what you have to say about it.

Once upon a time, long ago (some longer than others), you picked up a guitar and had no idea what to do with it.  You decided that you wanted to learn how to play it, so you began lessons (formal or informal), or began teaching yourself some basics, such as picking out songs note by note.  Eventually you learned your first chord.  And then another, and then maybe a third or fourth.  Pretty soon, you learned a basic strumming pattern and learned how to make your fretting hand change from chord to chord faster and faster.  You kept practicing, and eventually maybe you learned how to play your first "song".

Later, you learned more chords, different strumming patterns, and eventually maybe some fingerpicking patterns as well.  Your skills and dexterity increased along with your knowledge.  The more you practiced, the better you got (except for that darned B7 chord, which you're convinced was first proposed by Satan).

Eventually, YOU GOT TO THE POINT where if anyone asked, you could say that you "play the guitar" and you can call yourself a "guitar player".

Here's my question:  WHAT IS THAT POINT?

In other words, at what point did you consider yourself transitioning from playing AROUND on a guitar to PLAYING a guitar?

I do realize that skill levels vary greatly from person to person.  A year or so ago, I considered my brother-in-law to be a "good" guitar player.  During this past year, I've pretty much caught up with him, but when I ask myself:  "Am I a guitar player?", I still consider myself to be an amateur who is not very good.  So I don't know if I can consider myself a guitar player, or whether I'm still just playing around.

I was trying to liken it to a sports analogy.  I used to play baseball.  When I played on a TEAM, I considered myself to be a baseball player.  Now that I'm no longer on a team, I no longer consider myself to be a baseball player, even though I still know how to play.  By that analogy, I'm not a guitar player unless I'm in a band, which is definitely not true.  You can see why that analogy doesn't work.

Truth be told, it's really not that important.  But what tickled my brain on this was that recently I was at a function and the subject of guitars came up.  Some on asked me:  "Do you play?", and all I could muster was "Well, sort of."  I would like to be able to answer that question with:  "DANG STRAIGHT!  BRING IT!"

(By this point, you're probably thinking:  This guy thinks about things too much.  And you'd probably be right.)

So here it is - For those of you who DO consider yourselves to be guitar players:  At what point did you realize that you are one?

(Now you understand the title of this post.)  smile

Thanks for indulging,
'Nomikal

574

(44 replies, posted in Chordie's Chat Corner)

My favorite one right now:


Save America.  Re-elect NOBODY!

575

(25 replies, posted in Chordie's Chat Corner)

Victor Wooten is awesome.

John Entwhistle (The Who) was pretty impressive.

Flea (RHCP) is fun to watch and listen to.


But check out Mark King (Level 42).  This guy must be an alien.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yioVmqlt2Fk

I'd like to be 1% this talented.