As someone with a background in reading music/music theory and even some teaching experience, I feel qualified to recommend that regardless of the instrument you play, the style of music you prefer, etc.,etc...LEARN TO READ MUSIC ASAP!!! When I taught guitar before, I used to leave this to the discretion and option of the student, but today I would insist upon it. I think it's very important to be able to conceptualize music without a particular instrument involved because music comes from within the player and not from the instrument itself and reading music allows this.I truly believe the instrument, style, genre is totally and completely beside the point. It's like saying Shakespeare wrote what he wrote because of the pen he used!! Another analogy? Of course, it isn't necessary that you read music just like it isn't necessary to be able to read/write English or whatever your native language may be, but think what a limited life you'd have if you couldn't read? How would you participate on this site in this very forum??Are your thoughts and feelings less worthwhile because you know how to write them down and someone else can read them?Music can be magical, but it isn't magic - it's music and there is good, hard science behind that. Every great musician knows this whether they admit it or not and whether they learn formal theory or not. No one that is good at what they do is ignorant of how it's done or what it is...FWIW!!!

Johnny, while I agree that reading music is a very good thing, I have to disagree with your point on Shakespeare. Some studies done have shown a difference in what is written due to the different technologies used to write it. And there are authors that confirm this.

For example, in the book The Rape of the A.P.E., there's a chapter named something like Short Chapter, Long Footnote. The chapter (written in the 60's) consists of a single f-bomb, and the footnote is very long explaining the word itself.

This chapter is followed by a chapter called Long Chapter, short footnote. The chapter is several pages of the aforementioned f-word (types on a typewriter), and the footnote is something like 'Loses it's meaning, doesn't it?'.

So, yes, the technology used to create something does matter.

Tubeswell wrote: I had old school teachers who sat beside me and forced me to sight-read music for years by the 'wooden ruler method'

Did your have one of those square wooden rulers? Man, those hurt. I'm 62 and still have ill thoughts about that teacher.

Talk to you later,
Norm

normj wrote:

Tubeswell wrote: I had old school teachers who sat beside me and forced me to sight-read music for years by the 'wooden ruler method'

Did your have one of those square wooden rulers? Man, those hurt. I'm 62 and still have ill thoughts about that teacher.

Talk to you later,
Norm

Yup and yup

He who dies with the most tubes... wins

Surf Daddies

Another thing also with arpegio is playing an another arpegio on a chord
Ex Emin arpegio on C chord
You Will find cool sound cause they were in harmonic relation
Just m'y 2 cents

Last edited: Nov 24, 2014 14:28:03

JakeDobner wrote:

Arpeggio is my middle name. I love 'em.

Jake Arpeggio Dobner

Has a nice ring to it

JStern wrote:

I thought I would give this thread a bump to help start some more musical dialogue after all the tank/pedal nonsense that has been flying.

WARNING: MUSIC THEORY CONTENT!

The great thing about an arpeggio is that the flavor changes completely as you respell, or invert the notes.

For instance, take a C Major Arpeggio, C-E-G. This position is called root position, with the chord root in the bass. Now respell it so that the lowest note is E, so it is E-G-C. The arpeggio is now in first inversion, with the third of the chord in the bass. Now respell it so that the lowest note is G, so it is G-C-E. The arpeggio is now in second inversion, with the fifth of the chord in the bass.

Here is a good arpeggio exercise, taking a major arpeggio through the inversions.

C-E-G-C, E-G-C-E, G-C-E-G, C-E-G-C, then reverse it. Take this through all 12 major and minor keys.

This is really useful, but could someone illustrate that example in a clearer, tab-like format? It's always frustrating for me since I haven't been taught theory, so when people explain even simple things, they are always unaware that it makes sense to them, but not to the third party (me!)

In the above example:

Now respell it so that the lowest note is E, so it is E-G-C. The arpeggio is now in _first inversion, with the third of the chord in the bass._

Third as in a 1/3rd? so the two lowest strings? Or do you mean what was the third note in the chord is now the bass note?

Either way, what does this look like?

I don't mean to sound like I'm having a go at JStern. Obviously it would make sense to most, but not for us noobs.

Not arguing with anything anybody has said. Would like to point out that there are folks like Ray and Stevie who seem to manage without sight reading. I would point out that there are are multiple cultures with folk musics that are shared without out using common western notational forms.
It seems likely they are no less legitimate nor less musical.

Your points are not lost on me. I would just point out that there are many sides to the coin...and many, many coins.

mj

mj
bent playing for benter results
Do not attempt to adjust your TV set.
https://www.facebook.com/Bass-VI-Explorers-Club-179437279151035/
https://www.facebook.com/Lost-Planet-Shamen-366987463657230/

The 1-2-3 way of referring to scale tones eliminates ambiguity and is transposable to all keys. Chords functions are referred to with Roman numerals (in Major scale: I ii iii IV V etc.) Players only need to be clear about what scale or mode they are in: e.g. "It's a I-vi-IV-V progression in C") The '3' of IV is of course, 6, and '5' of V is 2 (count on your fingers). The integer system eliminates the need to figure out letter names of notes in all the scales.

websurfer wrote:

The key of C makes things simpler to teach, since there are no sharps or flats.

If we start with the root, a one octave scale would be:
C D E F G A B C (octave)

Each of these scale notes are given a numeric scale degree:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1(8)

Therefore, when talking about the "third" of a C major chord, that would be the third note of the scale from which it's derived: E

A simple C major triad chord is made up of the 1, 3 and 5 degrees of the C scale: C, E, and G

Here is a link to a chart in guitar diagram form showing all inversions of the C major triad with corresponding note and scale degree shown:

http://www.chrisconly.com/free-guitar-lesson-triads-inversions/

Hope this helps to clarify things a little bit!

Squink Out!

Last edited: Dec 05, 2014 22:50:25