In general, the beat frequency should be low enough that you can't notice it.

The average lowest range of human hearing is 20Hz, around E 0 .

(Most pianos have A 0 as the lowest note, since nearly everyone unimpaired can hear it

and it's more "musical").

This means that if the beat frequency is above 20 Hz, you will hear a third note corresponding to that frequency.

That's definitely bad.

The "beat" phenomenon still occurs below 20 Hz though, of course.

I would approximate one beat every 3 seconds, or a beat frequency of 0.333....

Hz, to be good enough.

There's no hard and fast rule, really, since more sensitive people may pick up on a slower beat than others.

Once it gets that slow I struggle to notice it, and I certainly wouldn't pick up on it unless I was listening for it.

It's harder to get higher strings to stay within 1/3 Hz of each other as well, since tuning adjustments cause a greater frequency change than for lower strings, so you might have to be more lenient with them.

And, unfortunately, you're never going to get around the variation in how your piano sounds.

You should try to keep the humidity and temperature consistent (which will help how long the piano stays in tune generally as well), but it will never be perfect.

You take a tuning fork tuned to 440Hz and a second one tuned at 442Hz, the beating will be 2beats/second and the following is true: 440 + 442

= 2beats/sec440 + 437 = 3beats/sec880 + 882 = 2beats/sec220 + 219 = 1beat/secetc.

So the difference in the frequencies equal the beating per second.

The beating itself is heard as a fluctuation of the volume of the sound (not the pitch)

When two strings a perfectly in tune the attack part of the note will sound harder or tighter.

The harmonics (partials) also will be more noticeable thus augmenting the "clarity" or "brightness" of the sound.

As soon as one of the strings are getting "off", the sound become "duller" and less definite.

Overall, a not so perfectly tuned piano will sound less satisfying and will loose definition.

(definition = every notes can be distinguished clearly) Even though a normal person can't tell how many beats/

sec

the piano's unisons are out, this person can still notice quite a little difference in the out of tune unison because of the color change that occurred in the sound.

Something like 0.5beat/sec will be noticed because the "quality" of the sound is changed.

Hope that all this make sense.

The Piano Technicians Guild is an association of piano technicians and they have exams to qualify technicians.

The tuning exam has many parts, including a unison part.

In this part, the examinee will tune 24 unisons from C3 to B4.

The examiners measure the difference between all three strings of each unison.

If they are out by more than 0.9 cents, (100 cents = a semitone) then the examinee will lose 2 percent.

The unison is measured for left to centre, right to centre, and left to right, meaning that an examinee can lose 6% on one note!

80% is a pass, meaning an examinee can not have more than 10 unison pairs greater than 0.9 cents off.

A constant cents offset will result in a different bps depending on where on the piano you are talking about.

Also, humidity fluctuations throughout the day should affect each unison string the same.

If you have unions going out during the day, that has to be some other problem.

I think the question relates to how many beats per second (or seconds per beat) is acceptable with unisons to consider them to still be in tune.

We agree that one beat per second indicates that two strings are different by 1 hertz, eg one string is at 440 (A4) and another at 439 and we can hear a slow

wow

wow wow.

That is a difference of 4 cents.

The tolerance in strictest tuning exams happens to be much less eg 1 or 2 cents.

At 220 (a3) compared with 219Hz the difference is 8 cents.

I guess 8 cents on one if not both of the strings is going to make an audible difference in the frequency of beating of the major 3rds, 4ths, 5ths to the trained ear, so at A3 we would not want any of the strings to be as much as 8 cents out.

Maybe I should analyze a few pianos with Tunelab or similar listening devices after they have had professional or paid-for tunings, and find out what is going on.................

It was a valid question although I have never noticed a periodic change like a worsening then an improvement in what I hear in my own piano

Not very far.

As far as I'm concerned, there are several aspects of how well a piano is tuned.

For equal temperament: 1.

Pitch of A4 should be at 440 no more than 0.9 cent to pass the PTG test

but I tune to within 0.1 cent or closer.

Intervals across the piano should be: Octaves, pure or slightly wide; 5ths, slightly narrow; 4ths slightly/somewhat wider than the 5ths are narrow; M3rds should be wide and progressively beat faster going from low to high across the instrument.

Finally, and to your question, unisons should be as perfectly pure or still as you can get them at least within .2 cents

but .1 or zero is better.

You will hear bad unisons before anything else so that's of paramount importance.

Pianos can "sound OK" and be out of tune by the above standards, it all depends on the musical training and tolerance of the listener; some people can't tell if a piano is in tune at all.

BTW, many recordings contain out of tune pianos so that's not necessarily a bench mark.

So even though we can tune a piano to very tight tolerances, in the end it's subjective so the simple answer is: If it sounds OK to you, it's in tune...

but if it's been more than a year since you tuned it last, it needs a tuning :)

Question: I'm talking about either beats per second of a resulting beat between two strings in the midrange of the piano. My piano seems to vary during different parts of the day, I think because of the temperature variation in the room where it sits.

How far “off” can a piano unison be and still be considered “in-tune”?

With regard to how far “off” can a piano unison be and still be considered “in-tune”, in general, the beat frequency should be low enough that you can't notice it.  There's no hard and fast rule, really, since more sensitive people may pick up on a slower beat than others.  If they are out by more than 0.9 cents, (100 cents = a semitone) then the examinee will lose 2 percent. Finally, unisons should be as perfectly pure or still as you can get them at least within .2 cents

Generally, the beat frequency should be low enough so you don't notice it. Some people may be more or less sensitive to tuning. Unisons should be as perfectly pure or still as you can get them at least within .2 cents. According to piano tuners, the pitch should be no more that approximately .9 cents out.


Well, that subject is VERY subjective, but there are some points commonly agreed upon: Chord progression plays an important role, but any given progression can have a different feeling depending on the context.

For example, take the vi - IV - I - V progression very common in pop music.

Sometimes, when played ballad-style and flowingly, it can give an image of desperation, and resolve.

But played with gusto, it could even suggest agitation or anger.

The piece that you mentioned, Adagio for Strings, uses a liberal amount of suspensions.

Often times the dissonances resolve to minor chords, rest for a bit, followed by a stronger but short intense passage before settling back down to a minor chord.

This, to me, suggests "fighting a losing battle with despair."

Texture and timbre are huge contributors.

I already mentioned it in my last bullet point.

Many, many, many pop songs have the same four chord progression (I - V - vi - IV or vi - IV - I - V), yet the good ones manage to remain unique.

It's little things, like the strings on the guitar, how mellow are they?

Does the piano have a slight ring to it, or is it percussive?

All these things can create a myriad of different emotions.

Both of the above tie in with tempo in obvious ways.

Mellow, sadder, songs tend to be played slower so that one can appreciate the unique textures.

Like I said, it's a VERY, VERY subjective area, but hope this helps.

Very interesting question.

For a computer to understand whether song is happy or sad, you must define "happy" and "sad" first.

This alone seems almost impossible, since every human has his own understanding of happiness, sadness and all other emotions.

You can define "sad songs" as the "songs which induce a sad mood in the listener".

In this case, how can you know what effect the song will make on every individual human?

For example, you can write a very happy song with major tonality and lyrics about summer and children, and an old man will cry while listening to it, because he remembered that his son died last summer.

As for the theory: many people think that major = happy and minor = sad.

This is, generally, because of the relation to major and minor chords, which have a very different mood to them.

Major thirds, which are the basis for major chords, sound happy and bright; and minor thirds, which are the basis for minor chords, sound dark and sad.

This is the impression people usually get when they listen to the interval or chord alone.

When chords line up to make up a song, the mood of the song is produced not from individual chords, but by tension and release made by chord sequences.

You cannot tell that a song with minor tonality will be accepted as "sad" or in major as "happy", because tonality does not matter; A minor and C major have all the same notes.

It is tension/release and the listener's interpretation.

I don't think that computers will be able to understand music in any imaginable future.

As @user234 noted, this is very subjective, and depends hugely on your musical background and the culture that you're from.

Ever since these started mixing and merging, the matter became even more complicated.

Basically, there's nothing innately 'sad' or 'angry' in a given chord or a progression, it's just the way you've personally learned to associate them with some context.

I remember reading in some book about chord types, where it was mentioned that (and I quote very loosely) '

major resembles this

, minor resembles that and [something

more complex - aug? sus?]

resembles

Bambi deer emerging from the bush covered in mist droplets'.

While this may sound silly, I think that it provides huge insight into our musical perception, and emphasizes how the musical gustos of the generation that was raised on cartoons were shaped.

Of course everybody might have watched different cartoons (I for example, having never seen Bambi, was amazed

how much classical music I found familiar by reference to Tom and Jerry and Looney Tunes)

hence their associations might be slightly different.

Which, if you think of it, makes matters quite interesting.

Ultimately some generalizations may be drawn, but immediately someone will beg to differ and that's normal

I guess.

"Happy" and "sad" songs are entirely defined by one's sociocultural environment.

That is to say, the definitions are entirely socially-constructed and largely subjective.

The current state of western music aligns major with happy and minor with sad, but back in the 17th century, a piece of music was sad regardless of the tonality as long as it had the "dying fall" in its melodic line.

The "nature" side of this "nature vs. nurture" argument is largely explained by this excellent video:

The feelings that you want to transmit es very relevant with scale or chords that you use.

For example: Minor scale and chords sound dark and sad (ballads).

Major scale and chords sound bright and happy (classic pop).

Power chords sound powerfull, with a lot of energy (rock, metal,punk).

At last, all this musical resources are very related, but they sound very different.

The "sound/tone/timbre" of the instruments and the atmosphere created by them give music a certain personality.

For soundtracks, the context of the movie gives personality to the music.

Other than this, I think it is an individual that gives personality to the music.

That is, it also depends on what mental and physical state you are in.

As already mentioned, it is a very subjective thing.

Same music can evoke different feelings in different persons.

The most important thing when listening to any music is how "you" "feel" it.

Question: What makes a piece of music sound angry, dark, sad, happy, or otherwise?  "La Chute" by Yann Tiersen sounds so angry to me and "A Dark Knight" from "The Dark Knight" movie sounds so dark and mysterious.  "Adagio for Strings" by Samuel Barber is a pure expression of sadness, and of course there's no need to even talk about "Adagio of Concierto De Aranjuez".    What gives a piece of music its personality?

What gives a piece of music its personality and feeling?

The feeling of a piece of music is very subjective and also culturally related. However, texture and timbre contribute to the perceived feeling as do, the "sound/tone/timbre" of the instruments and the chord progression. As for the theory: many people think that major = happy and minor = sad.

The answer to this question will be very subjective and may well depend on your social and cultural upbringing. However, chords, chord progressions, timbre and tone will all contribute towards the feeling or character of a piece of music.

Chords and chord progressions can play a significant part in whether a song is perceived as happy or sad.

The timbre and tone of instruments will be a signfiicant contributing factor.

The answer to this question will be very subjective and may well depend on your cultural and social upbringing.


By and large, you play better (from a technical aspect) when the bass is up high enough that you cannot notice the position change when you go from sitting to standing (so either sitting position or standing, high position in your pictures above).

This is why most instruction books recommend that you play with it up that high.

But once you have learned how to play, you may find that it is uncomfortable to play while standing.

If that is the case, then I would suggest you lower the bass by an inch or two (and then play for a few weeks to test the height) until you find a comfortable height.

Personally, I tend to play bass in the middle-low position, but I play guitar in the high position.

The big differences are in the way your hands are relative to the bass guitar.

For the right hand, this can be largely personal preference.

The height of the bass and the arm positing dictate the angle that your hand is to the strings.

Some variants on bass playing, like Victor Wooten's slapping, are said to be easier to execute on a higher-slung bass guitar.

For the left hand, the lower the neck, the more your wrist has to bend to keep the fingers on the fretboard.

This can cause excess strain on the wrist which can be the source of injuries.

While choosing a position for comfortable playing in the style you like should be the key factor, a lot of bassists (and guitarists) choose a position based on looks.

Heavy metal bands typically go for the very low slung look-

it has a certain cachet and is associated with some very big name bands, whereas jazz bassists often use a higher position.

Huge generalisation, I know, but still broadly true.

High or low, my bass teacher recommended an upward angle (unlike the first photo, above), because it Makes the nut end of the freboard closer to your body, so the left hand doesn't have to reach or leverage as far.

Compensates for the longer length of the middle finger, so that you can pluck with the first and second fingers more equally.

There are several factors affecting it.

1 - Convenience.

Play in a high position is much easier to play, in particular on the high notes - 1st and 2nd string.

The high position is ideally suited for such jazz.

To play the low need of training - it's more complicated.

It is very difficult to reach the high notes.

2 - Appearance.

This is true, when you play heavy music, play the low post is much steeper.

At the same time it's all relative.

For example, Alex Webster played a very heavy music in a high position.

http://i.stack.imgur.com/aK2yJ.jpg Train, try to play in different positions and choose the most convenient for you.

Like others have stated, try not to worry too much about appearance but comfort and ease of getting the bass work done properly.

This could mean "low" or "high" depending on what type of music you play, and/or what particular area of the fret board you use the most.

While most people consider playing "low" bad form as it is associated with "metal acts" or "looking cool," it can be more comfortable if you play with a pick, or if your fretting hand stays primarily in 1-5 positions instead of playing with the instrument "high."

However, playing the instrument "higher" up makes slapping and popping much easier.

I actually have a strap that has two settings that can be adjusted immediately between songs if I need it high (slapping, or playing high notes up on the fret board), or low to keep my picking hand movement based on my shoulder instead of wrist.

I think the best option here is to set your strap so it's tight when you're sat down but the bass still sits on your knee.

This way the position of the bass is the same when you're standing as when you're sat down.

This also means you'll not have to adjust your playing style to play standing as everything should be the same.

Also when it's set at that height it's in a good place ergonomically to avoid RSI and other issues common with playing as your plucking hand won't be bent at an angle and the tendons can move more freely.

Question: During some research I've found out that some guitarists use different position of bass-guitar during play:   Play while sitting:   Play while standing, high position:   Play while standing, medium position:   Play while standing, low and (sometimes) very low position:    I want to know - is this just because of music style for bands, or can the sound be different because of guitar position?

How to hold a bass guitar while playing

Choose a position that is comfortable rather than one based on looks when playing a bass guitar.

Whilst there are several factors that affect this choice, it's generally accepted that most people choose the position of their bass guitar based on looks.


Getting guitar lessons with a good teacher would be the first choice, but if you really can't have a teacher, then watching guitar video lessons online would be the second choice.

You have to be careful though, there are many guitar players posting lessons on Youtube, and not all of them are good teachers or even good players.

One of the best online teachers would be Justin Sandercoe.

He has a complete beginner's and intermediate course, plus he's a pro musician and has been teaching guitar for many years.

His website is http://www.justinguitar.com .

Also check out the links given by Dr Mayhem, they contain some useful information as well.

One more thing, you mentioned that you would like to learn to play by ear.

Justin Sandercoe explains it on his website, but to play be able to by ear, you have to start by learning to transcribe music, which basically means listening to a song or a solo and figuring out the chords and notes by ear.

You'll probably want to look at Need help in starting to learn guitar

What is the first scale one should learn on the guitar Is there any guitar tuition software...?

And there are a lot of other good questions tagged guitar and learning

Music is communication.

They've found that when you play with other players, the parts of the brain that deal with speech light up.

You can get somewhere playing by yourself, but you get farther faster when you play with someone else.

It doesn't have to be in a lesson context.

Plus, when you play with someone else, you get a strong sense of what needs attention.

You may think you want to do fancy flatpicking runs, but you'll know you need work on timing and changing chords cleanly before picking up double-down-up picking ever need show up.

I think that with your background, you can educate yourself.

But at first it might be helpful to get a few lessons from a professional guitar teacher in order to teach you how to place the fingers of each hand to execute the notes correctly and produce the proper tone.

You will also need a critique of how you sit, stand and hold the instrument to enable playing with the least amount of fatigue, and factors like that.

A surprisingly difficult problem for many players who come from an instrument where you only play one note at a time, such as woodwinds, is this: You can form one chord on a guitar, and you can form another chord on a guitar, but how to you get your left hand to move from one chord to the next chord in the tempo of the song?

You want to hold one chord for its full rhythmic value and then, in an instant, form the next chord just a fraction of a second before the next chord needs to sound.

This is something else that a teacher could help drill you on.

In this day and age - learning from youtube is not a bad idea.

There are many helpful tutorials you can find there.

Also, try learning a song that you really like and that has easy chords.

This way you'll be motivated to practice more.

I would recommend beginning with chords and then moving onto finger-picking, unless you wanted to play classical guitar.

I saw a really great set of videos on how to play the guitar from Brazil on Y-Tube.

Subtitled in English -- it's free form and breaks it various styles down in rhythm and chords for you -- perhaps a different style for learning that you might find nice as an alternative.

If your already a player of other instruments, and an accomplished musician, the the first advice i would give you is to transpose some of the music you know on the other instruments onto the guitar.

You should be able to do this by ear, note by note if need be.

Transposing scales/arpeggios and such by ear shouldn't be a problem for you, just remember that once you have transposed a scale in a particular key, to remember the shape, as on the guitar the shapes stay the same across all keys.

Your major learning curve will be chords, fretting them on a guitar can be quite difficult to begin with.

In your position, I would choose a simple song/piece i was familiar with, and learn/apply the chord shapes for the guitar, if you have a good ear

this shouldnt be a problem.

Then build from there with another song, or write something with what you have learned etcetera.

Same applies with chords, once you have learnt a shape

, say one of the minor triad shapes, it stays the same regardless of the root.

Learn and Master Guitar goes through the basic to the fundamentals of playing by ear.

One idea that I don't see mentioned here often for people just getting started on guitar is to enroll in a community college beginning guitar class.

The cost is much lower than individual lessons, basic questions get answered, you have a chance to get to know others who are also just beginning, you won't be the only one making mistakes and having trouble, they only last for a semester, and they can be a lot of fun to participate in.

And they usually have evening classes for working adults.

You won't be an accomplished player when the semester is over, but you'll have the option to continue advanced classes or study on your own.

Question: I have an acoustic guitar that I've tried to learn to play many times. I'd like to learn to play by ear... I'm an accomplished musician on several other instruments but those are all woodwinds and I've used music reading. What's the best way to really start out? I've used books to no avail. Thank you!

How to learn guitar without physical lessons?

Getting guitar lessons with a good teacher would be the first choice, but if you really can't have a teacher, then watching guitar video lessons online would be the second choice.  In this day and age - learning from youtube is not a bad idea. Justin Sandercoe explains it on his website, but to play be able to by ear, you have to start by learning to transcribe music, which basically means listening to a song or a solo and figuring out the chords and notes by ear.   Learn and Master Guitar goes through the basic to the fundamentals of playing by ear.

There are two key ways that you may be able to learn to play without physical lessons. One will be to look for tutorials online, such as on YouTube. The other will be to try and transcribe songs for guitar, particularly songs that you can already play on another instrument.

Looking for YouTube tutorials might be a good way to get started initially.

Transcribing music for the guitar will be a good way to learn by ear.


The exact height of the keyboard off the floor is less important than the distance between the keyboard and your seat.

(Most chairs are too low to the ground to be good as a piano stool)

I'd agree with @Jeffrey

that forearms-parallel-to-the-floor is a good starting point, also that your knees don't get wedged out of the way by the bottom of the keyboard.

One

other thing--

in my experience, most students sit too close to the keyboard.

(This may have to do with sitting at a desk most of the time, or with sitting at a piano for the first time while small and then gradually growing and not resetting one's idea of a best distance.)

In terms of standard height: A Steinway large grand piano I believe is 28 1/8" ( 71,5 cm )

high from the floor to the top of the white keys.

You could call that a standard.

The hight varies for different makers, and pianos, with over an inch higher and lower than that.

(My Yamaha upright piano is 28 3/8" [72 cm].)

There are rules for good ergonomics and placing the least amount of stress on your body when you play.

Google the Alexander Technique for one approach.

Then there are many pianists who never cared about posture.

Two examples (coming from rather opposite approaches to piano-playing) are the world-famous acoustic pianists Glenn Gould and Keith Jarret, who threw all the rules out of the window and spent their careers making amazing music played with horribly bad, stressful posture.

In other words, when you get right down to it, there are no rules.

Do what feels best for your body.

Classic grand and baby grand is 28-29 inches.

Period.

Answer made!

I measured 30 pianos from eight manufacturers and nearly all were inside this range.

This is without wheel stands or any other such things.

This is floor to top of white keys when on the standard legs.

I would build your desk for the lower dimension as it is much more comfortable for a tall person to stoop a bit and play low than for a child or small person to scrunch taller and lift their shoulders to play.

I have a wide variety of folks who record in our studio and white keys at 28 inches is comfy for most all of them.

We have our keyboards on pull out rack shelves and this works very well.

Out of the way when not needed and easy to deploy when we want it.

For best ergonomics, I was always taught that my forearms should be parallel with the floor, with the fingers resting comfortably on top of the piano keys - so, the arms should be a little above the level of the keys, not reaching up or reaching down.

I'd adjust the piano so that the correct piano-playing posture (seated on edge of seat, heel on floor to control pedal) is most comfortable.

More detail here: http://www.wellbalancedpianist.com/bpseatingguide.htm

As a son of a pianist who taught as well as giving performances, I learned that it is the stool that matters for adjusting access to the keyboard, but the original question asks about the key height.

This is not yet well-answered, and it does matter, for the simple reason that a piano is not exactly portable, and cannot be adjusted at will like the stool!

For installing a keyboard the height is important because it is the one constant reference to the floor by which all other adjustments are themselves referred.

If someone with access to a room full of pianos could measure and quote several specific examples then this question will be properly answered.

Another important measurement that should also be taken in each context is the height of the underside of the keybed above the ground below, because no matter how you adjust the stool, a critical and unadjustable distance is the space available for legroom when using the pedals!

Some pianos (and especially electronic actions) may have widely varied thickness of keybed from underside to key tops.

This detail is more important than the key-to-floor height alone, because there may be nothing you can do to change it, so it governs all the other adjustments to be made, such as stool height and setback from the front edges of the keys.

I don't think that there is a 'standard' height, rather there's a mean/average.

For the 'average' stature pianist this is OK (although people are taller now than they were when the 'norm' height range was developed back in 18/19th centuries.

And this is why I have an interest in this subject.

I'm tall (6'4") and can't get my legs under an 'average' height keybed.

I need at least 68cm or ideally 70cm from floor to underside of the keybed.

I've been trying to find some oddball upright with this unusual dimension for some time.

They do exist, but they're rare.

No specific standard height exists for electric pianos is best because people ce in different sizes!

Would you expect Shaq to play at the same piano height as Danny Devito?

It depends on how long your legs are—are they comfortable reaching your pedal?

If not you need to first adjust your sitting height.

This differs person to person, and pedal to pedal (they're also not all the same).

After this, adjust your piano height

so you're not playing like you're reaching for for the ants

or so you're not playing like it's set on top of the refrigerator.

I agree parallel is not best because movement should start at shoulder and work its way to the fingers.

Your fingers and forearms will tire if at parallel because you're not using all the muscles you need to use to play.

My table for Yamaha keyboard PSR550 is 75cm high and the bench is 55cm high.

When seated the arms will be parallel to the floor.

When the table is 70cm then the bench should be 50cm.

Try it

Question: When installing a digital piano, I have the freedom of vertically placing the entire piano at any height I want.   But,  I want to know what the ideal (preferred) height is. Is there a standard height?

How high from the ground should the keyboard from a piano be?

No specific standard height exists for electric pianos because people are in different sizes!  For best ergonomics, your forearms should be parallel with the floor, with the fingers resting comfortably on top of the piano keys - so, the arms should be a little above the level of the keys, not reaching up or reaching down. You should do what feels best for your body.

There is no standard height that a piano should be at and you should aim for a height that feels comfortable. There is also no agreement about whether your forearms should be parallel or not to the floor.

There is no standard height for a piano and you should aim for a height that feels the most comfortable for your body.

There is disagreement about whether your forearms should be parallel or not to the floor.


My job involves helping my boss film academic talks and presentations.

This involves ensuring that our cameras and wireless mics and whatnot do not die.

Our rationale is that the potential cost of having batteries of an unknown age run out during a recording is greater than the cost of just replacing them every time we shoot.

I personally tend to use the mountains of half-used batteries to power my remote controls, alarm clocks, and RC helicopters afterwards.

For anything that can be powered directly (stomp boxes), do that.

There are power strips that will lock down your transformer bricks, and also breakout boxes that will provide you directly with a number of DC terminals.

Wireless mic battery packs should be replaced for each performance.

Unless you're only performing for a small group of people and the space is intimate enough to offset needing to take time to change a battery pack, you're going to want to avoid that kind of disruption at all costs.

And yes, this means that in, say, a musical production with 15 wireless mics and four performances (plus two dress rehearsals), I'd budget for 60 batteries (Duracell) plus 30 for dress rehearsals (store brand for these).

What you do with them afterwards is up to you, just don't chuck them in the trash--find out how to recycle or dispose of them properly if you can't give them away to be used.

When I was performing I used a power adapter for my stomp boxes.

There are splitter cables for connecting the stomp boxes out there.

For example: http://www.guitarcenter.com/Dunlop-DC-Brick-Multi-Power-Supply-105495402-i1124423.gc#

For floor hardware, use transformers wherever possible.

Just use batteries in mobile kit, and always use brand new batteries for a live gig.

Those ones you take out can be used in rehearsals or the studio until they die.

Keep a battery case in your gig bag - for 9v batteries

you don't want them discharging against each other or against sensitive kit

so a case will hold them safely and insulated from anything else.

New batteries stay in their packaging until use.

Used batteries stay in the battery case until discharged, then delivered to recycling.

As others have said, use transformers wherever possible.

When batteries are unavoidable, use rechargables and recharge them fully for each show.

With one recharge cycle per week, common NiMH batteries last about 3 years before their capacity degrades so much they won't last for 2 hours (down from ~4 hours in the same application).

Recently I've started using NiZn batteries for our wireless mic transmitters.

These are brilliant: more than 8 hours on a charge.

They produce 1.6 V rather than the 1.2 V of NiMH cells

so you don't get problems with devices that want more than 1.2 V.

Question: Many musicians use battery-powered "stomp boxes" and wireless microphones.  When do you change the batteries?  You can't have a device running out of power halfway through the show.  Do people put in fresh batteries for each show and give away the half-used ones?

Managing batteries for live performances

For performances, you should use direct power as much as possible. Mic batteries should be replaced after every performance.

It's generally agreed that the best routine is to replace batteries with fresh ones before every show.


First, I agree with the question, when talking about nylon-stringed guitars - in nearly a half-century of playing classical and flamenco instruments, I find that the D string, the poor thing, breaking more frequently than any the others (other answers and comments are probably based on steel-stringed experience).

I've asked luthiers, and even one of the D'Addario sons :-)

about this, and there are a number of causes (besides flaws in the guitar itself): The D is a wrapped string, and more likely to break than a solid string

It has thinner wire than the other two bass strings

It is under the highest tension of the three bass strings

It gets more wear than the other three (think about melodies you've played on that string

- it's the brass section of the guitar).

Of course, replacing your basses frequently will usually save you the embarrassment of changing strings on stage

(I had to do it twice with a D string recently, because I botched the first stringing job -

oh well).

The goal is to keep them from breaking, until they finally "wear out" - the basses start to sound like rubber bands.

So what can you do about that?

As I said, change the basses before one breaks.

Besides the sound going bad, look for the finish wearing off.

And here's a trick - if you take them off before they get really worn, you can put them back on again later, and they will not only sound great for a short while, but because they are "pre-stretched", they will settle in tune much more quickly.

It's very helpful to have a "rested" set of basses like this to put on just before a gig (or, gulp, during one...).

Make sure that the loop at the bridge is as close as possible to the wood - look at the bass strings in the picture below, note how snug against the wood the loop is.

Push it back and down with your nail as you tighten the new string.

If you leave it floating half-way between the wood and the ivory, it is putting a lot of pressure on the middle of that short stretch of string, essentially trying to cut it in half.

My D's would often break right there, until the luthier/engineer John Gilbert told me what's what.

If the D string still tends to break at that spot before it wears out - perhaps because of the construction of the bridge, or because you are using very high tension basses - you can do what I do on a particular instrument, and protect the D string with a very short piece of narrow rubber tubing that can cover the D between the wood and the ivory - the loop cuts into the rubber, but not the string.

And where does one find such a thing?

Why, strip the insulation off some wiring that's slightly thicker than your D!

Good luck, and may your bass strings always maintain their composure when you are playing for people...

IMO frequently broken strings indicate a mechanical problem.

I never break strings

and I haven'tt broken one for maybe 30 years.

Causes include: Too-sharp edge on nut or saddle.

burr or sharp edge on a tuning post, or the hole though same.

Nut slots cut too wide (or maybe you installed lighter strings) allowing the string too much side-to-side movement.

etc, etc

Of course, if you really flail away at the strings while strumming...

From m practice, This is definitely true for nylon strings and this happens because of structure of D-string.

The first 3 (E,B,G) are solid, and next 3 (D,A,E) consist of thin nylon fibers wrapped around one more think string.

For the D-string the number of fibers is much less then for A and E (because it needs to vibrate in certain range) and this makes it the weakest.

When I would buy strings, I'd always buy couple of spare D-strings...

How often is "often"?

If you find that your D string is breaking a lot, there could be an issue with the guitar.

Does it break near the tuning post?

If so, there could be an issue with the nut slot.

If it is near the bridge, it could be something in that area - something sharp that is compromising the integrity of the string.

I think most guitarists would say the 1st and 2nd strings are the most common strings to break in the course of regular playing.

A couple of things could be at issue.

Since it's always the same string, my guess is that there's some tiny discontinuity at either the nut or the bridge (whereever it's breaking)

where the string is snagging (unless it's a "locking" system, the string should slide freely).

Fix:

Whenever you change a string, take a pencil and scribble all over the path of the string (at the nut, bridge, and tuning post.

NOT the fretboard or the top!).

The graphite will work like a permanent lubricant.

Tuning issues.

It may not seem relevant, but have you ever taken a steel spoon at school or camp and bent it back and forth until you can snap the head off?

Little mistreatments of the strings can add up quickly.

Always tune up into the note.

So if you're tuning the D string to a tempered fourth above the A string, tke it to a perfect fourth and nudge up for the temper.

But to tune the low E to a tempered fourth below the A string, you need to scoop in from D# and stop short of perfect, obtaining the temper by "subtractive geometry".

Always tune to the same pitch standard.

If your friends use A-440, use A-440.

But if you also want to play regularly with your friend's A-435 piano, you really need a second guitar for that.

The strings won't know where their "home" is.

One more thing.

There could be something in the atmosphere that interacts badly with the metal of the string.

Trying a different metal (bronze, steel, nickel) or a different alloy (the ratio of metals) might help.

Question: Well... that's about it. D strings (on acoustic  nylon  guitars at least) break way more often than the others.I guess there's a physical explanation but I wasn't able to found anything on the Internet. Do you guys know why this happens?

Why does the D string in a guitar breaks so often?

The D string may break more frequently because it has thinner wire the the other bass strings and it is under the highest tension. However, frequent breaks may signal a problem with the guitar, such as something sharp in the bridge area or a mechanical problem. Moreover, something in the atmosphere could be reacting badly with the string metal.

There are a number of potential reasons by the D string might break more often on a guitar. Firstly, the D string has a thinner wire than the other two bass strings, and secondly, it is more tense than the other two bass strings. However, if it is breaking frequently, this could indicate a mechancial problem with the guitar.

The D string has a thinner wire than the other two bass strings on a guitar.

The D string is the most tense of the three bass strings on a guitar.

There could be a mechanical problem with the guitar.


I bought my son a 3/4 scale guitar with nylon strings when he was 5 or 6.

That gave him enough interest to start learning, then I let him use one of my cheap full scale acoustics with steel strings at age 8 as his hands were big enough.

Currently he has taken up bass, so he is learning on a 5 string that my bass player had spare.

It is a challenge as he is only 11, but he is gaining hand strength and stretch.

The core for me at the start was letting him enjoy what he was doing, so nylon strings meant it didn't hurt his fingers.

Once he had decided he wanted to learn, he was mentally in a place where toughening his fingers up on steel strings wasn't an issue.

I started playing guitar at about 7 years old, I got a classical guitar, slightly smaller than the common size -but very slightly (I think it was larger that the '3/4 size', I actually played until I was 20!).

The important thing for a child, I'd say, is that the guitar is confortable to play: rather low action and normal-to-low tension strings.

Nylon, of course.

Consider a ukulele.

"Real" ukuleles are available cheaply (although you can spend a lot on a really lovely one).

It suits small hands.

It has nylon strings

so it's not too difficult to fret.

There are plenty of resources for learning real songs to play on the uke.

Having fewer strings makes for easier chord shapes.

It's a great instrument on which a child can learn the basics of fretting, strumming and plucking without having to deal with a large instrument.

One down side is that if he migrates to a guitar, he'll have to learn new shapes, to account for the extra two strings.

But to mitigate that, being adaptable to new tunings is a good skill -- and young minds adapt quickly.

And of course, he could choose to stay with the uke... or the mandolin... or the banjo... or any number of other guitar-like instruments.

If you do this, do get a uke book (or learn uke yourself, and teach him).

The high-tuned bottom string is counter-intuitive, so he'll need reassurance -- or with the right strings you can tune it low

so it feels more like a guitar.

Whether you go for a guitar, a uke, or something else, make sure the instrument has acceptable intonation.

Playing an instrument with bad intonation is really no fun whatever your standard.

If you do go for a steel strung instrument, pay special attention to the action and the string tension.

You don't want to put him off by giving him an instrument that's a struggle to fret.

I'm not (really) a guitar player, but I have taught beginners as part of a generalist music-lesson gig.

The other answers so far are good, but I would add two essential things from my own experience: The fretboard needs to be in tune.

Otherwise, the instrument is going to sound really bad.

If you're not sure, tune any string with an electronic chromatic tuner, then play the same string on each fret individually and notice what the tuner says.

If the guitar gets way off pitch, quickly, stay away.

It needs to be possible to set up the guitar so that the open strings (or strings when pressed down) do not arbitrarily buzz against frets.

Trying the exercise from item #1 on all the strings and noticing if there is any buzz (that comes from something other than improper finger placement) is a good way to check for this, since there is no guarantee that the frets are the same height all the way across the fretboard.

I remember teaching a very young student who clearly had a "toy" guitar, and these two issues made it almost impossible to teach her.

It was frustrating for the student and for me, and the student never really improved very much.

I agree on quality.

You wouldn't want to give a child a pre-war Martin unless you're crazy and rich or he's Chris Thile in the making, but you wouldn't want to give something that pretended to be an instrument, either.

Smaller, but not too small, or else

the child will rightfully think it's just a toy.

Two crucial things to note: If the child is interested in playing electric, no acoustic guitar will do, and if the child is interested in playing acoustic, no electric guitar will do.

And your child, as with anyone who hasn't been taught to know better, will not know how hard to fret, and will thus oversqueeze, hurting fingertips (which makes playing uncomfortable) and pulling sharp (which makes the sound uncomfortable).

Early on, teach a light touch, and this will make the rest of the process easier.

This is around the same age I started playing guitar.

The guitar I started on was my dads first guitar which was from the early 60s, it was a catalog guitar nothing fancy.

For strings, since I had an electric I had light gauge steel strings..

The way I got hooked was just by listening to the music my dad liked, which is the same music I like now and then..

I wanted to be able to play that music that I heard.

Just don't force it on him, thats is what killed it for me for about a year, yes try to get him to practice but make it fun not stern and dull, make achievements for him where he could get some sort of reward related to guitar .. like a strap that he saw that he liked, or something simple like that Hope this can be of some help for you.

I would go against buying a toy guitar.

This really kills everything from the start.

Rather paying a little extra might pay a lot in the long run.

For the guitar priority one should be, going for something that suits his body shape.

Something he is comfortable with it.

Also go for steel string not Nylon!

Question: We are looking for a guitar for my son, and have seen cheap ones at Toys R Us, et al.  He is just starting out, and we are trying to gauge his interest before spending too much.  Would it be worth starting off with what is essentially a toy, and upgrading later? If not, what things should we look for?  Nylon or steel strings? What size? 30", 1/2, 3/4? Is there anything else that would help him use the instrument?

What qualities of a guitar should I seek for an 8 year old?

For a child's first guitar a smaller size of a real guitar is a better option than a toy. It should be comfortable for the child to play and have nylon rather than metal strings.

The answer to this question will be subjective, but you should probably avoid getting a 'toy' guitar. The most important thing will be that it is an appropriate size for your son and that it is reasonable enough quality to play without going out of tune too easily. There is no clear answer as to whether nylon strings are the best choice or not.

The most important thing will be that the guitar is a suitable size for your son.

Quality is important, and the guitar should sound correct and not go out of tune too quickly.

There is no clear answer as to whether nylon strings are a good choice or not.

You should probably avoid getting a toy guitar.


It all depends on which gauge string you are playing in standard tuning.

Think of each half-step of down tuning a gauge.

For example, I play in standard with 10 gauge string set.

If I drop down to e flat, 1 half step, they will feel like 9 gauge, so I use a 11 gauge set for my guitar

I have set up for e flat tuning.

For 2 whole step (C tuning), I would pick 14 gauge, as it will feel like 10 gauge but in drop C tuning (down 2 whole steps).

Most stuff is in C tuning with the low string dropped down another step, like Drop D but down 2 whole steps.

This keeps the guitar string tension close to what you are used to, as there is nothing worse than playing with 10 gauges, then all of a sudden dropping it down a step and boom...

you feel like it's rubber bands (8 gauges).

If you are going to always be playing with the low string dropped more than the others, like Drop B flat, you may want to get the low string in the next heavier gauge.

When I discovered Open F (C F C F A C), I hunted for strings until I found a set called George Benson Signature from Thomastik.

I use the flats (.014 .018 .021w .031

.055), but they have roundwounds, too.

14s are the biggest strings I've found that are still packaged as a regular set; beyond that, you're in custom-set experimentation land.

You'll need a BIG string for that low C: probably a .053 or even .055.

But you can go a little lighter on top, if you want (14 is pretty extreme for D, I think).

I used slinky strings called not even slinky.

Those are what I used when I dropped tuned my guitar to that level

String manufacturers publish tables showing gauge/tension/pitch.

See:

How do I use string gauge tables?

First, decide what tension you want your strings to be at.

Do that by looking up the tension of your preferred strings at standard tuning.

Then, for each string, find the string gauge that gives the pitch you want at close to that tension.

Armed with that information, you can either: Just buy the strings

individually Find a pre-packaged set that's close enough

Find a pre-packaged set that you can augment with individual strings

Ive played, drop C and standard C for years and 11 to 50 or 52 is plenty good.

You don't want to tight to loose the break up but not too loose to where it sounds muddy.

11s are the way to go bro.

I'd like to notice that all dropped tunings require the last string to be thick enough.

This is important because string manufacturers usually don't consider the last string to be dropped, so its tension is likely to be insufficient.

Personally, I'd prefer 11-56 or 58 for Drop C. Also, you can use string tension applet to get some solid numbers and to find out how string gauges and tuning affect the tension.

Ernie Ball Beefy Slinky are the way for C,perfect.

A geezer recomended em to me and there the best strings Ive ever had,wish they did acoustic version.

Question: What are the optimal gauges of strings for Drop C tuning (C G C F A D) for electric guitar? Since this involves lowering the pitch of all the strings, heavier string gauges would be helpful; I need to to know how to select the proper ones.

What are the optimal string gauges for drop C tuning on electric guitar?

The optimal string gauges recommended for drop C tuning on an electric guitar are 11-56 and 58. Ernie Ball Beefy Slinky are recommended too. Moreover, string manufacturers publish tables showing gauge/tension/pitch.

The answer to this question will depend on what gauge strings you use for normal tuning. However, for the low C string, you may want to consider between a .053 and .058 string, and Ernie Ball Not-Even Slinky or Beefy Slinky might be suitable. Additionally, there are tools available to help you work out the most appropriate gauge for different tunings.

The answer to this question will depend on what gauge strings you use in normal tuning.

There are tables and tools available to help you work out the most appropriate gauges for different tunings.

For the low C string, you might want to consider between .053 and .058.

Ernie Ball Not-even Slinky or Beefy Slinky might be appropriate sets.


The notes

C, E and G played together are always a C major chord.

A C major chord is always the notes C, E and G. Fret that shape on a guitar, and it's always C Major.

When you play in a different key, C major's role changes.

If you're playing in the key of C major, then C major is the root chord - the I .

F is the fourth chord ( IV ) and G is the fifth chord ( V ).

Lots of simple songs are based on I,IV and V, so you may recognise that set of chords.

If you play in the key of G major, then I is G major, IV is C major, V is D major.

So, in the key of G when you see "C" on the song sheet, you fret the same shape, and play the same notes as you did when you saw "C" in a song in the key of C.

But this time the C is playing a different role.

It is the IV.

It "feels" different; the listener is waiting for you to return to root chord, G. Look through your songbooks and see if you can spot I,IV and V in other keys.

Beginner guitar books tend to use the keys C, G, E, D, A. Edit to add: Here's an analogy.

Think of your C major chord as a circle.

It doesn't matter where you draw a circle; you always draw it the same way.

Seen on its own, it just looks like a circle.

A C major chord just sounds like a C major chord.

The rest of the piece you're playing defines what that C major chord "does".

The key of the piece is a fundamental part of that.

Because of the other lines drawn around the circle, it becomes the sun, or a football, or a planet, or a head, or a compact disk, or whatever the artist chooses.

In the same way, the other notes you play around your C chord, make it take on different purposes in the music.

A C Major chord always contains the same notes (C, E, G), as a major chord is a triad including a root (C), a major third over the root (E), and a perfect fifth over the root(G).

These notes can be rearranged in any order or voicing, but they will still be C, E, and G. If you were playing in a different key, such as D major, there is no diatonic C chord.

There is, however, a C#-dim.

Regardless of which key you are playing, in general if someone says to play a C chord, they will mean C major.

Nothing changes.

C-major is always C-major (do-mi-sol) without regard to key.

The only thing that could change is position where chord would be more comfortable to play in certain key.

In well-tempered tuning, a c is a c and an e is an e and a g is a g , regardless of what key you're playing in.

So, guitar (normally) being restricted to well-tempered tuning, there is no way a C major chord could be intrinsically any different in different keys.

Of course there are different voicings in which you can play the chord, the most common being (in tabulature)

e│────0───3───3───8───8───12── b

│────1───1───5───5───8───13── g

│────0───0───5───5───9───12── d

│────2───2───5───5───10──10──

A

│────3───3───3───7───10──x───

E│───

─x──

─x──

─x───8───8──

─x─── but the choice among these mostly has to do with sound and playing comfort, not with a song's key.

This doesn't hold for all tunings, but as far as guitar and common western music is concerned you shouldn't ever need to worry about that.

The Major chord is based on the 1-3-5 of the major scale.

D Major scale has D as 1, F# as 3, and A as 5, so D Major chord will always be (D,F#,A) played in combination anywhere on the fret board regardless of key!

I just figured this out myself, so yay!!!

Same applies to any Major chord.

C Major is (C,E,G) always etc...

To make a chord minor, just flat the third, so Dm is (D,F,A) and Cm is (C,Eb,G).

The key only shows which chords fit and where they fit, but doesn't change the chord itself.

The only thing I'd add to these answers would be that while no, the key of a song doesn't change the chords, the key you're playing in might force one to play with a capo or a nonstandard tuning.

In those cases, the notes to make a C major are the same, but the shapes of the chords may be forced to change.

Question: Typically, the "C" is played like this in the key of C:   But when I play another song, in the key of D, is the C chord still played like this? If not, how do I play it on the guitar? Likewise, if the song is in the key of G, how does it change, and is there a pattern to follow? Thanks.

Does the C chord change based on what key it's in?

The C chord does not change according to the key. The only thing that could change is position where chord would be more comfortable to play in certain key.

Chords will stay the same regardless of which key they are played in.


These days you really don't need a program, entire training courses are available for free on Youtube.

The general advice given here, though, is that even if you wish to learn entirely on your own, you should still aim to have a few one-to-one sessions with an instructor as they can spot mistakes you may not be able to identify from a video.

You will find a lot of the info you require tagged guitar and learning - here , such as this one on learning your way round the fretboard , or this one on software which will listen to you .

Start here: http://www.justinguitar.com/

Or here if you figure "free" isn't a necessity: http://www.learnandmaster.com/guitar/

I've used both (mainly the latter) and they worked for me.

It's been three years since I started and I can play a lot of songs now

and I know the theory to go with it.

I would just start out with tab, that is how I started out.

I have hundreds of guitar pro / other files saved on my computer.

If you actually have enough interest in guitar, then you can start working into basic chord theory and stuff like that (major and minor triads, etc)..

That's how I have been doing it, and after three years of playing guitar it enabled me to join a jazz band, where I am playing chords that I had no idea existed.

Starting with a beginner's book is a great idea.

This can teach you many of the super basics that you would get from an in-person teacher, like the hand technique to shoot for, parts of the guitar and some basic musical theory that's helpful.

Having patience with yourself is a key quality when you're first starting out— and that's one of the big advantages of having a live teacher, they can talk you through problems that you may not even see.

Building up the physical skill to make the chord shapes with your hand and hold down the strings properly is not easy at first.

I remember being SO frustrated trying to make the same chord shape and strumming to hear a lot of buzzing and barely-notes.

Anything you can do to keep it fun and interesting is good.

Talk to other guitar players.

Find the tabs to a song you really like and learn it.

Hearing yourself play the first few parts of a song you love is so worth it.

Keep in mind that building your skills is great, but no matter where your skill is you can still make a song that communicates something.

I like to reference the advice from David Fair in his article How To Play Guitar :

You can learn the names of notes and how to make chords that other people use, but that’s pretty limiting.

Even if you took a few years and learned all the chords you’d still have a limited number of options.

If you ignore the chords your options are infinite and you can master guitar playing in one day.

Buy a "How to play guitar" book.

In the scheme of what you'll spend on guitars and accessories, $20 on a book is a great investment.

I don't want to recommend any particular book, because different people have different ambitions and learning styles.

If you want to shred heavy metal solos, you'll buy a different book to if you want to strum folk ballads.

Browse in a bookshop or music shop, and pick one that appears to suit you.

You could also start with a library book.

Any good book will start by showing you how to hold the instrument properly, then move on to well graded exercises and tunes to play.

If you can afford a few lessons, it's money well spent.

Failing that, it's great to have a friend or family member to mentor you.

Once you're able to strum a few chords, also get a songbook -- one with songs you know and love, with lyrics and chords.

This might seem like a waste of money, when you can find guitar chords on the Internet.

But it's useful to have them on paper, and the tabs and chords on the internet are very often not quite right.

Then you can split your time between technique (from the "how to" book), and repertoire (from the songbook etc.)

As soon as you think you can play to an audience, do.

It's a great incentive to keep learning and improving.

i think it depends what you want: if you want to learn proper technique (ie hand position, music theory, etc)

you must look for a good school or mentor.

and learn the sagreras book (for example) like a bible.

i dont think this can be selftaught or if you just want to learn some songs to impress girls :P (no classical overcomplicated stuff)

what worked for me was practice, practice, practice and the way i found it most rewarding and entertaining was learning to read tabs

(it takes a few minutes), practicing barre chords(so daunting at first) and then trying to learn my favorite songs, most of them will be too hard at first, its ok, just choose the passages you can play until you can play along with a record.

you may want to check the site songsterr.com

i could spend literally hours there practice, practice, have fun!

Question: I didn't see any post of where I can find a site that have good program for free to learn how to play a guitar.  i have seen only those:  How do I choose my first guitar for self-learning?  How to learn to play guitar with a slide?  both links treats to how pick your first guitar but none says how you can learn yourself play it.

How to start self learning to play guitar?

To learn to play the guitar these days you really don't need a program, entire training courses are available for free on Youtube.  You can start here:  http://www.justinguitar.com/. An alternative is a good book, use a beginners book at first. Moreover, it is possible to just start by learning the tab for a favorite song.

When trying to start teaching yourself guitar, there are a number of different things that can help. Firstly, a good beginner's book will be helpful in the beginning. Then, there are a number of courses and tutorials on sites like justinguitar.com or Youtube. Using online tabs and talking to other guitar players are also worthwhile.

There are number of free courses available online on places such as justinguitar.com or YouTube.

A beginner's book might be a good way to get started.

Find the tabs online to songs that you really like and try learning to play them.

Talking to other guitar players can be really useful when starting out.


Go for a walk.

Count each step, in twos or fours.

Tread heavier on the ones.

One two One two One two One two One two three four One two three four

They feel different, don't they?

This is the difference.

And yet there is an equivalence between them.

Walk at the same tempo, but count to four twice as fast, so you're stepping on the One and the three.

One

(two) three (four)

This feels like the 2/4 rhythm again, except for the in-between-steps counting you're doing.

This sort of equivalence comes up all the time.

In environments where musicians play without sheet music, it's quite possible that the drummer thinks he's playing in 4/4 (with triplets), while the guitarist thinks he's playing in 12/8.

In this example, what the drummer calls a triplet, is three 8th notes for the guitarist.

When a composer scores their music, they choose the time signature that they believe conveys the feeling most clearly to the musicians, while being easy to read.

2/4 with 4 quavers to the bar at a slow tempo.

4/4 with 4 crotchets to the bar at double the tempo.

-- that's mostly a readability choice.

The other answers are all essentially correct, but I think a critical point is missing.

There aren't just fully "strong" and fully "weak" beats; there are also beats of medium strength (and other varieties).

4/4 is most commonly emphasized like this: ONE two three four Note the half-accent on the third beat, different from what slim mentioned.

If you're playing triplets, that works out to: ONE two

three four five six Slim was right in saying that 4/4 with tripletted quarters indistinguishable from 12/8 with normal quarters, but it's only true because of that emphasis on the third beat.

12/8 is emphasized like so: ONE two

three four five six seven

eight nine ten eleven

twelve With quarters (combining pairs of eighths) that works out to: ONE two three four five six Which is exactly the same as the above 4/4 with triplets.

Now to get to your specific question:

2/4 has no medium beat, so four quarters would be most commonly emphasized like this: ONE two ONE two

This emphasis gives a noticeably different feel to the music than 4/4 does.

It also has to do with strong and weak beats.

In 2/4, everyother beat (the one in each measure) is a strong down beat.

In 4/4, every fourth beat (the one in each measure) is a strong down beat.

It is all about accents and feel, so there is a major difference.

It's all about the feel in the music.

Sometimes it really doesn't matter, and it is very difficult to say what is more natural.

But often you have distinguised beat at the first in each measure.

If it is a march, you have the first beat on the right foot when marching to it, and it is natural to have a 2/4.

Rock music often has a beat pattern that more or less repeats itself each 4 th beat, and thus it is more natural to have a 4/4.

@MatthewRead's answer above hits the nail on the head.

There is another reason that 4/4 may be used instead of 2/4 and that's for the ease of reading the notes from the page.

For example, in American Oldtime music there is a strong 2/4 feeling to it, but it's easier to read if no note values are below an eighth note or a dotted eighth.

So the music is notated as four beats to the bar (measure) even though the music is played two beats to the bar:

half-notes are notated as whole notes, eighth notes as quarter notes, etc.

Nowadays, 2/4 in traditional dance music is usually notated in 4/4, although older books often notate it "correctly" in 2/4 and if you can't handle a dotted sixteenth may God have mercy on your soul.

Sorry, but "one-two, one-two" would be the way I would count 2 bars of 2/2 time.

I count 2/4 time as "ONE-and-TWO-and".

The beat is bouncy in motion and "rocks" back and forth from one count to the next.

It creates a firm downbeat and backbeat .

I count 4/4 time as "ONE-two-three-four".

The beat is circular in motion and "rolls" from one count to the next.

You can play faster with 4/4 time.

A time signature is somewhat arbitrary...

each player is free to express himself or herself in whatever time frame works best for him or her.

Fiddlers often write out their music in 2/2 time (to reduce repetitive eighth note passages) but actually play in 2/4 time.

I teach beginner acoustic guitar and play bluegrass, most often expressed in 4/4 time -- and old time music, most often expressed in 2/4 time.

We play regularly in 2/4, 4/4, 3/4 and 6/8 times.

The short answer:

The difference is whether it's intended that we emphasize 2 or 4 beats per measure, and this distinction is ultimately pretty arbitrary.

Many answers have given great explanations for the difference between 4/4 and 2/4.

Here's a practical example, so you can actually hear what it sounds like.

The time signature change is very, very obvious: "Pink Label" by Laysha (YouTube link)

It abruptly switches from 4/4 to 2/4 at around timestamp 0:35, then switches back around 1:10.

The same change happens again around 2:00.

Even if you don't know anything about time signatures or rhythm, you should immediately recognize that the song sounds "faster" at the transition, though the tempo stays the same.

Changing which beats are accented can achieve this.

Question: I cannot figure out the actual difference between these two beats.  Isn't it sufficient to have only 2/4 (or 4/4 )?

Is there a difference between 2/4 and 4/4

The difference is whether it's intended that we emphasize 2 or 4 beats per measure, and this distinction is ultimately pretty arbitrary. There is another reason that 4/4 may be used instead of 2/4 and that's for the ease of reading the notes from the page.  However, sometimes it really doesn't matter, and it is very difficult to say what is more natural.

The difference between 4/4 and 2/4 may be fairly abritrary, but it may have an impact on the beats that are emphasised. Additionally, 4/4 may make the music easier to read than if it were written in 2/4.

Using 4/4 may make the music easier to read on the page.

The difference between the two time signatures is in which beats are emphasised.


Minor Pentatonic scale $6 2 5 $5 2 4 $4 2 4 $3 2 4 $2 2 5 $1 2 5 $3 ...or: 2 4 / 6 $2 5 7 $1 5 7 / 9 Try a G chord with Ring- Middle- and a Pinky-barre.

In fact, all of the CAGED shapes will work your pinky if you use the "barre" fingerings: don't use the index (1) at all and form the shape with middle (2), ring (3) and pinky (4).

Also the usual folksy chord embellishments will serve as exercise:

D-Dsus4-D, A-Asus4-A, G-Gadd9-G, C-

Cadd9-C. And from any of these "suspended" notes, you can slide up with the pinky to the next chord tone, and re-form the chord in the new position (and/or inversion).

If you're starting again after a long break, you might want to consider taking the opportunity of revising your technique.

I was fortunate enough to be given classical guitar lessons at an early age, and the first thing I learnt was that the thumb goes on and behind the neck opposite the fingers, not sticking out this side with the neck cradled in the web between thumb and forefinger.

It was strange for a few weeks

but I could see immediately that it brings the fingers into a much better relationship with the fretboard, and makes using equally all four fingers simplicity itself.

So I continued with it, including on 12-strings and electrics (and electric 12-strings) when in bands.

At this period I noticed that few electric players did this, and that therefore few of them could use the pinky properly either.

Some asked me why my technique looked so simple, and this was basically the reason.

You lose the ability to cheat and use the thumb to complete the F chord on the bottom string, although actually you shouldn't be playing 6-string chords anyway ....

But that's another discussion.

Anyway the barre also becomes much easier with the thumb behind.

although @luser covered pretty nice most of the techniques you could use to train your pinky, but i found that this wasn't enough.

sometimes after you stretch and reach out for a far fret using your pinky, what's happening is that you are stretching the muscles and tendons of your pinky so the moment you want to use it again in a semi-relaxed position you'll find it difficult. to understand what i mean, i really encourage you to practice Money starting riff from Dark Side of The Moon - Pink Floyd .

in this riff you are starting with your pinky on 4th fret of the G then stretching it to reach 5th on E and 5th on B. and after that there's a little break down where you'll have your pinky on 4th of the D.

that's when you'll feel that you can't relax your pinky enough to fret the 4th of the D.

If you play E minor pentatonic as 9/4, 12/4, 10/5, 12/5, 10/6, 12/6 (first number is the fret.

Second number is the string.), everything on the 12th fret is done with the pinky, and that's half of the scale, so that would help with training your pinky.

A John petrucci training exercise I used a while back helps a lot with finger

dexterityYou start off with a basic chord of :1234XXThen move your index up a fret and switch positions with the middle finger like so:2134XXThen

you move up the whole 4 strings you are fretting with the indexWhen you're done

you should have:4123XXThen

you start moving your middle finger same patternGo through the last two fingers including the pinky to reach the first chord

again:1234XXThe idea is to keep all your fingers on the fret board except the ones that are being switchedIt will start off as being clumsy but then it will really strengthen your fingers and give you dexterity in all of the fingers and finger independenceIf

you don't understand what I mean I'll make a more detailed answerThe pattern ends with the same starting chord so rinse and repeat

I find practising scales exercise the pinky quite a lot (with the "correct" fingering).

Plain old major scale up and down will do fine, but also try e.g. 1-3-5-2-4-6...

(The numbers refer to scale degrees, so for an A major scale it would be A-C#-E-B-D-F#...)

If you e.g. start with your middle finger on the lower E string,

5th fret A, the pinky will be used on the E and the B and so forth.

This can of course be varied infinitely with different scales and patterns.

Another thing to try are power chords with an added 9th: %1/1.3/2.5/4.0/0.0/0.0/0

I think they sound pretty neat and are fun to play around with, something which is hard to say about scale exercises.

This guy's "neoclassical" lick is very easy to learn, but emphasizes using the pinky in a way I have found to be a great exercise for this, especially if you try it alternating between pinky and ring finger.

I was very clumsy at first, but doing this regularly has helped my picking, and especially my pinkie strength and dexterity.

Question: I played guitar since age of 12, but haven't really played for the last 5 years and would like to start again.  However, when I used to play I rarely used the pinky finger because I have big hands (not an excuse, but this is how it happened).  Now that I almost forgot how to play after a long absence I thought, "Why don't I start training the pinky from scratch?"  What are the best exercises/techniques to train the pinky?

How to improve/train pinky dexterity for guitar playing (after long absence)

Practising scales excercises the pinky quite a lot if you use the correct fingering.

Practising scales with correct fingering should be a good enough exercise to improve your pinky finger technique.


OK.

I found a quick-and-dirty temporary solution.

As an online education forum suggested, a interesting school science experiment might be to see if adding weights and changing their position on a tuning fork will change the frequency of the fork.

So I played science student, and tried the experiment.

Two big rubber bands on the tines clearly lowered the frequency... by way too much.

Next I tried a couple strips of masking tape wrapped around the very end of the each tuning fork tine.

That also lowered the frequency, by only a bit too much, to 20 cents flat.

So I removed those pieces of tape and carefully measured them.

Then I cut some tape strips about 9/29ths as long (actually a few mm longer).

Wrapped the new lengths of tape on the fork tines, and the fork rang 3 cents flat.

A little more fine trimming of the length of the tape with some sharp scissors, and I got the fork to measure within +-1 cent of 440 Hz, as measured against several calibrated iPhone tuners (both dial and strobe).

The fork also now sounds good when played simultaneously with an mp3 of a 440 Hz tone to check for beats.

The tone probably isn't as pure, and tape will eventually age and wear, but this quick fix should work well enough until my next trip to a good music store for a better quality tuning fork.

You could tune it up if you have precision tools that can grind off just the right amount of metal from each tine (this would increase the frequency; to decrease the frequency you would need to add metal!) - but practically speaking that means no, you can't do it.

Does it look damaged?

If not it is probably supposed to be a 442 tuning fork.

If you need a 440 you'll need to just buy one.

Update based on the comment that you had bought a 440 fork: Take it back to the shop, get them to check it.

If their check shows it is a 442 then they can replace it.

If they show it to be a 440 then maybe your tuners are out.

It is defective.

Return it for a refund.

There is no practical way to recalibrate it.

The reason people purchase a tuning fork in the first place is to get something that is exactly calibrated already.

Interesting question!

No-one's mentioned temperature, so far.

I'm off to put one in the freezer and another in the oven!

I'll report back!

Just got back from hospital with frostbite on one hand and burns to the other...

but surprisingly the tuning fork stayed in pitch!

My theory stemmed from the British Yard which lives in London.

It is exactly a yard long at a given temperature.

Longer tuning fork =

lower note, shorter = higher, surely?

As someone else stated, grinding off material from the end of the tines will increase the pitch.

However, grinding material off at the base bend of the fork will lower the pitch: there the material contributes much more to the fork's stiffness than to its inertia.

But it may well affect the purity of tone.

I had a cheap allegedly A440 fork that showed sharp on all tuners, and for reference, a better-quality fork showed exactly A. By filing a small amount from the outside of each tine near the join, and checking several times, it is now quite exact.

A bit of solder at the tip would lower the frequency.

But to get both tines exactly right

, that's tricky to do.

Question: I just purchased a new 440 Hz tuning fork.  But several different computer, iPad and iPhone tuners say it's almost half a percent sharp (around 442) of Concert A.  Is there any way to adjust the frequency of a tuning fork?

Tuning a tuning fork?

It is practically impossible to re-tune a tuning fork.

There is probably no practical way to recalibrate a tuning fork. However, if you are able to, grinding some metal off each tine will increase the pitch whilst adding some solder to the tips may decrease the pitch.

Grinding off some metal from each tine will increase the frequency of the fork.

Adding some solder to the tip of each tine would lower the frequency of the fork.


As a friend of mine once explained, "It's like paint.

If you mix together several colors of paint, you can't un-mix it and get the original separate colors of paint back."

Vocal removal software, as mentioned in other answers here, is only of limited usefulness due to laws of physics that cannot be circumvented.

All such products use the principle of applying phase cancellation to a 2-channel stereo recording.

It is only possible to totally remove the lead vocal from a mixed recording using vocal removal software if the original recording is mixed under a precise combination of conditions: if the recording is 2-channel stereo, mixed with a wide stereo field, but the lead vocal is positioned exactly in the center, and there is no reverberation or echo applied to the lead vocal.

Furthermore the process will always also remove any other instruments or musical elements that are also positioned in the exact center of the stereo field (where the bass instrument is usually positioned)

so it is usually the case that removing the lead vocal also removes most of the bass instrument, the kick drum, and a great deal of bass frequencies at any point in the recording where the vocal removal effect is applied.

If the recording from which you wish to remove the lead vocal was not mixed according to these exact conditions, then you will encounter only a partial reduction in the volume of the lead vocal.

If the lead vocal was processed with a stereo reverb effect, you might be able to remove the lead vocal but you will still hear the stereo reflections (echoes) of the lead vocal through the reverb effect.

Regardless, you will probably notice undesirable artifacts and changes in the frequency spectrum.

Furthermore, the process of vocal removal won't work at all with mono recordings or, to the best of my knowledge, 5.1 or other configurations of multi-channel surround sound.

I basically asked this question on the Audio site:

How can I cut out a particular instrument in the same pitch range as other instruments I don't want to cut?

As you can see there, the answer is no.

There's no good way for software to tell what is voice

and what is not for any arbitrary voice and song combined into a single waveform.

As you note it can be done to an extent with varying effects on the song, but there is nothing that can do it very well yet.

The future is here.

You can use a neuronal network called "spleeter" to separate voice and the arrangement of any song you like.

It is open source and can be freely downloaded from its official git repository:

I used it a lot and totally love it.

The separation isn't 100% clean but it is still very good for hobby usage.

For example for singing to original arrangement.

Maybe it is not that easy to install and run the programm for not programmers, since Spleeter do not have any graphical interface.

But it is possible!

Just follow the instructions on the git page and google or whatch youtube videos to clarify the single installation steps.

Have fun with it!

A quick-and-dirty way is to split the stereo, reverse phase, and combine to mono.

Things mixed center -- generally voices -- get phased out while the things that are mixed wide just get squished to mono.

Not perfect, but it'll get you closer and it is easy to do with free tools like Audacity.

The only clean way to do this, assuming you don't have access to the pre-mixed individual audio tracks, might be to completely recreate the music without the vocal tracks.

Perhaps try to transcribe the music and instrumentation extremely accurately (including all the subtile timing and pitch variations), feed this transcription to a midi synthesizer that has all the same instrument sounds, then play with a sound editor to tweak things until everything lines up with the original enough for your purposes.

There might be research software that attempts to do some of this semi-automatically, not sure what state it's in.

Question: I have been trying so much to do this but to no avail. Some softwares like cooledit remove it to an extent but ruin other things in the music. Please suggest some good method for this.

Removing human voice from songs

A neuronal network called "spleeter" can be used to separate the voice and  the arrangement of any song you like.  A quick-and-dirty way is to split the stereo, reverse phase, and combine to mono.

There are multiple possible options for removing vocals from a song. There is a programme called "spleeter" that may be able to do this for you, or alternatively you could split the stereo signal, reverse the phase and recombine them in mono. Failing these options, the cleanest way to do this may be to simply recreate the music without the vocals.

A neuronal network called "spleeter" may be able to help you do this.

The easiest way to to do this is to split the stereo, reverse the phase and recombine in mono.

Probably the cleanest way to do this is simply to recreate the music without the vocals.


While I am in favor of a teacher to guide you as mentioned in the first two answers I would like to expand on all of this.

The first thing is getting a guitar.

If you already have one, have your teacher check it out.

Also, have your teacher show you how to care for the instrument, and how it should be set up, as well as going to a good luthier for a set up.

I would recommend a nylon string acoustic guitar for starters.

When I was 12 years

oldI wanted an electric more than anything

but when Christmas arrived that year, I was fortunate to be given a nylon string acoustic.

Although I was a bit disappointed I quickly learned that having a nylon string guitar was better for me as a beginner as it was so much easier on my fingers before I developed calluses--a steel string would have made this a lot harder to learn.

I had already started piano when I was 10 so having 2 years of piano and basic music theory

helped me start learning scales, chords, and arpeggios from the start.

It wasn't until a year or so later that I took a few lessons.

If I was headed for classical or jazz guitar I would have continued the lessons, but soon I was in a rock band and learning pop songs which was what I wanted.

I encourage you to hook up with like minded folks and play music together even if it does not lead to gigs.

Working with others is a great way to learn to play live, on time, and make music.

I eventually moved over to electric bass and played in a blues band during my high school years.

This was a great experience to learn how to be a part of a rhythm section and how to support the beat.

By this time I had acquired a couple of electric guitars and was still learning on my own.

I eventually studied composition in college and graduate school.

I have always had a guitar handy to compose with as well as access to a piano which for composing are very helpful tools.

Many years later, I returned to blues and got a stratocaster and a vintage fender black face amp and still play these with a small collection of other electrics and amps too.

I jam with pals but rarely play gigs, but love playing.

I always find new things to learn

so I mention this, as guitar like anything artful has no end to learning and expressing.

My focus is composition and making music for my own films so my development has a lot to do with the music that I think works on my current video project.

Summary:

Get a good starter guitar that will facilitate learning.

Get lessons from a teacher that can guide you to the music you want most to learn.

Work in an ensemble or combo to get use to playing with others.

Continue your development as your passion drives you, take music theory in college or high school or if you're beyond that age, take night or weekend classes at your local junior college or continuing adult education center.

Never give up, keep working on the things that you want to master, and you can always find a teacher if you get stuck.

And finally, be willing to take chances, don't be afraid to learn things that seem impossible now.

Guitar can be strictly taught and played or it can be completely free-form in your approach.

There is no hard and fast rule.

Certainly, getting a teacher is preferred but not mandatory at all.

As a former full-time (and current part-time)

teacher, I wouldn't worry about bad habits at first.

Just try to have fun.

To that end, I learned to play, initially, by using songbooks with chord diagrams at each place the chord is to be played.

This way, I didn't have to remember the fingering.

This is what I recommend to students that are looking for extra activities.

I've never played guitar, but from my piano experience I'd recommend spending money on a teacher.

That way you're forcing yourself to learn and you chop your learning time down to minimal.

Find one who you think "just seems cool" and see how it goes.

good luck to ya.

If you want to be pro-active.

Try learning a song by ear.

A snippet, a melody.

Something you like.

Then take it to a teacher, or try video chat with a teacher.

This way you are working on something, but not letting bad technique get ingrained too long in the muscle-memory part of playing music.

I would add that sometimes the best approach is having both a teacher and practicing/learning things you like by yourself, that way you have the structure that having a teacher gives you and the motivation to go on because of learning what you like.

Question: Possible Duplicate:  Need Help in Starting to Learn Guitars?     What's the best way to start learning and progress at guitar?   Should I start with scales, basic chord progressions or simple songs?   I am asking this because I feel I am wasting a lot of time due to a lack of direction and structure in my practice sessions.

Where to start when learning guitar?

There are very varied views about how to start learning the guitar. Some people recommend lessons with a teacher while others advise learning by ear and teaching yourself. Another idea is to find like-minded people and learn/play together. A good starter guitar is also recommended.

There are number of things to bear in mind when you start learning the guitar. First, make sure you have a good instrument, and then get at least some form of tuition to structure your learning and resolve any difficulties you have. As well as this, you can try learning songs by ear or play with other musicians to further your development.

Make sure that you have a good instrument to start with.

Try playing with others to further your development on your instrument.

Get some form of tuition to help structure your learning and resolve any trickier problems that you have.


I suppose with a cornet you'll have the ability to add something extra in for texture, so something like finding the main melody line in the song, whether it be with guitar or vocals have the trumpet follow this line to emphasise the line and it could offer a massive difference to the sound and feel of the song depending, you should try looking at reel big fish, they get away with a trumpet

I think the answers so far spend too few consideration on the fact that we're talking here about a single trumpet added to a standard rock ensemble.

Sure, there is lots of pop/rock music with brass and wind, but that is actually quite different from only having a single trumpet.

Typically, a single wind or brass instrument would only be truly capable of some solos.

In some cases you might be able to mimick a full horn section and re-inforce part of a guitar riff.

However, with a single trumpet, it is going to sound very thin, and you'll risk sounding like the rest of the horn backing section

is on sick leave.

If the band is serious about adding wind/brass, you should consider getting either or both a (tenor) sax and trombone.

This will allow you to make more background arrangements, and the arrangements can continue even when one brass has a solo.

If that is not an option, I fear the trumpet will be confined to playing an intro or a solo here and there, maybe a couple of accents on a hook.

There are some good examples.

Have a look at Less Than Jake's song, Gainesville Rock City: You need to arrange the songs

so it works, but rock music can definitely cope with non-standard instruments.

There are several examples of bands with horns (including trumpets).

Going back a few decades two of the most prominent would be "Blood Sweat and Tears" and "Chicago.

" There's also the 70's band "Tower of Power." How about the Beatles ("All you Need Is Love")?

The one-hit-wonder band "Alive and Kicking" with "Tighter, Tighter." Good luck!

First question is what do you want the horns to do?

Just back up the band--as in a a typical horn section?

If this is the case, the horns typically add support to the chord changes--so, you could try having the horn notes mirror the root and harmony notes of the individual chords.

Many many R&B tunes are based on a I-IV-V progression--and the horns support as indicated (harmonizing against the chord changes)--and for the refrain, they typically walk down in a V-IV-Flat III-Root sequence (not necessarily single whole tones down.

If you want the horns to carry melodies, that is an entirely different question, and I think whether a horn would sound good doing

that really depends on the piece--a lot of music sounds good w/ backing horns, but not necessarily w/ horns carrying the melody--just my 2 cents

Put it through some effects, like an octave lower-er or something that makes the sound very reverberaty / echoey.

That way you can add ambience or texture without distracting from the rest of the composition and layers.

Check out the band Cake, they do a great job adding horn skillfully without using any sort of effects.

I have played trumpet for years, and am currently playing trumpet in a band.

Trumpets have a wide range of styles they can do, so don't be afraid to experiment.

Trumpets are very good for in the background or the occasional solo, but can do more than that as well, so it really depends on the song itself, and the player.

If the trumpet player likes going fast and high, then its easy to give them solos and complex rhythms and that will sound fine.

If they don't really like being in the spotlight, that's a bit harder because trumpet is a very attention-grabbing instrument but a quiet background is possible.

Question: We need to arrange several  pop rock songs . The band has vocals, acoustic guitar, electric guitar, bass, drums and keyboards. In addition, we add  a trumpet . Do you have any idea, method or example of how to play the songs with the trumpet?

How can I use a trumpet in a pop rock band?

With a cornet you'll have the ability to add something extra in for texture, so something like finding the main melody line in the song, whether it be with guitar or vocals have the trumpet follow this line to emphasise the line and it could offer a massive difference to the sound and feel of the song depending, you should try looking at reel big fish, they get away with a trumpet. If the trumpet player likes going fast and high, then its easy to give them solos and complex rhythms and that will sound fine.

If you want to include a trumpet in your songs, you might be able to have it double up a guitar riff or a vocal line. Alternatively, you could provide them with some background parts and some solos.

A trumpet might be able to double up a guitar riff or a vocal part without too much trouble.

Trumpets are normally a good choice for solos or background parts.