Try Pianoteq Stage for Mac or Windows.

It is exactly what you want.

It costs €99 or US $129.

Using a physical-modeling synthesizer, not samples, it really sounds like a grand piano -- in fact, you can choose between several different kinds of grand pianos.

You can download a free trial version.

If you buy the more expensive Pianoteq Standard or Pianoteq Pro products, they permit you to modify many parameters of the piano sound to tailor the sound to your needs.

Update:

I must stress, though, Pianoteq is a very specialized product -- a uniquely-designed digital synthesizer built from the ground up to emulate piano sounds, with a proprietary design.

You can't make a convincing acoustic grand piano sound by manipulating parameters in any other kind of general-purpose synthesizer, in hardware or software.

The Roland and Yamaha companies each make a hardware synthesizer-keyboard (called a "virtual piano") that emulates an acoustic piano without using samples, like what Pianoteq does.

But these particular Roland and Yamaha keyboards cost US$6,000 and up.

Pianoteq runs on just about any Mac or Windows computer (Linux, too) and it's quite affordable.

Unlike grand-piano sample-based virtual instruments, it doesn't require gigabytes of hard drive space, a large amount of RAM, or a really fast computer to work correctly.

A really great sounfont (sf2} is the Equinox Grand Piano.

You can find it here.

OK.

The sound in that video was not actually that excellent!

Although, sequencing a piano can be just as detrimental to how it sounds than the sound quality itself.

Watch this video:

He's doing what you want.

He's using Virtual Studio Technology .

So, he has a VST host installed on his computer that he can use to play VST plugin instruments.

The VSTi you can hear in the video is the free CVPiano by TASCAM, which is based on a Kawai grand piano.

This and other VSTi's are available from sites such as VST4Free.

Wheat's answer (Pianoteq) is certainly the best in terms of a high-quality commercial solution.

I've known people to tweak parameters in that (seemingly endlessly!)

to get exactly the piano sound they want.

As an alternative, I tend to worry less about quality, and just use free soundfonts, which are sample-based.

I have several, but the only one whose name sticks in my mind at the moment (and which contains a decent sounding grand) is "pianissimum.sf2".

Depending on what you're looking for, something like this might be acceptable.

this is an 88-key online piano that you can connect to via MIDI.

Nothing to download or install.

The piano sound resembles that of a grand.

A fast easy solution if you want to turn your MIDI keyboard into a grand piano!

Physispiano.comWe sell these in our store, totally scratch built modeled piano sound, user programmable.

I tune pianos for a living, these are the best.

Takes a some hours to get it just the way you want using the software, (you get to customize every aspect) but the digital strings produce the ambience of real strings.

Synth programmers always tried to synthesize a piano sound, but they effectively gave up.

Nowadays any piano sound that you hear coming from a software or hardware synthesizer is sampled (meaning: recorded note by note) from a real piano.

Here's a VST I found by Googling: http://www.steinberg.net/en/products/vst/thegrand3/start.html EDIT

Okay, I take it back after seeing Wheat's answer :)

Question: I'm using MIDI keyboard with an external software synthesizer that runs on a computer. I want to make it sound like a grand piano. I want something like  this . This example shows that it's possible to synthesize very nice grand piano sound in software, while all that i've tried resulted into "chirping" sounds more like the ones of an upright piano.  Can you recommend some synthesis software / synthesizer parameters / soundfonts / ... to synthesize grand piano sound like the one in referenced video?

How to synthesize grand piano sound

To make a keyboard synthesizer sound like a grand piano try Pianoteq Stage  for Mac or Windows, Equinox Grand Piano, or take a look at Physispiano.com.

There is a range of different options available to synthesise a grand piano sound, such as "pianoteq", "Equinox Grand Piano" and "physispiano.com".


Yep, the second one is far better for precisely the reason you say.

A general rule is that you shouldn't have dotted-notes that start on an off beat and carry through the next beat.

There are exceptions even to this rule, but showing the underlying beat structure of the meter is paramount in the vast majority of situations.

Elliott Carter is an example of a composer that often violates this notational rule (sometimes using four beamed dotted notes, occasionally even crossing the barline), but this is for the specific purpose of notating multiple simultaneous tempos.

Even with that reason, an argument could be made that it isn't worth it due to the difficulty with reading it.

If you are referring strictly to music written obeying to traditional rhythmic conventions (with rational time signatures and regular/even division), then your second example is more suitable.

Please keep in mind that the first example is not wrong, but the second will make sight-reading much easier, as our own expectations when seeing a piece in 4/4 make us search for known beat patterns.

One possible exception is the dotted quarter, which can be exchanged with a quarter tied to an eighth.

For example, the following fragment is orthodox regarding to rhythmic division, but is easy enough to read and can be more straightforward for those who are used to this kind of rhythmic figure.

This exchange can be especially useful in 3/4 meter, when you want to avoid a 6/8 feeling.

For example, in this fragment the continuous repetition of the pattern can lead, by assimilation, to that feeling of 6/8 (counting "1, 2" instead of "1, 2, 3"), as the dotted quarter is the time unit for such compound meter.

Using, instead, will highlight the first, second and third beats, visually aiding the reader to not assimilate the beat pattern to a binary compound meter (well, I know it has also to do with beaming of the notes, but I think you got what I mean).

As Pat Muchmore said, you can "break" these rules when working with unusual/irrational time signatures, free meter or other ingenious procedures (as is common with Elliot Carter's metric modulation , for instance).

In such cases, you are the judge of what is more suitable or appealing to what you are trying to accomplish.

Here's a common chart showing how the notes break down: Notice how each row is a full measure in 4/4.

The general rule is that a note can span its direct children, or one of its children and one of its nephews.

That is, a quarter note can span the 2nd and 3rd eighth notes, but not the 4th and 5th.

A dotted note can only borrow from its sibling, not its cousin, so a quarter note can span eights 1-2-3 or 2-3-4, but not 3-4-5.

Your first example has the 3rd eighth note of the bar borrowing from its cousin, the 2nd eighth note.

So this is "bad".

The second way would be the proper way to write it.

Note that there are always exceptions to every rule, but it's good to follow the rules unless you have a really good reason not to.

The ideal is to keep each beat self-contained, so the second is preferrable.

In 4/4 it's certainly best to keep each half of the bar separate, so anything which goes between beats 2 and 3 are shown as tied.

It's easier to read, and the ties actually make you aware that the tune is syncopated.

The same thing should happen in 6/8 too, which is effectively two halves of each bar.

Some more modern composers and re-writers don't feel the need to do this.

Change will happen slowly, but for now, at least, let's keep it easy to read - and probably easier to write (longhand at least).

It's good to see the dots alongside tab, so the rhythm can be followed, not guessed !

Correct.

There is a subjective component to this decision, but you generally want to keep the placement of the beat as clear as possible.

The rule of thumb is that when a note doesn't begin on a beat, it should not cross into another beat without a tie, unless the notation is simple enough (e.g. quarter, half, quarter) that there is no ambiguity in how the rhythm lines up with the beat.

Question: Let's say I have the following piece in  4/4 , Should it be notated as:   or   Are there any specific rules? From my previous experience, I believe the second one is the correct notation since it shows all the beats in  4/4 , am I correct?

When to use a dot or a tie in music notation?

A general rule is that you shouldn't have dotted-notes that start on an off beat and carry through the next beat. The rule of thumb is that when a note doesn't begin on a beat, it should not cross into another beat without a tie, unless the notation is simple enough (e.g. quarter, half, quarter) that there is no ambiguity in how the rhythm lines up with the beat.

As a general rule, dotted notes shouldn't start on an off-beat. Therefore, the second example is correct in this case.

The second example is correct notation in this case.


Swap a string by putting your top string in place of the second.

If you take it off carefully and put it onto the second post, and wind it more times, it can still go back on properly, although a new set of strings isn't extortionate.

If this string is still quiet, it's the pick-up, although it's doubtful all three have the same problem.

More likely it's the string itself - which you can check by putting it in place of the third string.

An acoustic string just doesn't do it on an electric guitar, but it may look alright.

Or, simply get a new set of strings anyway.

Unless it is an acoustic guitar string (nylon or wound with non-magnetic material) or clearly not vibrating, it's the pickup that's broken: any wiring possibly connected to the strings is just to reduce hum, not change the signal level.

The pickup reacts perfectly fine to an entirely unconnected string if it is an electric guitar string rather than an acoustic one.

I think that the coils are usually wired in series, so if you still get sound from the other strings, there are rather few error scenarios I can think of: a) coil is shortcircuited.

This will most likely be purely mechanical: two items touching that shouldn't.

b)

magnet is dead and/or has fallen out or there is some other break in the magnetic connection in the pickup c)

someone disassembled the pickup at some point of time, the pickup is a double-coil pickup, and one of the coils or one of the magnets was put back in reverse.

Double coil pickups are intended to pick up outer magnetic fields in a manner that the voltage inducted into both coils cancels while the voltage induced from field changes done by the vibrating string to the field from the coil magnets adds up.

Reverse a coil, and you pick up the noise and cancel the sound.

Reverse a magnet, and both noise and sound cancel.

A guitar pickup in 99% of all guitars including strats is a single coil of wire which senses all strings at the same time.

Some pickups use individual magnets for each string, a fender Stratocaster for instance, and some use a single magnet underneath the pickup but have metal slugs or screws directing the field of sensitivity towards the strings, such as a Les Paul.

This is irrespective of whether or not the pickup is a single coil or a humbucker, but in most situations it ends up the way I described.

However some cheeper pickups such as those found on some squire strats do in fact use a single or double magnet underneath the single coil to create the magnetic field for the pickup to work.

What I am getting at is that in all likelihood the fact that the pickup senses the other sttings would indicate that the pickup is perfectly fine.

Without seeing the guitar i would guess the string is not resting in the slot properly.

Most likely at the bridge.

If the problem would be at the nut slot, then fretted notes would sound out well.

So make sure the string is seates well and if the problem persists you may need to smooth some type of burr on the bridge saddle that occur sometimes.

This happened to me but only on the G string of my middle pickup.

I took the pickguard off and there was a ground screw with a wire not connected to anything in the cavity right below the pickup.

The screw was evidently touching the pickup magnet and making it so it wouldn't sound when plucked.

This just happened to me:I thought it would be a good idea to clean the metal particles gathered on my pickup pole pieces with a strong “rare-earth” magnet.

After doing this, I completely lost any pickup volume for my A string only.

I quickly realized it was because the magnet reversed the polarity of that one pole piece.

The solution:Touch the other side (other polarity) of the rare-earth magnet back to the top of the pole piece.

If this happens to you, it’s ok if you get the wrong side at first.

I hope this helps someone out.

Question: I played a Squier Stratocaster last night, well, when I plugged into amp, which it's working, my guitar's second string didn't make any sound - well, a bit actually - but the rest of the strings sound normal.  Is the problem is on the pickups' coil or the guitar wiring? When I tested the other pickup position (I used Hendrix-like middle+bridge) like bridge or even bridge, the second string still didn't make any sound.

Guitar: No sound from second string, but other strings sound normal

If a string on an electric guitar is not playing, it may not be resting in the slot properly. To test it, put it in the place of another string. Unless it is an acoustic guitar string (nylon or wound with non-magnetic material) or clearly not vibrating, it's the pickup that's broken: any wiring possibly connected to the strings is just to reduce hum, not change the signal level.

The problem could be with the pickup, but it is unlikely. The problem is more likely related to the string itself.

The problem is most likely to be the string itself.

Unless there is a problem with the string, the problem could be with the pickup, although it is unlikely.


I think I know what you mean, I've faced the same issues from time to time.

As I understand you're not a professional singer.

Yes, a voice should become stronger over time as you train more.

The muscles that control your voice will indeed get a bit stronger but to be honest

I don't think singing should be compared to weightlifting for example.

It's more about mental training and proper coordination.

There's still a big warning sign.

When somebody sings the voice should not deteriorate but instead it should improve and get warmed up over time.

That alone tells me that it's likely that there's something wrong with your technique...

it could be anything.

It's common when someone overuses their voice that it feels "tired" for a sort amount of time afterwards.

After all, if you're still not a pro singer you can't really know if you're singing right unless you sound good and face no problems.

Until then you're just guessing.

Singing is of course something requiring training and/or endurance.

If you ask "how do I get to run a marathon", the answer will involve lots of running.

That being said, if you are hoarse/strained after two or three songs, that's comparable about being shot after going up two stories of stairs.

If that's your starting point of doing a marathon, either you are doing something quite wrong and/or

you are woefully out of shape.

"Just do more and it will come naturally", just like with the running analogy, would appear to be reckless advice then without looking closer.

Try getting some actual supervision for a while.

It does not necessarily need to be one-on-one voice training: some choral work or basic singing courses might be enough to have somebody have an ear on you and

have you avoid doing staggeringly counterproductive things.

I have the same issue.

A friend of mine gave me a tip which helped me.

Try to sing from deeper down your throat.

It is hard to explain, but basically, by doing so, you will stress your upper part of the throat less.

This might help, in my experience I've sang my heart out for a very long time and my vocal endurance slowly built up.

I've always heard you need to workout to be a good singer

but I had lifted weights for a while too

but my progress to build vocal endurance was still slow.

I've recently (7 months ago) injured my wrists and I'm still recovering.

The doctor told me to I need to do aerobic exercise to help my healing.

This was the key for my singing.

After heavy endurance running and biking I started to see a large improvement in my vocal endurance.

I've heard from my vocal teacher in college that when the body gets tired, the voice is the first to be affected.

Having high arobic endurance means it takes much longer to get tired.

Also check your diet.

There are certain foods that seem to produce mucus on the vocal cords.

If you are eating these foods before you sing it would cause mucus build up.

Singing with extra mucus is a sure way to wear your vocal chords out quicker.

I hope this helps everyone out

Of course it takes time for your voice to get used to a lot of singing, but you can't compare it to running a marathon.

You just don't get better by doing it.

You get better by knowing what you do, discover mistakes in your technique and directly working on those problems.

If your voice is strained after a few songs, you propably have a problem with your breathing, which is propably the most important aspect in singing.

You may feel that you don't push or force the notes, but the fact that your voice starts to crack that fast tells me otherwise.

We could exchange a lot of tipps and how to do it right in theory, but in my opinion you won't get the results you want from a board on the internet.

If you really want to sing and don't want to ruin your voice, go get a vocal coach.

I know, they cost a lot of money, but it's worth it.

The right teacher can help you improve your voice and your overall singing experience a lot, so it's worth the money, even if you are no professional.

You feel tired because you aren't using your voice properly.

Do you use correct breath support?

Are your muscles trained and strong?

Are you singing according to your physical region (bass, baritone, tenor?).

To answer all these questions, and to reach your objectives, I recommend you to search for a good teacher.

I found a great singing teacher and it changed my life forever.

We can only get what we want if we dedicate and practice a lot (with correct supervision, of course).

Hope this helps.

No shortcut is good in the case of voices.

You can damage your own if you don't practice correctly.

Believe me.

Question: I have good technique. I'm self taught but I know all about singing and its techniques. I can use head voice and I'm comfortable with it. The problem I have is that I can't go through two or three songs without my voice starting to crack or just feeling tired. I don't force notes just so you know I try to sing as comfortably as I can.  How can I build up my voice's strength so I can last through a whole concert?

how to build vocal stamina

S6: If you really want to sing and don't want to ruin your voice, go get a vocal coach. Also you can try to sing from deeper down your throat.

There are a number of things that you might want to consider to build up your voice's strength. However, the most effective will probably be to seek a vocal coach. Asides from this, you could try singing deeper in your throat or increasing your aerobic endurance.

You might want to consider getting a vocal teacher to get to the root of the problem.

You might want to work on your aerobic endurance.

You could try singing from deeper in your throat.


These days many musicians who play Baroque music such as Bach tune their instruments down to the lower pitch of A=415, which is exactly one half-step below the modern standard of A=440.

It is generally accepted by modern performers of early music in the historically-informed style that A=415

was the tuning that Bach himself used for the string pieces he composed.

I'm quite sure that many examples you can find on YouTube are of a musician playing in A=415; furthermore, such a musician would be playing a specially-designed Baroque cello with period-correct strings made of sheep gut , not modern strings made of steel .

Such a "baroque" cello would be designed, braced and set up differently than a modern cello, and would use a different kind of bow as well, and would be played in a different style -- for one thing, using a great deal less vibrato than "modern" cello players use.

A Baroque cello with sheep-gut strings has a different sound than a "modern" cello.

It is not as loud and cutting, but it has a character of sound that early music fans love.

The whole point of historically-informed performance is to try to use modern scholarship to go back to the sounds, instruments, and playing techniques that, to the best of our knowledge, were used by Bach himself, in contrast to playing on a modern instrument with modern strings and modern playing technique.

All this notwithstanding, if you want to learn to play Bach, you should tune your modern cello to A=440 and play it in the modern fashion with your modern bow.

That is what your particular cello was designed and built to handle, and it's perfectly correct to play your instrument in that fashion.

I know many professionals (mostly college professors) who own both a Baroque cello and a "modern" cello, and a variety of different bows built after the design of different historical periods (I know people who have six different kinds of bows!)

and use one cello or the other depending on the orchestra they are performing with and the type of music being performed.

These people, however, are deeply committed to early music; extra cellos and bows are very expensive.

There might be a second question here, which regards the internal tuning of the cello strings, relative to itself.

Cellos are typically tuned in fifths (C-G-D-A) of course, but there are pieces that require a different tuning (a technique called scordatura ).

In this case, wikipedia mentions that Bach's 5th Cello Suite was written for a scordatura in which the A string was tuned down to

G. However, no such mention is made of a similar technique being used in Suite No. 2, so I assume it is written for standard tuning.

I don't know if this was your question, but I figured it was at least worth mentioning the issue.

As MarkM pointed out, your claim is unsubstantiated.

Consider further that "concert pitch" is not a fixed value.

In the Good Old Days of Yesteryear, middle-A could be anything from 409Hz on up ( Wikipedia ).

Whether any particular YouTube recording was pitch-shifted in postprocessing is unknown.

Maybe you could point out which videos you're listening to.

Period tuning is sometimes lower than A 440, but from a random sample of top results in youtube I found: Mischa Maisky : Mstislav Rostropovich: Both squarely in D minor and A440 as I would expect.

Concert pitch depends on the orchestra.

My instructor tunes to 441, as do

I. It also depends on the acoustics of the hall and the atmosphere.

So, many orchestras tune between 440 and 445 or 6.

I noticed that some European orchestras are tuned to 445.

NY orchestras to 442 or 443.

Boston to 442.

West Coast to 441 or 2.

Right now, I'm tuning to 441 for the Bach Cello Suites.

Here's a thread on the topic.

Why are orchestras tuned differently?

I play the second suite with normal 440 pitch, and it sounds fine to me.

In the fifth suite, I'm pretty sure you're meant to tune your C-string down to a D so that you can get the bottom note, but that's not what you were asking.

Question: None of the videos on youtube are is concert pitch.

How do I tune my cello to play the second Bach suite(prelude)?

These days many musicians who play Baroque music such as Bach tune their instruments down to the lower pitch of A=415, which is exactly one half-step below the modern standard of A=440.  However, some musicians feel it sounds fine at 440 pitch whileothers tune 441.

There is no clear answer to this question as it seems that cellists play Bach in a variety of tunings, from A=415 to A=440.


First remark: basso continuo is no real instrument.

In history it was often played by one of harpsichord, chamber organ, dulcian/basson, viola da gamba/violoncello or lute/theorbo, but harp would also be viable.

If not explicitly set for piano-like instrument one may encountered a figured bass, which consists of a single note and a number denoting the harmony.

Expanding the number to chords, arpeggios or other ornamentation is an advanced technique, so you may restrict to the given notes.

The suggested euphonium is likely to cover (in the sense of being louder than) the violins, even if the range matches and so is unlikely to blend.

This disadvantage is shared in my opinion by the sax family and other brass instruments in that configuration.

The viola is somewhat hard to substitute, since it is notated in the alto clef, which is very seldom for other instruments.

So that part had to be adjusted to a different clef, possibly also involving transposition, one choice would be a second violoncello playing in the higher positions.

The viola part is probably intended to fill the gap between melody and bass instruments, so it definitely should be less prominent than your melody instruments.

Since "Queen of Sheba" is quite popular, you may find ready-made settings for different ensembles easily, so you don't have to work it out yourself.

As you can see in the following chart

There isn't any instrument that has the exact range of the Viola .

This means that if you replace a viola with another instrument, you won't be able to play all the notes.

This doesn't mean that you cannot replace it.

See the score you want and look at the highest and the lowest note of the viola part and find an instrument in the chart that can play them.

That could be a violin, a flute, a hard or something.

For the bass continuo you could try a Bassoon, a Baritone Sax or a Harpsichord.

Again, look at the range of the bass score and you'll be able to figure out which instrument to use

The lowest note of a Bb clarinet is a D, just a tone above the low C string of a viola.

This would probably be the best replacement, of the options you suggest, particularly as the warm, rounded tone of the clarinet will blend well with the other instruments.

As for the basso continuo part, a number of low instruments would be well suited to playing this part (your suggestion of Euphonium seems like it should have an appropriate range).

But, be aware, a basso continuo part is usually played on a chordal instrument too, for instance harpsichord, expanding upon the bass line using figured bass notation.

Lots of good suggestions here.

I agree with Bob about the clarinet being a decent replacement for the viola.

Another possibility, not previously mentioned, would be the "English Horn" (or Cor Anglais), which would blend well with the oboes.

Depending on how high the part goes, you might get by playing it on a bassoon (though, if you have a bassoonist, they should by all means play the continuo part!).

A French Horn would fit the range, but would probably be too overpowering, like the Euphonium.

A less-ideal solution -- but possibly worth considering if all else fails -- is to just drop the viola part (with apologies to violists!).

You would certainly miss the full texture, but unless there's a viola obbligato part in this particular piece, it's probably just filling out the full tutti texture in the orchestral sections.

Certainly an important (if thankless) job, but if you have a decent chordal instrument on the continuo (e.g harpsichord, piano, organ, guitar, etc...)

then they're hopefully filling in these chords as well.

EDIT: I just read through the score, while listening, and I noticed that the viola part never goes below G, so it technically falls within the range of a third violin, if you have one available.

Basso continuo is not the name of a certain instrument.

It is a designation for a musical part that you can assign to one of several instruments in a kind of Baroque "rhythm section", comprised of one or more instruments that play chords, together with one or more instruments that play a bass line.

But the sheet music for the basso continuo part is always one staff of music with a bass line represented by notes, together with tiny chord symbols beneath the notes written in a type of notation called figured bass.

For continuo , you need either a keyboard-family instrument or a guitar-family instrument, and a musician who knows how to read the chord notation and improvise a chordal accompaniment.

One euphonium can only play the bass line, not the chords, so that will not be sufficient.

A Baroque ensemble might easily have four or five musicians playing the basso continuo part: for example, a harpsichord and theorbo playing the continuo chords together with a cello, upright bass and a bassoon playing the bass line in unison.

At the very least you need at least one keyboard playing the chords and the bass line together.

To that you can add a euphonium or some other bass instrument doubling the bass line in the keyboardist's left hand.

Question: I want to perform "Queen of Sheba" with some friends of mine. In my score I need two oboes, two violins, one viola and a basso continuo. Unfortunately I do not have neither a viola nor a basso continuo. Which instruments are suited for replacing them? I already was thinking about an euphonium for the basso continuo, is this ok? Which instrument is then well suited for replacing a viola? Clarinet, Trumpet?

Replacing Viola and Basso continuo

To play Baroque music, you can substitute the Viola with a Clarinet. The basso continuo could be replaced by a Bassoon, a Baritone Sax or a Harpsichord.

There is no instrument with the exact range of the viola, but the clarinet might be a suitable replacement. Meanwhil, for the basso continuo, you might want to try a bassoon, a harpsichord or several low instruments.

For the basso continuo, you might want to try a bassoon, a harpsichord or several low instruments.


It really depends and most sound guys will tell you what they charge per gig.

Personally I would not go for the cheaper option, I would go for the better sound guy as a good sound guy

always makes you sound your best.

It may seem strange to pay a sound guy more then a member of your band, but really do a lot for band including: Setting up and tearing down equipment for you.

Providing a sound check to adjust the sound for the room.

Providing monitors for musicians and being able to adjust them for you while preforming.

Mixing sound live and adding effects like delay and reverb.

Most typically have lights to enhance the the look of your performance.

I would talk to bands in your area to see if they have certain sound guys they would recommend (or avoid).

I look at it this way, while you probably can find a cheap sound guy a better sound guy will make you get more gigs and make your overall show better.

I've been lucky enough to work with monitor and FOH engineers who were being paid multiple thousands of dollars per week.

The value they add is ridiculous.

Having to go back to standard house engineers or beginners is really painful after that.

Your sound guys are pretty much the most valuable item/thing/asset a touring band can have.

In answer to your question: Pay what you need to if the guy makes you sound great (offstage and onstage).

The sound guy is not a band member.

He may be friendly with a good attitude and have a cool job

but: it is a job.

He's not part of the musical creation process and unless he's been accompanying you to the studio and on residency for your show, there won't be much creative production on his side either.

He's not a producer (His salary is not dependent on the gigs revenue; as opposite to a manager or a booking agent who make a bet on you).

It's a profession , not a hobby.

It's what he pays his bills with

He'll be there long before and after the band members He works in the dark, not on stage with all the perks and glamour that may bring.

I read somewhere something very interesting

: nobody will have trouble hiring a musician who works part-time in a bar.

The general public knows how hard it is to make it as a musician.

But who will hire a sound engineer working in a restaurant to make ends meet?

No one, because he would be seen as unprofessional.

And if you think hiring professionals is expensive, hire an amateur and put him in front of your best customers.

Also, standard rate is a minimum of 250 EUR per gig in Belgium (usually calculated on a 10hr shift) or 300 CAD (obviously in Canada).

This isn't about 'fair shares', it's about what it costs to hire in sound gear and an operator.

Negotiate the best price you can for what you need.

If this is more than the whole band is making, consider going into the sound-hire business instead!

I think the problem stems from the fact that most people think the "sound guy" or "Technician" is not part of the band.

Just because I'm not on stage and under a spot light doesn't mean I have any less part of creating the picture and vibe of the band.

Your instruments don't sound like any recording you'd buy today and

my instrument ( Console and Speakers ) doesn't make any sound without you.

typically when you're putting together a band you try to get the best players you can because you know it makes a difference.

You need to consider the Mixer as part of the equation or part of the band.

Someone in this thread said " the sound guy is NOT the producer".

In the traditional sense of the studio that sounds right on the surface, but I am doing this a bit.

It's very difficult if not impossible for a musician on a modern stage (especially with IEMs) to be cognizant of every aspect of the sound and music that is happening while they're trying to play.

I often will go to the stage and ask if a drum can be retuned to a different pitch or ask a bass player thin out a few notes in a couple bars because its fighting the floor tom part that's being played.

I'll ask guitar players to back off reverbs or delays a bit because they're getting lost in the mix.

I've had times where I'll tell the band leader a note that the keyboard player is playing is conflicting with a guitar part.

Sometimes the band doesn't catch it.

I won't do that on the first pass but if it happens a couple times in sound check and its obviously a mistake then I'll speak up.

I have the advantage of a kind of third person perspective listening to the whole picture.

One thing to keep in mind is a lot of the time the band (volume wise) is not appropriate for the venue.

This effectively takes away the ability of the mixer to do his job.

A second part of that equation is most club systems are not adequate for the job.

What should you pay?

What should a pro baseball player get paid?

What should a rock star get paid?

It's the same question.

How good are they, what do they bring to the table?

It's a free market.

The idea that any of us is more or less critical to the process is just uninformed.

This is a huge topic and these few words cannot address all the scenarios and nuance it deserves.

These are a few things I've learned from doing this for 30 years.

Question: My band plays events in small and large venues like a bar to a bike night outdoors. We pay for sound at large events which they bring sound equipment to setup and tear down. is paying 30% of our pay is a little high. That would be $210 for a $700 gig with each of the four member making $122.50. Is this a typical fee for bands?

How much to pay sound person?

It is a good idea to talk to bands in your area to get recommendations for sound men. Negotiating the price is possible but you need to have an idea of the going rate for your area.

The answer to this question will be subjective and will depend on how good the sound man is. You might want to consider asking the opinion of other bands in the area. For reference, in Belgium, the standard rate is 250 EUR and in Canada, the standard rate is 300 CAD.

You could ask the opinion of other bands in the area.

In Belgium, the standard rate is 250 EUR and in Canada, the standard rate is 300 CAD.


As @user13484 pointed out, the general concept of two (or more!)

melodies sounding together is counterpoint ("note against note").

The term counterpoint is used when the melodies that are sounding simultaneously are independent and are more or less of equal importance.

Both rhythm, pitch but also timbre can be used to achieve independence.

The term is about a technique or texture, and as such it may be applied to a section, or a movement or even an entire composition.

"Independence" is not a matter of all or nothing.

Although the melodies might have a different rhythm, a melody might have the effect of emphasizing only particular accents of a main melody.

Or although a melody might be playing different pitches, it might do so in an identical rhythm.

So in those cases, the extra melody is not truly independent.

With regard to this piece, the parts that are entering at 0:15 do not really seem to carry a new or separate melody.

The new part serves mainly to give the piece a new rhythmic pulse.

The head of the new part serves to accentuate and repeats the same pitch a few times.

The tail of the phrase basically mimics the main melody (it's not exactly parallel since the rhythm is slightly different, but the pitches are).

So there is a certain lack of independence, and I'd argue the parts also aren't equally important, which is why I would not call this true counterpoint.

I'd call this simply "accompaniment".

At 1:30 though, something starts to evolve that does sound like true counterpoint, first in 2 parts, and then at 1:45 in at least three.

Here you can clearly here different parts that are independent in movement, curve, rhythm and pitch.

Formally, it would be counterpoint, but since the music is not as a whole constructed in that manner, I'd just call it a countermelody.

Quodlibet ( Latin: “what you will”) musical composition in which several well-known melodies are combined, either simultaneously or, less frequently, sequentially, for humorous effect.

Quodlibet can also refer to an amalgamation of different song texts in a vocal composition.

While simultaneous combinations of two or more melodies go back to the 13th century (motets using, for example, a chant melody and a secular tune), quodlibets were especially popular in the 15th and 16th centuries.

In Germany numerous instances are found in manuscript collections of polyphonic (multipart) songs.

Britannica.com:

Encyclopedia article about "quodlibet"

I think Mingus himself called this structure of melodies stacked on top of each other - in many of his pieces there are more than two, e.g. in Wednesday Night Prayer Meeting - a "pyramid".

In a general-usage sense, the word "counterpoint" could serve, though the word counterpoint names a very specific technical form that follows certain rules of construction.

Because of that, the two lines in Fables of Faubus fail to be "counterpoint" but are most definitely "countermelody."

They could be called "contrapuntal lines" without raising the "counterpoint pedant" alarm. :)

I think the word "mashup" is a horrible way to describe/think of the concept.

There's a big difference between two melodies that were written to work together, vs a pair of melodies that when played together exhibit a serendipitous congruence often enough to be surprisingly pleasant.

The thing is, a mashup is always countermelody, but countermelodies are not mashups.

It may be better to use the term polyphony which could include counterpoint and fugues.

In music, polyphony is a texture consisting of two or more simultaneous lines of independent melody, as opposed to a musical texture with just one voice which is called monophony, and in difference from musical texture with one dominant melodic voice accompanied by chords which is called homophony.

SOURCE

This can be a Mashup.

A mashup is a song or composition created by blending two or more pre-recorded songs

Question: Is there any name I can use for two melodies that are being played at the same time?  (The rhythmic part isn't identical) .  For Instance, there is Fables of Faubus by Charles Mingus which starts off with a melody:     and then on 0.15 starts another melody that is being played on top of the other.  How is this named?

Is there any name for two melodies that are being played at the same time?

The term counterpoint is used when the melodies that are sounding simultaneously are independent and are more or less of equal importance. Quodlibet  ( Latin: “what you will”) musical composition in which several well-known melodies are combined, either simultaneously or, less frequently, sequentially, for humorous effect.  Mingus himself called this structure of melodies stacked on top of each other - in many of his pieces there are more than two, e.g. in Wednesday Night Prayer Meeting - a "pyramid".  Accompaniment and Mashup is other terms used.

There are a number of different terms that may describe this concept, including "counterpoint", "quodlibet", "accompaniment" or a "mashup".


It can be depending on the context .

If you were using the F♯ major scale, you would have the notes F♯, G♯, A♯, B, C♯, D♯, and E♯ .

Another common example is in a C♯ major chord you would have the notes C♯, E♯, and G♯ .

The E♯ is an enharmonic equivalent to F. F is used a lot more though, since it is a naturally named note.

In the same way, F♭ can used to describe E.

How you name a note being used is typically determined by the scale and context.

For example : if you are going up the chromatic scale you would be using sharps to name the "black keys" and if you were going down the chromatic scale you use flats instead.

There are a lot of things to think about when naming a note and you can see more examples of how notes are named in this question .

Sometimes indeed it HAS to be E#.

It will depend on what key you're in as to what it is called.

If a key has 6 sharps, the order is

F#, C#, G#, D#, A# and E#.It's a technicality, but as far as writing it down is concerned, E# would be found on the 'E' place on the stave.

It won't be found in the 'F' place, because that would signify an F note, which is already sharp.

It could be naturalised, but that gets even more confusing, believe me !

There are other reasons why it needs to be called E#, all technical.

As Dom says, the same sort of things happen to other notes as well.

That's before we start on about '

is it G or F## (Fx)?

' etc.

Maybe you had the idea that the black keys on piano were # and b, but that's only partly true.

On guitar, there are no black keys, so maybe that's where the question came from.

A simple rule for major scales is that each letter name must be used once, and once only (until you repeat and start again !).

Another rule is that the interval between successive notes of the scale must be Tone - Tone - Semitone - Tone - Tone - Tone - Semitone.

Using this rule, the notes of a C major scale are C D E F G A B C

This is because there are additional tones between C and D, D and E, F and G, G and A and A and B. Look at a piano keyboard and you will see this

- in the above example it just so happens that the notes of the C scale are all the White notes, and the interspersed intervals are the Black notes.

For more 'complex' scales we use the above 2 rules, and denote any black notes that we use as either 'Sharp' or Flat.

Thus the black note between the F and the G can be denoted as either F Sharp (F#) or G Flat (Gb)

depending on the context in which it is being used.

To get back to the original point (!)

if we take the scale of F# We must use all the letter names therefore the notes of the scale become F#, G# A#, B, C#, D#, E# and F#

There has to be an E# because there must be an E something, and there can only be a half tone between that something and the F#

- therefore the E (which is a whole tone below the F#) must be 'sharpened' - i.e. lifted by a half tone.

There is no black note between E and F - therefore the white note next to the E is used (normally thought of as 'F')

but in this case it’s

E#.

It’s nothing more than spelling !!

A practical example to go with the valid theoretical answers: If one needs to play both F and F# on a harp, the harpist is going to have the harp set to E# and F#. Harps don't have any accidental strings, to get accidentals a pedal is set changing all (but the few lowest) strings to the accidental.

So, if the F strings are made F#, the only way to get F is to make E# if both tones are needed at once.

Another example of when E# has to be E# and not F: when playing an A augmented chord.

This naming shows that the E of the A chord has been sharpened (A C# E#).

Writing F (instead of E#) would indicate that the chord is F aug - F A C#.

The notes may sound the same but they have different meanings.

Question: A  ♯  raises a note by a  semitone  or  halftone .  I'm confused. If  E  and  F  are a  halftone  apart, why can't  F  be  E♯ ?

If between E and F is a halftone, why can F not be an E♯

It will depend on what key you're in as to what F is called. Sometimes indeed it HAS to be E#.

The answer will depend on the context, but sometimes F has to be called E#, so it can in fact happen.


A bar's duration can be represented using the whole note No, not always!

This is the incorrect assumption you're making.

A bar's 'duration' depends on the time signature.

So, in a standard 4/4 bar, the bar is 4 quarter notes long.

(4 * 1/4...see where this is going?)

Alternatively, in a 3/2 bar, the bar is 3 half notes long, or 3 * 1/2!

So, whilst a full 4/4 bar would look like this: A full 3/2 bar would look more like this: Or alternatively, could be filled with a single, dotted whole note.

A whole note takes up a full measure in 16/16, 8/8, 4/4, and 2/2 time only.

A whole note has the value of 4 quarter notes or 2 half notes.

Since how common 4/4 time is (it is even also referred to as common time)

it makes sense that the notes name line up with the use in 4/4.

In 3/2 the whole measure is represented by a dotted whole note (i.e. a whole note plus a half note) as seen below.

There are notes bigger then

a whole note for example there is a double whole note that has the value of 8 quarter notes.

This note would be used to fill a full measure in 4/2 as shown below.

The US terms whole note, half note, quarter note, eighth note, sixteenth note, etc have some obvious advantages over the UK terms: semibreve, minim, crotchet, quaver, semiquaver, etc

but they make most sense only in 4/4 time or maybe also 2/2.

In 3/4 or 6/8, the whole note is too big for a single measure.

In 5/4 and 6/4, it is not big enough.

The relative lengths of the notes are still indicated by their names but the "whole" becomes misleading beyond 4/4 and 2/2.

As Bob says above, there is a special rule that a whole measure rest may be indicated by a whole note rest but only applies to rests.

The questioner is mistaken.

A whole NOTE cannot be used to fill a bar of any length.

But a whole bar can be filled by a REST that looks very like a whole note rest.

The whole bar rest and the whole note rest are two different things though.

They use the same symbol, but positioned differently.

A whole NOTE rest sits at its normal rhythmic position in the bar.

(The whole note rest is actually quite rare.

The only place you're likely to see one is when a hymnal uses 4/2 time.)

The whole BAR rest is centered in the bar.

It can fill a bar of any size (with certain exceptions - bars of 3/16 or shorter use the actual length, as do bars of 4/2 or longer).

3/2 is a "simple triple time signature"simple means every beat is made up of 2 beats or each of these beats can be broken into two beats and triple because of containing 3 half notes in a measure, meaning there are 3 half or minim notes in a measure.

That means all the notes in each measure must add up to 3 half notes, not more than or less than that.

Any combination of notes can be used as long as they add up to 3 half notes, such as; one half note, two quarter notes,two eighth notes and one quarter note rest or so on.

In time signatures with 4 as the bottom number, such as 4/4 , 3/4 etc.

time, the half note is two beats long.

However, when 2 is used as the bottom number a minim is 1 beat long.

As we know top number in a time signature says how many beats are to be contained in each bar that is 3 and bottom number the note denomination,which represents one beat that is the minim or half-note.

So 3/2 can be interpreted as three minim beats per bar and must be counted as 1 2 3 but will never be counted as 1 (2) 3 (4) 5 (6) because each half note gets 1 beat here.

Let me guess.

A 3/2 beat means ‘3 groups of 2 beats’ and cannot be changed to ‘6/4’ which will become ‘6 groups of a quarter note’.

So 3/2 is very different from 6/4 or all kinds of beats and is very rare.

The way i see it is in fractions.

A whole note (semibreve) is 2/2.

A half note (a minim) is 1/2.

A quater note (crotchet) is 1/4.

An eighth note (quaver) is 1/8.

If you are trying to get 3/2, its just a matter of getting three halfs in a bar.

so you could have three half notes or one whole not and one half note.

Hope this answered your quetion

Question: A bar's duration is measured in beats and can be represented using a whole note. So, a bar duration in beats is just a whole note.  So isn't a 3/2 measure just spilling over? 3 half notes is equal to a bar and a half. What's the explanation?

In 3/2 time why is a whole-note rest used as a bar's rest when a whole-note doesn't fill the measure?

There is a special rule that a whole measure rest may be indicated by a whole note rest but only applies to rests.

There is a special rule whereby a whole-note rest can be used to denote a whole-bar rest, regardless of the time signature.


Assuming strings have been bedded in, and all are properly in tune to standard, then the whole guitar is in balance.

That is, the strings exert a tension against the neck and the vibrato system, usually springs.

When one string is changed, that balance is changed.

Lowering a string pitch will loosen that string, so the opposing part of the balance becomes relatively stronger.

That then exerts more tension on the remaining strings, putting (pulling) them out of tune.

The same happens when a string breaks.

The tension balance is changed, so making the other strings out of tune.

Any guitar player should be capable of changing strings on the guitar he plays, and subsequently putting that guitar in tune.

On some with a floating vibrato it will take some time, but that's the nature of the beast.

When new strings are put on, unless they are the same as the old set, other changes may need to be made: neck tension, action, intonation may all need tweaking to accommodate a different set of strings.

At this point a lot of guitarists will turn to an expert.

However, I don't think those are your causes.

It's merely the change in balance caused by the change of tension.

Handy hints - learn to change your own strings, get used to tuning the whole guitar rather than one string, don't just rely on a tuner to tune one string.

If we think our guitar is out of tune, chances are it was our ears that told us !

Or it might have been the drummer!

So our ears should be good to put it back in tune !

If the strings are nylon then they will require many days of constant retuning before they stabilise

If it has a tremolo that is not set flush to the guitar body, then retuning one will affect the tuning of the others, by altering the overall tension against the springs.

Is the guitar in tune with itself(ie 5th fret low E string ==

A string etc)?

If this is the case the problem may be with your tuner.

Aside from the "Drop-D" issue, definitely DO get into the habit of doing your own string replacement and tuning.

Besides gaining the experience, even the best guitars need re-tuning several times with new strings until they settle in and stretch out.

You can help this along by changing one string at a time, so the neck tension is only changing a little at a time.

This also gives you an easy tuning reference that you can hear, less dependent on the electronic tuner.

Remember, electronic tuners are most useful when the string is NEAR its proper pitch.

They aren't very helpful and are even confusing until you at least get the string approximately tuned, and even then your EAR has to eventually become the final reference.

That is because guiar tuners are near perfect, but most guiars (especially beginner guitars) are NOT.

Then, each time you get one of the new string approximately tuned, bend the note

(I sometimes grab the whole string up near the picking area with my thumb and first finger and give it a sharp twist).

The pitch of the new string will drop immediately, so re-tune it.

By doing that several times, you're final tuning will stay longer.

As far as the fear of the string being tuned too high, this should never be an issue unless you are tuning the string significantly HIGHER then it should be.

But it still is a reasonable precaution to tune with the guitar "pointed" away from your face. :-)

Now back to the drop D tuning.

You didn't mention whether this was an acoustic or an electric.

For various reasons, including the typically lighter gauge strings, any electric will tend to be more sensitive then an acoustic.

But either way there are so many factors involved that affect tuning stability.

Many of them have to do with the quality and setup (setup meaning truss rod adjustment, bridge height adjustment, or a poorly grooved nut ) and all these things can collectively make the situation worse.

But honestly, if dropping the LOW E to D really made all the other strings go as sharp as you described, this instrument may have some serious flaws, and its going to be an ongoing frustration.

Don't let it discourage you...

only the luckiest individuals have a near flawless guitar when they start.

But working through it will soon make you an expert on all the little nuances of guitar tuning, and eventually you'll at least be able to get the most out of the instrument, despite its limitations.

Then when that's not good enough, it will be time for another one, and you won't need to rely on the shop owner to help you pick it out! :-)

For now though, even though many of us can help you here, its best to show the guitar to a more experienced player AND demonstrate the problem in person.

Without actually checking this guitar and seeing the issue in real time, its tough to know how much of the problem is just your inexperience, and how much is the fault of the guitar.

It is a frustrating (some even say wretched) instrument, but nothing beats the sound of a guitar. :-)

Question: I went to a guitar shop yesterday to buy a new set of strings and had them replace my old ones. The guitar sounds fine like the usual eadgbe sound but when I tried tuning it to drop D using a guitar tuner, I noticed the tune of the strings were like C#, D# etc. (I forgot the others.) I tuned it to EADGBE and it doesnt sound right. Any alternative ways to get it back in tune?

Difficulty tuning in Drop D

The key to the issue of tuning problems with guitars is to learn to change and tune your own strings.

It is difficult to provide a precise answer without more detailed information. However, you would be best advised to get into the habit of learning to tune your guitar yourself.

Ideally, a guitarist should get into the habit of changing their own strings and learning to tune them themselves.


In simple terms, 6/8 is compound !!

You are counting a relatively quick 1-2-3-1-2-3, as you say, which can feel like 3/4 or 3/8 - waltz like.

However, the second '1' is slightly less emphasised in 6/8, so it's counted ONE-two-three four-five-six.

(The four is where your second 'one', or 'bom' is).

6/8, being compound, means that it can simultaneously be counted in 2 time, as ONE-tah-tah TWO-tah-tah.

Each syllable coinciding with one of the faster counts in the earlier example.

If the second 'bom' is as loud as the first 'bom' when you count, it will be in 3/4 or 3/8 time, but when the second 'bom' is quieter, but still louder than the other beats, the song will be in 6/8.

Music theory generally uses only duple and triple, not the quadruple and sextuple that your link mentions.

Any meter can be explained in terms of duple or triple along with simple or compound.

For example, the "sextuple" meter she mentions is compound duple meter.

It works like this.

Meter is a combination of strong and weak beats.

Two or a multiple of two strong beats per measure is duple, three or a multiple of three strong beats per measure is triple.

If there is only one strong beat per measure (2/4, 3/4), then all the beats count.

As for simple vs. compound, strong beats that subdivide into two are simple, those that subdivide into three are compound.

2/4 and 3/4 subdivided in twos by default.

So, for the commonest time signatures: 2/2 Simple Duple 2/4 Simple Duple 3/4 Simple Triple 4/4 Simple Duple 6/8 Compound Duple 9/8 Compound Triple 12/8 Compound Duple

The fact that some strong beats are weaker than others makes no difference in whether a meter is compound or simple or duple or triple.

If you are having trouble with, say, the difference between 2/4 and 4/4, think about primary and secondary accents on syllables.

For example, "secondary" has a secondary accent on the third syllable: "SE-con-Da-ry".

In musical meter, the primary accent is on the first beat, and the secondary accent is on the other strong beat (if there is one).

In 4/4, the secondary accent is on 3.

Because it is in 6/8 and while you feel it in three, you feel it in two groups of three as is common for a song in 6/8.

In 6/8 two dotted quarter notes get the beat, but each dotted quarter note can further be divided into 3 eighth notes making you feel each beat in 3.

That is how songs in 6/8 typically works.

The distinction between a slow 6/8 meter and a waltz is largely arbitrary.

It may be that the melody is intended to have a stronger downbeat on every alternate bar, and that many people perceive it that way, but the same is true for countless waltzes notated in 3/4 as well (mostly those that have even-length numbers of bars in their phrases).

The only objective reason to call something 3/4 if it has an odd number of bars.

(For a fast 6/8 meter, such as a typical tarantella, it's the short duration of the quavers that makes it much more appropriate to use 6/8, but "Greensleeves" isn't one of those at all.)

Every copy I've seen of Greensleeves notates it in 3/4 time, but if one looks at the word stresses it could probably be notated just as well in 6/8 (with half as many measures) or perhaps 12/8 (with a quarter as many measures) since alternating measures definitely have stronger and weaker word stresses, as do alternating pairs of measures (though to a lesser degree).

I think that historically there has been a tendency to avoid the use of compound meters for slower tempos, even though such avoidance often results in notes being held routinely for entire measures.

Greensleeves doesn't have any really long notes, but consider the song "

On top of Old Smokey".

All the sheet music I've seen for that is likewise in 3/4, but each four-measure phrase has two notes which is held for a whole measure each, and the downbeat of the third measure is a rest.

The article you linked cites a nice example of a piece which is in triple meter without any sort of sextuple

feel:

Brahms' Lullaby.

In the English text "Lul-la-BY, and good NIGHT; in the SKY stars are BRIGHT", the stresses on "-by", "night", "sky", and "bright" are all roughly equal (interestingly, the "triple" example where it shows word stresses, "America", would fit naturally into a 6/8 meter while Brahm's Lullaby would not).

Question: When I hear greensleeves it sounds like a waltz to me (bom-tah-tah / bom-tah-tah), why is it considered a sextuple ?   source :  https://www.inkling.com/read/the-enjoyment-of-music-kristine-forney-11th/part-1/chapter-2

Why is greensleeves considered to be in sextuple meter?

Music theory generally uses only duple and triple, not the quadruple and sextuple mentioned in the link.

Music theory generally doesn't use the term sextuple.


Two basic philosophies.

First is, set everything at 12 o'clock (halfway) and adjust everything up or down until it sounds right.

Second is, dime everything (all the way) and back things down until it sounds right.

If it doesn't already.

There are other things to consider.

A common metal thing is to max the bass and treble and pull back on ("scoop") the mids.

With overdrive, you'll likely max the knob at first, but the distortion you hear on record is likely not nearly as much as you think.

But don't think there's a magic setting that'll just be it .

There's a YouTube video of Tom Morello talking about getting started, turning knobs and looking for the magic sound until he said "Heck with this.

I'll stick with this one."

And he learned to love it, and if you like Rage Against The Machine, you do too.

Get to where it works well enough, and eventually you'll have your tone.

One other thing that took me MANY years to realize.

The best EQ and tone settings to please your ear in a room by yourself are going to be surprisingly different from the ideal tone when you play with other instruments, and especially when recording.

For example, the best guitar sound when a keyboard / synth is playing chords is often much more treble than you'd ever care to hear in a "stand alone" situation.

The best way to get the sound you desire is just to play around with the settings.

A rock sound makes me think of more overdrive usually, but it depends on your situation.

You can get infinite suggestions for what people like to do with their guitar, but they will mostly all be different and ultimately you just have to listen for yourself to find what you like.

Realizing that my guitar was a mid-range instrument helped me find what I believed to be the most satisfying tones i.e. not chasing extreme treble or bass.

I have found distortion is good for tightening up the sound a little bit, and higher distortion tends to work better for single note passages and diads than it does for chord work.

In general terms classic rock will use more of an overdrive/low distortion than newer styles of rock and metal.

Keep playing with the settings, as you will be the best judge of what sounds like your definition of rock.

This will also probably change as your ear improves, so make sure you continue to experiment.

If you are using distortion then typically you would start by having bass, treble and mid set at halfway.

Increase the bass and treble with no mid you will get the metal tone.

Most players keep the mid, bass and treble pretty close in values with each other then adjust the settings slightly depending on the type of guitar and genre.

I see most top 40 pop/rock uses the settings like have all settings around 6 to 8 on a 10 scale.

Not mentioned above, there are amps that seem to have that Rock sound built into their circuitry, and certain guitars that take advantage of the amps characteristics, so that when they are paired up, the results are considered magical.

Marshall amps and Les Paul guitars, Telecasters and Tweed Bassmans, Stratocasters and Twin Reverbs, Gretch and Vox, the list goes on and on, but my point is, you will probably have more success in finding that magic, if you find the right guitar and amp combination that suits your purpose.

Whilst all of the above answers are good, I don't think they zero in on what the question asks: how does one know what the different knobs (bass, treble, mid, overdrive) do to derive a desired rock sound/feel?

Generally these are what the controls do:

Volume is your "clean" channel.

It increases the output signal without distorting it.

Gain allows you to put your amp into overdrive.

This "clips" the input signal as the circuitry gets saturated, resulting in an overdriven or distorted sound which is characteristic of rock.

I would say that by far gain is the most "rocky" of your controls.

Bass/mid/treble: sometimes called EQ controls, these control how much of the low/medium/high frequencies is amplified or attenuated.

In general, when you boost the bass the sound gets "darker", if you boost the "treble" it can get lighter.

Different rock guitarists opt for different EQ settings.

Something that I didn't learn until after a few years into playing the guitar is that, unlike a traditional hi-fi amp, a guitar amp is not supposed to play the sound of your guitar with complete fidelity; instead, it is supposed to alter it or "colour" it to give it a more distinctive sound.

That's why different guitarists tend to prefer different brands, to achieve their own personal sound.

As said above, it is up to you to experiment and find your own sound.

Good luck!

Question: I have trouble figuring out my guitar amplifier's equalizer settings, how does one know what the different knobs (bass, treble, mid, overdrive) do to derive a desired rock sound/feel?

How does one set up a guitar amplifier to produce a rock sound/feel?

The best way to get the sound you desire from a guitar amplifier is just to play around with the settings.  In general terms classic rock will use more of an overdrive/low distortion than newer styles of rock and metal. A common metal thing is to max the bass and treble and pull back on ("scoop") the mids. Gain is the most "rocky" of the controls.

The best way to work out what the controls do and how to get a rock sound is simply to experiment yourself. However, most rock sounds will involve turning up the gain and applying some distortion or overdrive. Additionally, setting the treble and bass to 'max' while lowering the mids can help achieve a more 'metal' sound.

Generally, a rock sound will involve an overdrive or distortion sound.

Setting the bass and treble to 'max' whilst lowering the mids will help you achieve a more 'metal' sound.

The gain will be the most important setting for a rock sound.


I've seen ppp, pp, p, mp, mf, f, ff, fff used commonly giving you 8 levels.

ffff and pppp seem pretty rare.

There's also no standard for EXACTLY how loud each of these are.

Eh, it's the arts.

Whattayagonnado ?

Giovanni Gabrielli started it all with just two: piano and forte .

Before long, there were also pp (pianissimo, "softest") and ff (fortissimo, "loudest").

Beethoven used fff if I recall correctly, but few composers used more than 2 of each.

I know that Tchaikovsky's sixth symphony has ffffff and ppppppp .

(Most conductors substitute a bass clarinet for the bassoon where it is supposed to play ppppppp .)

And yet, Berlioz' Requiem op.

5 never goes beyond ff and gets even louder than Tchaikovsky's 6th.

I would actually expect that having more levels simply means that you're expected to recognize the relative differences between different segments of the piece being played, thus allowing you to play the song more closely to how the original composer intended.

Example: if you had pp, mp, ff and fffff you would probably play those parts somewhat differently than if the markings were ppp, p, f, ff.

The relative differences between them all would make for substantially different dynamics.

This is basically giving you varying resolutions in dynamics suitable to the unique requirements of each musical score, and also a reasonably accurate way to give musicians a relative relationship to use that is meaningful within the context of each individual piece, allowing faithful rendition while also allowing for personal interpretation.

This interpretation clearly requires being familiar with the piece before playing.

I can't say this is 'correct' but it certainly makes a lot of sense to me.

There is no limit, but for any normal performance pp to ff would be all you need.

A p itself means quiet and an f itself

means loud.

When you add another p or f to each it technically adds "very" in front of each.

Examples: pp - very soft ff - very loud ppp - very, very soft fff - very, very loud pppp - very, very, very soft ffff - very, very, very loud etc.

I know in Finale the dynamics go up to ffff (at velocty 127) and pppp (at velocity 10).

There are pieces out there that use more (see this Wikipedia article for examples).

Think of it this way: you can always add another "very" in front of loud and soft and there may be times

it makes sense to put a pppppppp or an fffffff if you want to express extreme dynamics.

Like I said in most situations "very loud" and "very soft" are good enough, but there is not a notional limit.

There are no consistent technical specifications attached to the various numbers of letters.

Thus, any number of letters can theoretically be used by the composer.

However, it is important to remember that any more than three or possibly four starts to get extremely difficult to read at all quickly.

Also, they are not set to a concrete Db level, but the performer's discretion, so you shouldn't need more than the standard three each way plus the mezzo piano and mezzo forte.

Context quite often decides the volume and force as much as the actual markings.

The same principle applies to the number of F's in the sforzando marking.

Needs to be noted that it's all relative.

Each instrument will have its own dynamic spectrum, so a piccolo won't have the same 'p' or 'f' as say, a trumpet.

Also the auditorium must play a part in this.

A small hall will surely give 'f' a different no. of decibels from a large one.

And there seems to be no actual figures for 'p', 'f' etc.

Once some instruments get to fff, they've run out of steam, so ffff would be unattainable.

The only limit to how many p or f is the technical proficiency of the musicians.

It must be made clear that dynamics in themselves do not mean anything.

They are references to each other.

A piano is a piano only in reference to dynamics in their very piece.

Better ensembles and musicians will be able to actually make differences between a ff and a fff, or a pppp and a ppppp for that matters.

Younger ensembles will often play ff and fff pretty much the same way.

It is also worthy to note that the acoustics of the room will influence how instruments have to play to actually sound f or p in reference to each other.

I know it as usual that fff means as loud as possible and ppp is as quiet as possible

Those two are the maximum in every direction i know as usual.

For the most cases this should be enough.

For listeners 8 volumelevels (ppp, pp, p, mp, mf, f, ff, fff) is hard to differentiate, but for the players it can also be hard to play it the same every time.

More levels won't make it easier.

Question: How far can pianissimo/fortissimo go? I have heard both the limit is 4 and 2 of each. Meaning pppp/ffff or pp/ff. What is the actual limit?

Limits of Fortissimo and Pianissimo

With regard to the limits of Fortissimo and Pianissimo, f and p, there are no consistent technical specifications attached to the various numbers of letters. The only limit to how many p or f is the technical proficiency of the musicians. That being said, ffff and pppp seem pretty rare.  However, Tchaikovsky's sixth symphony has  ffffff  and  ppppppp .

It is generally agreed that there is no limit to how many of these markings you can use, although there are pieces that include five or more.


There is a rather more fundamental, physical reason for this than so far mentioned: the bass fills not only the bass frequency range, but its harmonics actually reach well into the midrange where all other voices have their fundamentals!

In fact, since the bass has typically the strongest amplitude 1 of all tuned instruments (save perhaps trumpets, lead vocals etc.), the middle voices have a hard time to really isolate themselves from these harmonics, at any time.

Their harmonic function is thus always determined to a large degree by what interval they play over the bass.

This has again a particular reason: to make up for Fletcher-Munson , so the bass won't seem much quieter than everything else.

This is not a rigorous, scholarly answer, but a useful one: There is a simple, general principle in writing Western music that has been mentioned by many people over the centuries.

It basically says that a piece of music has two important components: the melody up top, and the bass line down low.

The chords are determined by filling in the spaces between the melody and the bass line to create musical effects that are pleasing.

No matter how pieces of music are written, if you look at the music after it's written, you can see the sense of this.

When students study Western music theory, or "common-practice-period tonal harmony" as it is officially referred to, in the style of J. S. Bach, a frequent homework assignment they encounter is to take a short melody, then construct a bass line beneath it, then to write notes in-between to create chords to fill in the arrangement, according to the academic rules of part-writing.

This is certainly not the only method of writing music, but it is fair to say that this method has been extremely common in all styles of music ever since the time of Bach.

A lot of Western music falls into the broad category of primary melody on top, a lot of stuff in the middle, and bass line on bottom.

The outside lines--melody and bass--are easiest for our ears to distinguish because they are the lowest and highest boundaries of each vertical slice of harmony.

The inner voices are often (but by no means always) less important as melodic lines than they are for determining chord quality--the moment-to-moment color of a piece.

Therefore, if you know the bass, harmony, and melody of a piece of music, you know a lot about it.

You know the shape and color of each vertical slice, as well as the contours of the most prominent horizontal lines.

In fact, in many styles, there are idiomatic "good" ways to realize inner voices given a melody, bass and harmony, whether it be the figured bass notation of the Baroque or much freer jazz and pop styles.

Therefore, analyzing in terms of melody line, bass line, and harmony captures the "essential" identity of many types of music, from Baroque arias and dances to pop chord charts.

An experienced performer can satisfactorily replicate the "fundamental" music from these sources.

I want to start my answer by saying: I don't know.

This is a very profound question.

It does not have a trivial answer.

I don't think anyone knows the answer for certain.

Because your question isn't just about how Common-Practice Era Western Music Theory Type analysis proceeds.

It's about how we think about what a chord is .

What is it about how we hear chords that makes us say that CEG is in an important sense the "same thing" as EGC?

Why do we conceptualize the various inversions of a chord as, er, "a chord"?

So this is a hypothesis: we think about music as we hear it, and individual pitches rest on a fundamental pitch because of how physics work, so perhaps we bring the same thinking to harmony.

I hypothesize our thinking about harmony proceeds from the assumption that harmony is really multiple voices making a single pitch with complicated overtones.

When you hear "EGC" (the first inversion of C major), even if produced by three separate instruments, maybe you hear it as if it were a single voice singing a single pitch with those overtones -- but we know intuitively that in nature that cannot be: no single resonant pitch can have the structure of EGC, because overtones simply don't happen in that order, so it implies to us an unheard lower C supporting that chord.

That's my guess.

The bass is so important because it imposes its presence on all the other sounding notes via three main characteristics: Its harmonics interact with all the higher pitches.

It has a strong amplitude (see @leftaroundabout 's answer) and in practice is often doubled by many instruments in a variety of styles.

It stands out by virtue of being an outer voice.

This is only true for the highest and lowest voices in a texture.

In a visceral sense, the bass is the below the other tones in the music, so it has the perceptual role of supporting them.

An analogy can be made to the foundation of the house, which supports the rest of the structure.

You don't start building a house until a good foundation is laid down, and the foundation determines how the rest of the house is built.

Question: In any type of harmonic analysis the bass plays a big part in determining the function of the harmony. There are even special ways to describe what note of the chord is in the bass (known as  inversions ) and notation for chord symbols to make sure the right note is in the bass (known as  slash notation ).  So why does the bass note play such a big role in harmony?

Why is bass note so important in harmonic analysis of music?

The bass is so important because it imposes its presence on all the other sounding notes via three main characteristics:   Its harmonics interact with all the higher pitches.  In fact, since the bass has typically the strongest amplitude 1  of all tuned instruments (save perhaps trumpets, lead vocals etc.), the middle voices have a hard time to really isolate themselves from these harmonics, at any time. However, this question is very profound and difficult to answer.

This may be a very difficult question to answer with any certainty. However, one possible reason could be that bass instruments have a strong amplitude and frequencies that extend well into the midrange where other notes and instruments play.

Bass parts have a strong amplitude and frequencies that extend well into the midrange where other instruments play.


It sounds like she may have been talking about the Tristan Chord , a famous chord from the opening of Richard Wagner's opera Tristan und Isolde .

While it can be enharmonically written as a half-diminished 7th chord (F-A♭-C♭-E♭), it does not resolve in the way a half-diminished 7th chord

would, nor is it written as a half-diminished 7th chord.

For this reason, it has become famous for being a rather difficult chord to analyze with traditional Roman numeral analysis.

The issue is not that it doesn't resolve, but that it resolves in a way that makes its relationship to the key so ambiguous.

I'm not sure I could call any chord "unresolvable", though I'd have to know the context of the conversation.

However, augmented chords (e.g. C-E-G♯), as well as diminished 7th chords (e.g. C-E♭-G♭-B♭♭)-- both of which have been mentioned in other answers -- share a common trait

: they are, in some sense, symmetric.

Augmented chords are created by stacking three major thirds, and diminshed 7ths are likewise created by stacking four minor thirds, both of which add to an octave.

While neither chord is "unresolvable", these two types of symmetric chords could be said to be "ambiguously resolvable", in that they look the same from three or four different keys (respectively), and can therefore be plausibly resolved to any one of several possible distant keys.

As a result, romantic composers will often use them as a sort of "turn-stile" to modulate between unrelated keys.

In fact, the Tristan Chord, mentioned in yet another existing answer, is also somewhat symmetric (at least after the G♯ resolves to the A).

It consists of two major thirds (F-A and B-D♯), separated by a tritone (a symmetric interval).

As such, you could almost envision it resolving to a Bb7 instead of an E7 (if it weren't for those chromatic passing tones that help to indicate a clear direction to the line).

The takeaway point is that, in music, symmetry leads to a certain ambiguity of tonal center, and therefore can weaken the sense of needing any specific resolution.

Such a chord still needs a resolution, but it has several options, and so does not necessarily need any specific resolution.

They may have said the Tristan Chord, but I would argue it is resolvable, and in fact not mysterious... as others have pointed out, the analysis works well if you see the G# as a non-harmonic tone, a lower neighbor (in A minor) to the A at the end of the measure.

Then we have the following notes, spelling them out in thirds:

(B D# F A).

We have F in the bass.

This is a textbook French 6th chord in A minor!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augmented_sixth_chord Note that the next chord is V7, a dominant chord in A minor, which is exactly what you would expect (perhaps with an intervening I

6/4 but not seen here)

following the Fr6.

As I recall Wagner loved augmented sixth chords.

I've not done any research on the Tristan Chord specifically before seeing it here, but

I'm surprised it has an aura of mystery.

Personally, I find augmented chords (like c e g#) much worse to resolve than diminished chords: diminished chords reduce to a seventh chord by lowering any chord note by a semitone and resolve obviously from there.

One can often actually use them functionally instead of a seventh chord in the first place.

Augmented chords don't work in that manner.

If you change one of their notes, the result will be a finished chord, but one that is not in useful harmonic relation to the augmented chord and thus does not serve as its resolution or as a satisfactorily meaningful part of a multi-step resolution.

Consequently, if you take a look at resolution master J.S.Bach, you'll find diminished chords all over the place in cadenzas, but mostly draw a blank on augmented chords.

While Dom talks about the V chords which in themselves sound unfinished, they are resolvable.

I think it may be diminished chords that you have in mind.

They use notes which are usually not within the key in question, thus sound a little strange, and can, by their make-up, go to several different places.

The V chord, 9 times out of 10, will find resolution in the I chord.

Everywhere in Western music.

Question: A musician friend mentioned this in passing - she talked about the  something  chord and then explained it was unresolvable, and how she hates it because she cannot stand music that doesn't resolve.  But I can't recall what it was called. I don't know enough to know if it really is a single chord, or a family of chords, or something less specific entirely.

What is the "unresolvable chord"?

The unresolved chord may be a reference to the  Tristan Chord , a famous chord from the opening of Richard Wagner's opera  Tristan und Isolde .   They may have said the Tristan Chord, but It could be argued it is resolvable, and in fact not mysterious... as others have pointed out, the analysis works well if you see the G# as a non-harmonic tone, a lower neighbor (in A minor) to the A at the end of the measure.

Without more context, it will be difficult to answer this question. However, the person in question may have been talking about the Tristan chord or diminished chords. Some people, meanwhile, would argue that no chord is unresolvable.

The person in question may have been talking about the tristan chord or diminished chords.

It would be hard to answer this question without more context, but some people would argue that no chord is unresolvable.


Just an idea, I haven't tried this, but SoundHound 1) supposedly recognizes tunes from singing the melody. 1) http://www.soundhound.com

Non-expert opinion:

Are you widely distributing it?

Is it possibly from a piece of music that still may be under copyright (link) ?

You could pay for a search or the advice of an entertainment attorney.

Otherwise, you might like to know just for your own understanding, but it probably isn't worth the effort, aside from maybe asking some experts.

If you have an artist in mind, you could listen to their collected recordings.

If it's only a few chords in the progression and you don't recognize it, it's probably not very identifiable.

You can do that only for recordings, not tunes.

For tunes you should officially register the tune to your name and claim your rights if by chance you notice someone other is using that.

This can happen if the tune goes popular.

If it doesn't go popular, then claiming and searching is also impractical.

Visit copright.gov and My Free Copyright for more information on registering tunes (and also recordings).

You can also use your local official time stamp agencies or notary for the same purpose.

For tracking recordings, I can suggest these services: Tunesat scans the tv stations and websites all around the globe and gives a periodical report of usage of your recordings.

This is a relatively expensive service for amateur uses.

Rumblefish scans YouTube and claim royalties but can be accessed only through agents like CDBaby , Tunecore ...

etc.

Yes, there are no exact way to find out if a tune is exist ant now, simply because there are too many songs and most of them contain a lot of notes.

However, there are cases where small parts of your song matches other small parts of other songs.

To answer your question, if your song is a piano song you made, try searching it up in the piano melody search engine, called http://www.musipedia.org/ .

This website lets you input a song or melody into its search engine, and searches it depending on if you want rhythm or melody to be searched more.

Keep in mind, it only works on piano songs as this website only contains these songs.

This website is great to see if your song matches or is close to another melody, as it will sort it from most likely match to least likely!

I use it to check for common tunes and if my songs are close to others.

Enjoy!

I know of no way to do it, but YouTube is inordinately successful at recognising copyrighted video even when it's been re-captured on a mobile phone, etc.

So I'm quite sure that technologically it would be possible - but it would need someone like Google to build it.

For copyright questions, one thing you could consider doing is searching for the tune on Peachnote.com to see if it exists in that database of 200,000 out of copyright musical sources (mostly classical).

If it appears in there then you don't have to worry about whether it appears in an in copyright song because you'd be protected since it'd be derivative of a melody that has already passed into the public domain.

Question: When I come up with a lick/melody, there always lingers that question of "Has this melody already been used?" Should I worry about it or is there a way to find out without too much hassle?

Any quick way to know if my tune is already used?

It is rather difficult to find out if a tune you have come up with has been used before. One option may be to try SoundHound http://www.soundhound.com which is supposed to recognize tunes when you sing the melody. If you have an artist in mind, you could listen to their collected recordings. For copyright questions, one thing you could consider doing is searching for the tune on  Peachnote.com  to see if it exists in that database of 200,000 out of copyright musical sources (mostly classical).

Some people would doubt whether it's possible to find this out since there are so many songs in existence. However, there are tools out there that might recognise music that you play, such as SoundHound, musipedia or Peachnote. Alternatively, if you have an artist in mind, you could simply listen to their recordings to see if you recognise something that you have composed.

If you have an artist in mind, you could listen to their recordings to see if you can identify your composition.

Some people would doubt that there is a way of doing this because there are simply too many songs to consider.

There are a range of tools out there that might be able to recognise music that you play, such as SoundHound, musipedia or Peachnote.


This might help : Haynes Guitar Books

I have the Stratocaster one and found it full of great info.

The guitar books are intended as a bit of 'uselful humour', I guess - if you haven't heard of Haynes, they're a part of the home auto mechanic's folklore (in UK at least):

Historically, from the 1960's, Haynes manuals have provided great information on how to maintain cars - one manual per model of car - stuff like how to remove the engine, overhaul brakes, set valve timing, etc.

A pretty major resource.

Obviously the range of manuals is huge, covering most cars back to the 60's.

Some of the older manuals are now quite valuable.

Recently they branched out

- you can get a Haynes manual for the USS Enterprise (maintenance & repair) and also how to maintain your wife / baby and Supermarine Spitfire - clearly intended as a joke but they often contain useful info.

OK maybe not in the USS enterprise one haha

However I have the Stratocaster manual

and it's very informative and goes through the kind of thing you're talking about.

I'm guessing the general

Electric Guitar one is just as good, just more generic.

I'm assuming here you mean electric guitar, but if acoustic, a lot of the same principles will apply.

Alternatively there may be an acoustic manual..

If you can find a luthier locally, you might be able to convince them to let you observe them working, especially on your own guitar - maybe even guide you to do the fixes yourself.

You could certainly ask your friendly luthier for advice how to learn, or at the very least how they learned.

If you are willing to buy a book, this is the indispensable reference: http://www.danerlewine.com/guitar_repair_books.html

The guy's a god, and it covers everything from how to string the instrument to insanely complex repairs like neck resets and fixing holes in the side...

I found this author extremely helpful.

His basic guitar setup is one of the indispensable books i used to learn.

Here's another even more basic but good book.

This one touches on both guitar and amps.

If you have a cheap beginners guitar to practice on you'll sleep better at night, but keep in mind the cheaper they are, the harder to get to play right and you'll be working for nothing.

But that's better than stripping the threads off the truss rod nut on a good guitar!

Get yourself a second hand guitar, broken or not.

Cheap is good.

Then use it as your guinea pig.

Chances are you won't break it, but when it ends up as a real playable instrument because you've fettled it by yourself, it'll be a great feeling.

If the worst comes to the worst, it's cost you very little, but given you great experience!

There are several instructional DVDs available that go through the entire flow of setting up a guitar.

Here's one example after a quick search: http://www.amazon.com/Guitar-Setup-Maintenance-Instructional-Denny/dp/B002I9PSQC

Your best option is to find a local luthier/guitar tech that is respected and ask to apprentice with him and learn everything you can.

Other than that, there are some schools that teach guitar tech.

One

I know of is the Musicians Institute: http://mi.edu/degrees-programs/industry-programs/guitar-craft/ That being said, you can also do what others are suggesting (and what I did) and just experiment on your own guitars and learn what you can from the internet.. there is tons of info out there about guitar maintenance and construction.

Question: I have watched countless Youtube videos with very little luck whatsoever. The information out there is so scattered. I am asking, is there a way I can learn to work on my guitar that is very simply stated? I want to learn to set the neck, adjust action and string height etc. Thanks

Where can I go to learn how to fix my guitar?

Finding a luthier locally, and asking them to let you observe them working, especially on your own guitar - maybe even guide you to do the fixes yourself - is one way of learning to fix your guitar. Otherwise, for books the indispensable reference is:  http://www.danerlewine.com/guitar_repair_books.html. There are also several instructional DVDs available that go through the entire flow of setting up a guitar.

Your best option will probably be to ask a local luthier if you can watch them and learn from them. Otherwise, there are instructional books or DVDs available that may be able to teach you what you need to know.

Your best option will be to find a local luthier and ask if you can observe them working to learn from them.

You could consider buying an instructional book or DVD to learn from.


Not everybody can do this but the trick is your finger forms a 2nd, partial barre at the 3rd fret, but bends

so it raises above the highest string.

Some people play A like this as standard however

I believe it partly comes down to luck how long your fingers are, how practical this technique will be.

Check out this awful drawing:

I use this kind of "A-shape" barre chord all the time, although I must admit I rarely teach it to students.

I actually find it easier than using fingers 2, 3 and 4 to play the three fret 3 notes.

All you have to do is bend your third L.H. finger backwards, so that the joint nearest the knuckle moves forwards and away from string 1.

Here's a picture of me using this technique:

Both answers are great, but do you know there are other ways to play this chord here.

The index barre can be over all 6 strings, which can all be strummed.

It just gives an inversion of Bb.

3 fingers can be used, on 2nd, 3rd and 4th strings.

Otherwise, two fingers can be used, with two strings held down by one finger, and the other with another finger.

As Bob says, it's hardly a beginner's shape, but I also use it in preference to my other suggestions.

It's o.k. to mute the top string, which note is actually replicated an octave lower.

The shape is of course movable to make any major.

Try it around frets 6-8, where there might be more success as the fretboard is a little wider.

If I want the high E string, if I need the high note, I play it with the middle finger on the G string, the ring finger on the D string and the pinky on the B. If I play the two-finger chord, I don't even want the high E.

I know you can, but it isn't what I'm doing.

Another option is to use the 4th finger to barr the 3 notes at the 3rd fret - my 4th finger will bend further and be able to leave the top string untouched.

(Took a few weeks of practice though!)

I have seen people who can get that F on the first (highest) string, but it is almost freakish.

Usually that highest string is muted for me.

Also, I would never fail to barre the sixth (lowest) string.

Just remember in this voicing, your root note is on the fifth string.

If you are "boom chucking" (playing root/chord/fifth/chord' etc.)

it puts that lower fifth tone right where you need it.

This chord is excellent for adding sevenths, both flat and major, as well as the sixth, up on top where they can be featured.

If you need a six string Bb, go on up to the sixth fret and barre E-style.

I remember not liking this chord, and the F on the first fret, but time and practice will make it all second nature.

Work away.

You will get there.

A friend o' mine did the double barre in a song many years ago

and I was like, "

Whoa, what's that?

He showed me and I went home and practiced it until my fingers ached, then practiced more.

It's great to have that major chord at such a quick flick from the majors above it G to C, A to D, etc..

Nice for speed songs like punk rock too.

Attack it and make it yours.

Question: This chord diagram is from the GarageBand chord trainer (I'm a beginner). How is it possible to put a barre down on the third fret without also muting the top E string?

How is this B flat guitar chord physically possible?

To play this B flat guitar chord, all you have to do is bend your third L.H. finger backwards, so that the joint nearest the knuckle moves  forwards  and away from string 1. Another option is to use the 4th finger to barr the 3 notes at the 3rd fret - my 4th finger will bend further and be able to leave the top string untouched.

How practical this chord will be to play will depend on how long your fingers are. However, in principal, you need to bend your finger backwards so that it doesn't mute the top string. Alternatively, you could use a different fingering altoghether.

To play this fingering, you will need to bend your finger backwards so that it doesn't mute the top string.

You could consider an alternative fingering to play this chord.