From my experience, there is no one 'best' term for two notes played together that is universally (or near-universally) agreed-on. dyad is the most specific term for a pair of pitches sounding together, but it's not commonly-used.

interval works for many, but others will say that is a term for the distance between the notes, rather than something that refers to the act of playing them together.

some will say that chord is fine for two notes, and that seems to be the case for specific usages like the term 'power chord'. on stringed instruments one may talk about playing a double-stop , although that's a reference to the playing technique rather than the pure concept.

So basically, whatever term someone uses, you have license to be a bore and tell them they're wrong.

Ultimately there is no unanimous definitions for these words, so it's useful to know how they can be used.

One definition has a chord being three or more notes.

This means that having only two notes wouldn't be a chord but would be an interval.

As someone else pointed out, power chords are a thing and consist of only two pitches (though they may run through several octaves).

It seems entirely reasonable to call such an interval a chord since it is functioning as one.

Which leads us to a definition based on function.

If your note aggregate under question functions as a chord in terms of voice leading and harmony then it would be a chord and an interval could then also be a chord .

But, just having three notes sounding at the same time would not necessarily be a chord if they are not functioning as a chord re voice leading and harmony.

Such a collection would just be a note aggregate or potentially a cluster.

In summary, you can define chords in terms of numbers or function.

An interval is always two pitches (though they can be the same exact pitch!)

and can be considered a chord in certain circumstances/definitions.

Under other circumstances having three or more notes might not be considered a chord but an aggregate or cluster (or even more confusingly a cluster chord! )

You'll hear and witness any and all of these usages

so it's good to be aware of the many different ways these terms are used.

A Chord is what happens when you play or sing more than one note at a time.

2 note chords are called partial chords.

3 note chords spaced by thirds and fifths are called Triads.

Triads are not ambiguous.

e.g. CEG is an unambigous C Major triad.

The idea behid so called partial chords is that thay are ambiguous.

For example C and E are notes in both the C Major (CEG) and A Minor (ACE) triads.

CE is a partial chord with no name.

A special case of this is so called '5' chords which do have a name.

G5, for example is comp\osed of the notes G and D.

It's called G5 because it contains the root G and its perfect fifth D. Since it has no third to tell whether it's Major or Minor

it's still ambiguous.

Rock Guitarist like these chords.

Just to be super clear: partial chords are bits of triads (usually), and Triads form the "cores" of larger chords (like Am7).

Melodic and Harmonic intervals: “Melodic” means played one note at a time, either ascending or descending in pitch.

“Harmonic” means both notes are played together.

( source )

In addition to @topomorto's answer you could also use "implied harmony."

For example, G over B moving to E over C (all naturals) implies a G major chord going to C major even though the fifths of the chord are missing from the implied triads.

I prefer this definition which simply defines chord as a harmonic entity of multiple pitches (indefinite quantity.)

If you want to refer to one of those chords as dyad , triad etc... https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/polyad

The actual answer is "An Interval."

Of course, that isn't a complete explanation.

An interval may appear on its own or as a representative of a chord.

For example the interval C-E by itself is just a major third.

In a piece of music it could stand for a C major chord, and A minor chord, depending on the voice leading.

It could just be an incomplete chord.

A fifth C-G can, with enough distortion be a Power Chord representing C major (or minor).

Yes, the nomenclature is not perfectly agreed upon.

But we simply have to deal with that.

How about simply stipulating what the tones are, and not agonizing over whether it's an "interval" or a "chord".

The definitions are not going to help tell you what it "is".

Harmonic interval = two notes played simultaneously.

Chord = three or more notes played simultaneously.

These definitions are universally accepted.

It's physics, much like GPS triangulation; it is not possible to determine the root let alone the type of chord unless you have at least three notes.

Regardless of the term to describe 2 notes playing together, playing only two notes is not enough to define the "character" of the "chord".

In other words, you can't say is minor or major only with 2 notes.

That's why you need a third or more.

Also, remember a chord doesn't need to be played by one instrument alone, let's say one instrument is playing just harmonic intervals (2 notes playing together) and another instrument is playing a melody on the top.

The points when the sounds of the 2 instrument mix together with 2 different notes creates the chords that defines the harmony of the song.

Question: Until very recently I'd though a chord was any group of notes played together.  However, I just heard a chord defined as "three  or more notes played together."  If this is the case, what should I call just two notes played together?

A chord is three notes? What do you call just two notes?

Two notes played together could be an interval, an incomplete chord. An interval may appear on its own or as a representative of a chord.

An interval may appear on its own or as a representative of a chord. A fifth C-G can, with enough distortion, be a Power Chord representing C major (or minor) The interval C-E by itself is just a major third.


It's going to depend a lot on the destination.

A violinist or guitarist wouldn't want to take their instrument into the jungle for even a few days.

And the pianist...

If possible they would find somewhere to play.

I used to go to the Canaries a lot, and found some nice schools of music - with instruments, of course.

Went to Russia years ago, ended up buying a guitar to keep practising.

A lot of musos have at least one other instrument to play.

Often, I'll put a clarinet or flute into the suitcase, small enough, and quiet enough to use almost anywhere.

Depending on the destination, (and genre!)

there may well be a band, orchestra or open mic venue that could be explored even before the sojourn takes place.

You're right - an edge is usually lost with that sort of time away - trumpeter's lip, fluidity, reading, chords not so frequently played on guitar, but it soon (hopefully) comes back.

But most musos would want to have their dose of music at a frequent level.

And let's not forget, he'll have his music to listen to, and maybe some dots to follow on the Ipad.

Most musicians take a small instrument with them when on holiday, but even if you don't, you still have your voice.

As long as you have a way to record or transcribe then you can still practice and learn.

I often find that a few days away from my main instrument really helps me change my improvisation structure, so I like to listen to a lot of different music on holiday.

That stuff I don't usually hear makes its way into my head and when I return it comes out in my playing.

If you're a serious professional musician you just DON'T take a day off practicing, let alone a month.

If your standards (or those of your employer) are lower, you just cope.

Yes, your playing will drop.

Yes, it will come back.

The answer to this also depends on how bad you want it.

If you simply play as a hobby, it may be good to take a hiatus to return with fresh creative inspiration and yearning to play.

For the die-hard, there's so many options with modern technology.

For the pianist: Funny story: my mentor, in the days before the technology pictured above, made this little board with a 2 octave run of piano keys.

He had ingeniously carved the board and attached the keys in a way that perfectly mimicked a piano's action.

Of course, it didn't produce sound...

But, he constructed it for the explicit purpose of being able to practice fingering while on vacation/holiday.

He'd continue to use it after that - even driving down the road.

:P

Yo-Yo Ma buys an extra plane ticket for his cello when he flies.

A professional will sometimes ship their instruments to the destination, when they can't be carried.

One can almost certainly line up a gig or two in order to cover any transit costs (playing music is never 'work' for some of us.)

I have basses in the homes of select friends and family for when I visit, so I don't have to carry around my main squeeze... Or purchase something inexpensive at the destination, as Tim says.

music.stackexchange.com/users/32548/Tim Burnett - Bassist

I'm not a pro

but I have a cheap guitar and mini practice amp and headphones that I take with me, as well as a portable digital piano with a decent feel.

I do spend two weeks away from my main gear every year but again, I'm not a pro.

Also those two weeks I spend at the beach

but at a rental cottage that has air conditioning

so it's ok for wood and electronics.

Question: let's say you wanted to take a 3 month vacation  How would you 'keep practicing?'  I mean you don't just forget everything but won't you feel like 'ugh' once you get back on your instrument?

what do musicians do if they want to take a vacation?

Most musicians take a small instrument with them when on holiday, but even if they don't, they still have their voice. As long as you have a way to record or transcribe then you can still practice and learn. A few days away from an instrument sometimes help change motivation and things you do not usually hear may pop into your head, providing new ideas when you go back

Musicians go on holiday to listen to music they don't usually hear. When they return they find that the new music they hear makes their way into their heads. They often find that a few days away from their main instrument really helps them change their structure.

Most musicians take a small instrument with them when on holiday, but even if you don't, you still have your voice. When they return they find that the new music they hear makes their way into their heads. They often find that a few days away from their main instrument really helps them change their structure.


That seems to be a turn.

It is indicated in front of the note so as to tell you to play the ornament before the pulse.

Those will be played very quickly as not to take away too much from the pulse.

These are just like the cherry on the cake, embellishment, little extra ways in which music is made interesting.

The little notes in this bar ( little as in "smaller noteheads and beams") are called grace notes .

They don't count towards the total, and how they are played depends on the context.

Your example might be played like this:

You are seeing, and counting, an ornament.

See it play it, but it has no extra count in this bar.

This is called a turn and is usually played so that it starts at the moment when that last quaver would be played.

Here, it appears to be wanted to be played so the last quaver is on time.

Sometimes these are written out in full, using smaller dots than the rest of them, sometimes just with a sign.

There are various different ornaments, all being named separately, and the timing can and does vary.

Even though they are joined with beams, the 32nd notes are printed smaller than the surrounding notes.

To my eye, that would suggest that they should be interpreted as grace notes.

While grace notes are typically printed with a single flag and a slash, a run of such notes would make music hard to read, as would a run of non-beamed sixteenth or thirty-second notes.

I would thus regard the triple beams not as an indicating that the smaller notes should each have a duration equal to one thirty-second note, but rather merely as a means of making a group of grace notes more readable.

The 32nd notes are just there to denote a flourish, almost like a pick up to the next note.

Question: Consider:   Quarter notes + 4 32nd notes + 8th note.  In a 3/8 time signature, there should be no space for the 8th note. What am I not seeing?

Why am I seeing more notes than allowed to be in a bar?

Those extra notes in a bar will be played very quickly as not to take away too much from the pulse.  They are just like the cherry on the cake, embellishment, little extra ways in which music is made interesting.

That seems to be a turn. It is indicated in front of the note so as to tell you to play the ornament before the pulse.


They save weight.

They don't save a large percentage of the overall weight of the stand, but they make it less top-heavy and therefore more stable when raised high or angled back a long way.

Just to expand on the question of "why not just make it thinner?

- the reason for that is because a thicker sheet with holes will be stiffer than a thinner sheet with no holes with the same amount of metal in.

It won't necessarily be stronger in every loading mode -

indeed it may be weaker in some - but with a structure like a music stand, wobbliness becomes a problem long before breakage does.

A loose page settles faster on the stand (and is easier to remove)

when the air behind it can escape.

That's at least the reasoning behind the namesake "vent hole".

In practice, this is of relevance at best when you are playing from one large scotched-together wobbly monster sheet.

In that case both the settling time gain as well as the removal time may be noticeable: if the monster sheet keels over and peels off the stand, you want it do so while you are still having your hand nearby.

As soon as several loose sheets stack up, the difference is unlikely to be noticeable unless you have static electricity involved.

I run the sound system at my church, and I have found that the music stands with holes make it easier for the musicians and vocalists to hear themselves in the stage monitors.

The solid music stands can block a lot of the sound from the monitors.

Of course a thick book on the stand with holes, also blocks the sound.

But the sound easily passes through a few sheets of paper.

@topo morto is correct when he talks about weight.

It most likely lowers the centre of gravity of the stand, stopping it from falling over.

Another major reason is that it would reduce the weight of a shipment of these stands.

The weight saving on one stand might only be a few grams, but the weight saving on a container full off these would be significant enough to save on shipping costs.

I joined this StackExchange site just to post this.

Not sure why I care.

I agree that weight is probably the reason, but that can't be the whole story – you could always achieve a lower mass by just making the stand out of thinner sheet metal.

The problem with that is that it would lack the stability one expects from a proper orchestral music stand, for two reasons: Strength of elements that are much thinner than wide scales with the square of thickness (while mass increases only linearly).

Therefore, if you use just a little bit thicker metal sheet than would be needed as such, you can already cut out a whole lot of weight in form of these holes (which also reduces strength only linearly).

This is actually the same reason that the stand stands on metal tubing , rather than heavy solid pillars – at the same mass (where you'd rather call the wires ), these would be much weaker!

Not all parts of the surface need to have the same strength.

In fact most of the forces hinge on the center, where it's attached, and on the edges.

That's why there are no holes in the lower center part, and the edges are folding back.

Sam is correct when referring to shipping costs, but has missed out a bit.

The less material used in manufacturing, the lower the cost.

Also, the metal that would have been in the holes would be used to make more stands from the original metal.

Result, Holes mean more manufactured units with a lower unit cost.

When using a music stand with a solid back in a recording studio around super sensitive mics vocalist and other instruments can resonate the stand and you can actually hear it in certain circumstances.

The holes seem to cut down on the resonance.

Now that I'm playing a trumpet, I realize that playing with the horn directed at the music stand will make it sound muted.

Holes might give me something else to shoot at.

While On-Stage Music Stands web page attributes their holes to save weight, the reason I would switch has to do with sound.

It just doesn't seem to be enough weight or cost savings just to talk about steel.

Question: I was looking at music stands and a number of them do not have solid backs, rather, they have holes through them, like shown. Are these just for aesthetic purposes, or do they have a practical purpose?

What do 'vent holes' do on a music stand?

When using a music stand with a solid back in a recording studio around super sensitive mics vocalist and other instruments can resonate the stand and you can actually hear it in certain circumstances.  The holes seem to cut down on the resonance.

Resonant music stands can resonate when used in a recording studio. This is especially true around super sensitive mics vocalist and other instruments. The holes seem to cut down on the resonance.


Middle C is C4, 9 semitones below A4.

A4 is commonly defined as 440Hz, so C4 is 2 (−9/12) × 440 Hz,

about 261.625565302 Hz.

That's it, regardless of instrument.

Some clefs are transposing and this is not always clearly indicated by small numbers attached to the clef (tenors tend to sound an octave lower than standard violin clef would indicate, soprano recorders an octave higher

, other transposing instruments have fixed offsets).

But regardless of how it is written, C4 is the same pitch for all instruments.

To address the "what is the actual definition of numbered octaves?" question: Referring to pitches via note-names with octave numbers, like C4, is scientific pitch notation .

Leaving aside some complications related to pitch standards and temperament , these indicate specific note frequencies (physics) and thus pitches (psychoacoustics), as indicated in the table in the linked Wiki page.

But how can a musician know where Middle C is on any other instrument...?

When you learn an instrument, this is one of the things you learn.

Actually, it may be two of the things you learn.

It's two things (for some instruments) because you normally want to know what note to play on your instrument when you read middle C in notation, and if you have a transposing instrument, you also normally want to know what note to play on your instrument to create the sound of middle C. On transposing instruments, what you play when you read middle C on the staff and what note sounds like middle C are two different things.

You might be someone who was taught piano at an early age, so it seems obvious to you.

I say that because you wrote, " ...these definitions seem self-explanatory on an 88-key piano because it's where it is.

" I don't think middle C on a piano is self-explanatory at all!

For example, one of the first things I was shown when I was taught piano is that the C under the brand/logo for the piano is called "middle C" and looks like this on the page (the ledger line between the treble and bass clefs on the grand staff).

That's also something I have taught piano students.

Otherwise, how would you know?

A similar teaching process happens for all instruments.

Now perhaps middle C itself is not taught on the first day of other instruments, but "home base" notes will be taught on day one.

The open strings of a guitar or violin will be matched with the sheet music.

And simple finger positions (e.g., all valves open) and their notated notes on wind and brass instruments will be taught very early on.

From there, students will sooner or later play up or down the range of their instrument to middle C when it's notated.

You've been asking about history on other answers, so I wanted to address this.

The first historical answer that could be given would be "they didn't care."

If you're just playing solo, you often don't need to line up "perfectly" with an particular pitch.

Instruments could vary accordingly.

You'd simply make the instrument play one note that's "roughly" in the right place, and then tune the rest of the instrument from there.

This process is great until you have to have two instruments play together.

When they have to play together, they have to agree on which pitches they're going to play.

One approach to this is to have every pitch variable.

Many old stringed instruments could retune strings or even move frets.

Now, to take the step towards "middle C," you have to play this way for a bunch of years.

Over time musicians will start to realize that it's cheaper and easier to play together if all of the instruments "agree" on a pitch.

Musical instrument makers started standardizing their instruments to suit.

It might be a local standard, or a worldwide size and shape.

All that mattered was that they agreed enough.

Eventually we standardized on a tonal system which centered around the pitch of the note we now call A4.

It's currently specified to be 440Hz (it's varied through the years a bit).

We can then define A5 A6, etc.

by doubling that frequency (880Hz 1.7KHz respectively).

Any instrument that wants to play well with others will be judged by how well it matches those reference frequencies.

Of course they didn't phrase it that way at first.

However, there are many shapes of resonators which can be constructed to a fixed size and thus resonate at a given frequency.

The numeric frequencies came later -- reproducible shapes and sizes came first.

Now days, even with the ubiquitous standard of A4=440Hz, we still tune the same way they did in the days of yore.

Due to atmospheric and temperature changes, instruments change tuning all the time.

In an orchestra, everyone adjusts their tuning to that of the oboe because the oboe has the least room to adjust their pitch (due to the design of the instrument).

The one exception is if there is a piano on stage, in which case the piano is even harder to re-tune than the oboe, so everyone tunes to the piano instead).

Middle C is the note with frequency 262Hz (or thereabouts, we don't need to split hairs here).

It's MIDI note #60.

It's usually called C4, there is also a system that calls it C3.

A side issue - some instruments are 'Transposing instruments'.

They read a middle C, the pitch that sounds is really something else.

For a Bb Trumpet it's Bb.

Are we talking about the true middle C or that instrument's middle C?

Whatever you feel about which is 'correct', sometimes it will need to be made clear.

Question: After reading into some music theory, it seems that a lot of the definitions depend on specific octaves i.e. Treble Clef on G4 and Middle C on C4.  Now these definitions seem self-explanatory on an 88-key piano because it's where it is. But how can a musician know where Middle C is on any other instrument or even vocally? What is the actual definition of numbered octaves?

How is Middle C generally defined and located on any instrument?

S0: Middle C is C4, 9 semitones below A4.  A4 is commonly defined as 440Hz, so C4 is 2 (−9/12)  × 440 Hz, about 261.625565302 Hz. That's it, regardless of instrument.  Regardless of how it is written, C4 is the same pitch for all instruments.

Middle C is C4, 9 semitones below A4.  A4 is commonly defined as 440Hz, so C4 is 2 (−9/12)  × 440 Hz,about 261.625565302 Hz. Regardless of how it is written, C4 is the same pitch for all instruments and regardless the instrument.


It's not going to make much difference.

The tension differential is less than 5% overall.

If you can manage it, get another guitar and have each in the tuning you need.

One always has at least one guitar fewer than one already needs!

Switching between standard E tuning and drop D tuning is so common that some guitarists use special tuning knobs that flip between the two with a switch.

I have a bass guitar version on my Fender Jazz bass.

Some guitarists have practiced this retuning so extensively that they can do it by feel with just the regular knob – if you have ever watched a medley of popular riffs on YouTube, you may have seen the performer do this.

In short, don’t worry about it!

I would say only when you actually tune up do you risk hurting the guitar but who does that anyway?

Drop tuning may affect the intonation of the guitar but that is in no way breaking the guitar, and can be fixed relatively easily.

Not at all, I've used many, many guitars throughout the years.

All of which could hold tone, and had relatively decent intonation.

I would (and still do) switch between tunings.

Standard to Drop D, Drop D to Drop C#, back up to Standard.

Now it can overtime give your tuning pegs more wear and tear, but thats the nature of playing guitar.

Also changing and using alternate tunings is a great way to learn more chord structures, and is great practice for those who like to focus on progressions.

I would also add to the very good answers, that in the past string tension was unfairly blamed for issues with humidity.

Guitars are often damaged because of dryness (like winter weather or desert heat, or simply a dry house environment) or proximity to heat.

The issues this low humidity causes falsely makes the strings look like the perpetrator.

And of course, if you try hard enough, with a weird enough tuning you can cause damage.

For example if you fully loosen the four bottom strings, and tighten the top two strings to an extreme and leave the guitar that way for weeks or months...

well then maybe you could cause the neck might to develop a twist.

No problem.

The drop-d tuning only changes the total tension about four percent, so it will not do any damage to the guitar.

Your low E string will not last as long, however.

Question: I'm currently learning a song which needs drop-d tuning.    Since I found myself switching back and forth from drop-d to standard tuning a couple of times a day, I wonder if I'm risking damage to the guitar by doing so.   [It's an acoustic guitar, in case that matters]

Do I risk ruining my guitar by switching the tuning often?

Guitars are often damaged because of dryness (like winter weather or desert heat, or simply a dry house environment) or proximity to heat. The issues this low humidity causes falsely makes the strings look like the perpetrator.  However, unless you indulge in a lot of weird tuning, you are unlikely to damage the guitar in that way.

Guitars are often damaged because of dryness (like winter weather or desert heat, or simply a dry house environment) or proximity to heat.  With a weird tuning you can also cause neck problems.

Guitars are often damaged because of dryness (like winter weather or desert heat, or simply a dry house environment) or proximity to heat. Low humidity makes the strings look like the perpetrator. With a weird tuning you can also cause neck problems. For example, tighten the top two strings to an extreme and leave them loose for weeks or months.


I think the heart of the question is, which is more important: gear or skill?

The answer to that question is skill is more important .

Skill is the product of training, practice, and experience, and people with the highest skill levels have a great advantage in producing the best results, in any field.

You specifically asked about the skills of mixing and mastering, but there are two other skills that are more important for quality vocal recordings: singing and recording .

The first and most important step in the quality chain of any music recording is the musician/artist.

The skill level of the musician(s) involved in a recording is the number one factor that determines the eventual quality of the recording.

Better musicians know how to get the best sounds from their instruments and voices, play in tune and on time, know how to work with microphones to make sure the best sound is picked up by them, and know how to "mix" themselves in with the rest of the band.

The skills that better musicians bring to the recording studio make all the other jobs of making recordings easier.

The next and second most important skill in making quality recordings is recording, which might more clearly be called "recording engineering".

Once you've got great sound coming from the musicians, you have to capture that sound onto a recording medium.

This is a very challenging skill and has a huge impact on the results.

Just a few millimeters of movement of a microphone can make a large difference in what that microphone picks up, and can turn an epic drum sound into a dull thud, or a beautiful vocal into a nasal whine.

Microphone selection and placement might be the most important jobs of a recording engineer, but they are not the only tasks that have a great effect on the quality of a recording.

The placement of the musician(s) within an air space, the direction that instruments and microphones are facing, the technical aspects of managing the electronic signal produced by microphones, and also any processing done during the recording process are other aspects of recording engineering.

We should also not discount the artistic decisions made along the way.

In a big-budget production, there is almost always a person who is an additional artistic expert called a producer who either has the final say or offers an additional opinion on how different playing styles, tones, microphone placement, EQ settings, etc.

all work together to create a great work of art.

The best producers have skills in both the musical and technical realms, and understand how to make things groove as well as make recordings sound clear and exciting.

Their skills are invaluable in creating the best recordings.

The weakest link in the chain will significantly determine the result.

A grammy award winning engineer will not be able to fix a bad recording (due to lousy voice or lousy microphoning), like a Photoshop award winning retoucher will not be able to fix a bad photograph (due to skin problems or lousy lighting).

You need to work with solidly good material to arrive at great results.

Yes, any part of the recording chain can be a limiting factor.

But the technical level of today's affordable equipment is pretty good.

If the performance is good, the room sound is good and the engineer doesn't do anything wrong, premium equipment may not have much to add.

When magazines do equipment 'shoot-outs' it's very usual to discover that it's difficult to tell the price of a microphone from a blind test!

From an amateur home recording viewpoint I think you have to have a minimum level of quality equipment or you end up faking it in the mixing/mastering phase with fx.

Doesn't have to be very top shelf, but you can't really get good results from the cheapest thing you find at Guitar Center.

Of course my voice is hopeless regardless of equipment, but I prefer a pristine warble.

Experience and skill are much more important, the knowledge of the best techniques, how to make the most of any given situation and deal with problems that almost always present themselves, will usually yield better results than the best equipment in the hands of someone who doesn't know how to obtain optimal results from that same equipment.

That said, of course you need to go for the best people and the best equipment available to you at any given place or time.

Question: I know that they both have a role to play, but could a grammy award winning engineer make a crispy vocal using just his engineering skills regardless of equipment used?

Does the microphone gear/setup used to record vocals determine the output quality of the music or does the mixing and mastering?

Experience and skill are much more important, the knowledge of the best techniques, how to make the most of any given situation and deal with problems that almost always present themselves, will usually yield better results than the best equipment in the hands of someone who doesn't know how to obtain optimal results from that same equipment. That said, of course you need to go for the best people and the best equipment available to you at any given place or time.

The knowledge of the best techniques will yield better results than the best equipment in the hands of someone who doesn't know how to obtain optimal results from that same equipment. That said, of course you need to go for the best people.


Capo quality matters, but not for tone.

A better capo may give you more even tension on the strings, it may be more convenient to use, or maybe it's made of more durable materials or components that can be services or replaced as they wear.

The guitar's tone will only become affected if the capo throws the strings out of tune differently across the neck, or doesn't hold the strings tightly enough and causes buzzing or muting.

Capos can also throw guitars out of tune when used; better capos will do this less than simple ones.

(It's worth mentioning that a capo doesn't need to clamp on the strings tightly; it only needs to hold them firmly enough

so the strings ring freely.

A capo that clamps the strings too tightly will often throw the guitar out of tune.)

Capos that use a spring to hold the neck are harder to adjust than one that uses an a mechanism with adjustable tension, but for guitars with a fairly average-sized neck this may not matter.

The style of capo that has a stretchy elastic band to clip onto the neck can sometimes work on steel-string guitars but it works very well on classical guitars, that have nylon strings with low tension.

There are many different styles and types of capo, all with the same end product in mind.

However, they do differ a lot.

Some are dead straight, to work with flat fingerboards.

Others have a radius which approximately matches the fingerboard radius on cambered fingerboards.

The way they attach to the neck varies too, and some are very easy to move up and down, while others need adjustment.

Those with a spring for tension cannot be adjusted, so may, on some guitars, squeeze too hard and put the guitar out of tune, necessitating retuning for each position change.

But they store easily on the head of the guitar when not being used.

I don't use capos often, but prefer G7,(not the cheapest!)

which can be attached with as much or little pressure as needed.

There are many different designs, so it's worth trying several out.

Take guitar to shop.

Until you've tried them out, you really won't know whether it was hard sell or good sell.

The cheapest is a pencil and rubber band - yes, it works - right through to a 'Spider', which takes things to a different level.

A cheap capo might seem just as good at first...

Give it a year or so of regular use

and you'll realise why you pay extra for a good quality capo

, they're more durable and maintain their tension so the strings will be held tightly.

Cheap capos lose tension and need replacing.

I bought a cheap capo and replaced it within a year with a good one that cost twice as much and hasn't needed replacing in 7 years.

Yes.

It's mainly the strength of the metal spring to consider and how many strings it frets.

Partial capos are great.

I have to use two capos on one fret because my expensive capo is nice metal cast but the spring needs to be pulled apart with needle-nose pliers.

Here is a YouTube video of a homemade "snare" capo that sounds terrible.

I have used the "K" brand quick change on my Martin 000X ae , Taylor 414ce, Ovation 12 string and Gibson J150 for 10 years and it works great.

Pressure on the strings is even and enough

so they ring like an open chord.

I see capos for $60 USD

and I think that's over the top.

The "K" brand (not sure I am allowed to name them) are about $14.00 USD.

I use the 12 string capo (the black "quick change" one) on all the guitars (6 and 12 string) and my capo has lasted 10 years, no wear or tear or issues.

I find them easy to use at gigs

and I leave it on the headstock for quick changes.

Also - there is no dan=mage to the neck from the rubber like some

say.....

aside from keeping the strings suppressed properly and evenly and staying in tune - a capo does not affect the sound tone - just the pitch

One thing to consider when getting a capo is how much it gets in the way of your hand up there on the 7th fret

(I have big hands).

Fingering notes right next to the capo may be a bit cumbersome with a clunky device.

BTW some capos are capable of barring just a few strings.

Most others are all or nothing.

Question: I feel I was fooled by a music store. They made me buy a really expensive capo saying that it gives a better tone than normal cheap one. However, I recently bought a cheap wooden capo and I could not hear much of a difference.   Does capo quality really make a difference to the tone?   I feel that as long as the capo holds the strings tightly, it doesn't matter.

Does capo quality make any difference?

Capo quality matters, but not for tone. A better capo may give you more even tension on the strings, it may be more convenient to use, or maybe it's made of more durable materials or components that can be services or replaced as they wear.   Capos can also throw guitars out of tune when used; better capos will do this less than simple ones. A capo that clamps the strings too tightly will often throw the guitar out of tune. Capos that use a spring to hold the neck are harder to adjust than one that uses an a mechanism with adjustable tension, but for guitars with a fairly average-sized neck this may not matter. The style of capo that has a stretchy elastic band to clip onto the neck can sometimes work on steel-string guitars but it works very well on classical guitars, that have nylon strings with low tension.

A capo doesn't need to clamp on the strings tightly; it only needs to hold them firmly enough. A capo that clamps the strings too tightly will often throw the guitar out of tune. Capos that use a spring to hold the neck are harder to adjust than one that uses an adjustable tension mechanism. A stretchy elastic band to clip onto the neck can sometimes work on steel-string guitars but it works very well on classical guitars with nylon strings with low tension. The best capo for playing classical guitars is the one that clips onto the guitar's neck.


Chord inversion is effectively helping you to build a voicing / melody e.g. in the upper notes.

So, not inverting a chord could be considered ineffective from a melodic point of view.

Regarding the bass progression, you can still play the root with the left hand, if needed.

The way one of my music teachers explained it to me was that a root position triad was like a chair with four legs - very stable; a first inversion was like a chair with three legs - still stable, but less so; and a second inversion was like a chair with two legs - rather unstable!

It's not really 'accurate', of course, just a fun way of explaining it.

And yet he (and I) would agree that yes - you do sometimes 'lose' something when you invert a chord , whether you think it's some sense of 'stability', or (as I do) some of the sense of consonance.

However, this is a good thing!

Why?

because we don't necessarily want every moment in our music to feel completely concordant, settled, and resolved; we want to have moments of lower consonance and less stability that lead the listener's ear to expect the piece to move forward towards consonance and stability.

The other benefit it gives you is to allow individual musical lines that move in a more interesting way.

The shape of the bass line can capture the ear like any other melody, and by allowing it to move away from the root of the chord to other chord tones, you can give it a lot more freedom.

You don't lose the harmonic function of the chord.

So, if you play a V in root position, 1st, 2nd or whichever inversion, it will work the same, no matter which note is on the bass.

This is

because you don't change the chord per se, you just change the way the notes are arranged ( and especially the bass note )

Inversions are an easy way to make a simple chord progression interesting.

It'd be boring to play the same chords over and over again, so you can create more interesting patterns by inverting them.

Also, the bass lines become way more interesting if you use inverted chords.

It's fine.

Though there are certainly cases where you'd be more confident or not.

For instance if playing with a group that includes a bass player or bass-like instrument that is playing a bass line, it definitely doesn't matter if you play it.

On the other hand if it's a song where the bass line is not just supporting the harmony but is a distinct and important riff itself, then somebody should probably be playing it.

So when playing such a piece solo it may even be best to devote your left hand to it entirely.

But generally the answer is that it's fine.

The harmonic function will still be felt.

In fact, if you don't play inversions—or more accurately if your voicings aren't voice led from one to the next—you may be missing the some of the point of the harmony in that instead of a note moving to the next in a smooth and pleasing manner, it may make a large and potentially awkward intervalic jump.

Yes, the defining bass note (root) does get lost a little.

No,the bass progression doesn't get lost.

It's hardly going to be a progression if only the root notes are played in the bass.

Other passing notes are usually involved, and they don't always lead directly to the next root.

Yes, they can, but that becomes quite predictable, and in music, it's good to do things that the listener isn't expecting.

So, playing, say, a C under a C chord is fine - especially in C, but with C,C,B,Bb in that bar, there's a good reason to play an A in the next bar, which looks like it's going to be an F chord.

On a G abar, going back to C, a B bass works well, followed by an almost inevitable root C.

It all works, and really, there's no 'problem' to get around.

There is a difference between the root progression of chords and the actual bass notes used.

The OP has touched upon what happens.

One may have (for example) a chord progression of C-B0-C with the bass being E-D-C, it's not uncommon.

Note that the first two chords are in first inversion.

One hears a C chord then a B0 (diminished)

chord then another C chord but simultaneously hears a stepwise descending bass line.

First inversions do not radically change the sound of a chord (they do change it though).

First inversions are useful to keep the bass line moving when bass line with jumps may not be suitable.

That's a decision a composer or arranger must make.

Another possibility would be a chords C-B-C with chords being C-G-C or C-G6-C; in the first case the bass is C-G-C which is fine; in the second case the bass line would be C-B-C which moves less; also fine, but different.

Second inversion chords change the sound a bit more and are thus more complex to analyze.

Sometimes the second inversions are used in a manner that the do not sound like the main chord at all, but rather as another chord with non-chord notes attached.

In the classical Dm-C64-G7-C, the second inversion C64 sounds a bit like a G chord with a couple of notes moving to their "correct" places later.

In other places a C-G64-C6, the G sounds like a G chord with a stepwise moving bass.

Much depends on the point of view of the composer (or analyst); one can thing of a succession of chords or a bunch of melodies which coincide to produce chords at different places.

Both are useful.

Question: If we invert the chords on a simple song on the piano, then we lose the tonic in the bass.  So doesn't the bass progression get lost (?)  I heard somewhere that to  listen by ear one has to listen to the bass notes . But if we change the bass around then how would one hear the chord? doesn't the chord get muddied or something?  However it seems to me that most piano players invert their chords. So how do people get around this "problem"?

If you invert a chord, doesn't it lose its defining bass note?

Chord inversion is effectively helping you to build a voicing / melody e.g. in the upper notes. Not inverting a chord could be considered ineffective from a melodic point of view.  Regarding the bass progression, you can still play the root with the left hand, if needed.


In most theories of music, the concept doesn't have enough value to be worth naming.

Of course if your research shows that the concept does have some value, you can therefore name it yourself!

On a short timescale (two or three notes), the term Cambiata is used, especially in polyphonic music.

On a long timescale, terms like "climax of a phrase" (or of a piece) express the general idea, but may include other aspects of the music, such as dynamics, texture, or instrumentation.

Some possibilities: "local peaks and valleys" is used on page 61 of David Temperley's "Music and Probability"; "local high tones" is used on page 91 of David Lewin's "Generalized Musical Intervals and Transformations"; "local maxima" can be found here and here , among other places.

We also talk about "extremes of range," so perhaps you could discuss "the local extreme of G3.

" The problem here is that clarifying "the local upper extreme" starts to be linguistically cumbersome.

And since you're focusing on pitches "at which the melody changes its direction," maybe you should use terminology that emphasizes that instead?

For notes that aren't part of the underlying chord progression, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonchord_tone has names of several types of "elbow notes", such as Neighbouring Tone (approach and leave by step) and Appoggiatura (approach by leap, leave by step, accent the "elbow note").

The above doesn't 100% answer the question, but it's possible that music theorists generally aren't interested in the generalized "elbow note" because of ubiquity problems like Tim mentioned.

Toch ("The Shaping Forces of Music") describes melodies as being wave-like with successions of higher and lower waves.

This suggest the terms "peak" and "trough" for such notes.

I think I have seen the terms "highs and lows" used, but that may be overworked.

In general you wouldn't single out these pitches, but they would be apart of the contour or shape of the melody.

There's a lot of detail you can get based on the contour of the piece and

the basic contours you can have are: Ascending First pitch lower than middle pitch.

Middle pitch lower than lastpitch.

Descending First pitch higher than middle pitch.

Middle pitch higher than finalpitch.

Concave

First and last pitch higher than middle pitch.

Convex

First and last pitch lower than middle pitch.

Horizontal

First, middle, and last pitch, roughly equivalent in range.

source As you break down the contour into bigger or smaller pieces these notes will stand out as will the lower notes on the other end of the spectrum, but there's no reason to call them anything fancy.

The reason why is the contour itself is much more important the individual notes that make it up.

The most you'll ever see them called is a climax and if you're really specific a local climax.

I don't think there is a universal term for this, though Philip Ball uses the term "reversal" in his book "The Music Instinct".

If you were wanting to break new ground, here are two suggestions:1.For medievalists, perhaps acme localis 2.For cutting edge-ists

there is (as of now I think)

the nonce word locacme , derived from 1.

Question: For an academic study, I am planning to find the effect of the notes at which the melody changes its direction.  So, for example in a melody like: C3 G3 F3 D3 E3  G3 and D3 are those notes that I am interested in, because the notes next to G3 are both lower than it, and similarly, the notes next to D3 are both higher than it.  So, is there a name for such notes, for example  elbow note  maybe?

A name for a note that is higher or lower than the neighboring notes

A note that is higher or lower than neighboring notes, on a short timescale (two or three notes), the term  Cambiata  is used, especially in polyphonic music. On a long timescale, terms like "climax of a phrase" (or of a piece) express the general idea, but may include other aspects of the music, such as dynamics, texture, or instrumentation.

On a short timescale (two or three notes), the term Cambiata is used, especially in polyphonic music. On a long timescale, terms like "climax of a phrase" (or of a piece) express the general idea.


There is no point in changing all the strings, especially since the remaining ones are so new.

When comes the time for total replacement in 6 months, a year, depending how much it gets played, then yes, change them all.

I'm pretty sure

singles are available, but if not, a whole set isn't going to break the bank, and having spares is a sensible situation to be in.

Bit like that insurance policy - useless until it's needed!

As a new violinist, be very careful you tune to the correct notes, and not an octave higher.

Seen it happen, not a pretty sight.

Hint: Get into the habit of slackening off your fine tuner when you are changing a string.

This will give you more adjustment after you have roughly tuned it with the tuning peg and for subsequent tuning adjustments.

Your violin is unlikely to get bumped 'sharp', so you will rarely need to fine tune it down far.

For the first time, maybe it's best to ask the music store to fit the new string.

Watch the way they do it.

For example, it's good to make sure that the string windings stay near the outside of the peg box, rather than the centre.

That will stop the peg from slipping outwards and loosening its grip in the peg hole.

You can absolutely buy individual violin strings.

Many players use an E string that doesn't match the brand of their other strings.

A generic music shop probably doesn't do enough volume to sell anything other than sets, but a shop that caters to string players will have the individual strings.

There may be one locally, or you can order online.

The three stores I've bought from online are Shar music, Johnson Violin, and Southwest Strings.

There are certainly other reputable shops as well.

You mention having the music store put in your string.

Ask them to show you how to change the string, because it is very simple and something every student should know.

They may charge a small fee, especially if you don't buy the string from them.

From experience, violinists don't actually like the timbre of new strings.

While guitarists typically chase the timbre produced by a fresh set of strings, violinists prefer the timbre of strings that have at least bedded in, and will only replace strings if they break, start to unwind or develop an undesirable tonal artifact.

With this in mind, I think it would be more typical for a violinist to replace a single string than to replace all four when one breaks.

The other thing to note here is the cost of violin strings.

Beyond purchasing a spare set for emergencies, it could get fairly costly fairly quickly were you to replace all four strings whenever one broke.

The thing to keep in mind when replacing single strings is to find the gauge of the broken string and get an individual string of the same gauge.

This way, the original setup of your violin stays intact.

Usually, a music store should have a device to measure the gauge.

So I advice you to find another store to get it replaced.

I suggest you replace the strings that came with your violin within 6 months.

It probably is not of the greatest quality unless you bought a 4000 dollar violin.

Keep at least 2 sets of spares safely.

They may get damaged on exposure to extreme atmospheric conditions.

After a while adjust your set up mixing and matching different strings of different brands and gauges to your preference.

Question: I just received my violin  2 days ago .  My E string broke when I tuning it.  I enquired nearby musical instrument store and they only sell the whole set of strings.  So, do I have to replace all strings or I keep G, D, A strings and only replace E string?

Do I have to replace all violin strings when E string broke?

You can absolutely buy individual violin strings. A generic music shop probably doesn't do enough volume to sell anything other than sets,  but a shop that caters to string players will have the individual strings. There are many reputable specialist stores and you can also buy strings online. Ask the store to show you how to fit the string as all students should know how to do that.

You can absolutely buy individual violin strings. Many players use an E string that doesn't match the brand of their other strings. Ask them to show you how to change the string,  because it is very simple and something every student should know. They may charge a small fee,  especially if you don't buy the string from them. The three stores I've bought from online are Shar music, Johnson Violin, and Southwest Strings.


It's somewhat subjective, but my problem is how does one name a dyad, apart from calling it an interval.

Thus power chord becomes D5 - an interval.

Most chords, to me, need the blend of minimum three notes.

Majors and minors will have that interval between root and three.

Some will argue, corectly to an extent, that actually the root will usually sound a 5th as its second harmonic, thus it's going to sound anyway - a good reason why some jazz chords leave out the P5.

However - if that's the case, is that actually a two note 'chord', as we hear and perceive three notes...

So, what do we call other two note 'chords'?

All the 'proper' chord names won't work, as they're specific to the notes in that chord.

Taking a note out of even a three note chord stops it being an xyz.

The power chord works sonically because the 3 is missing.

Favoured by guitarists using distortion/overdrive.

With those effects, the harmonics of each note are accentuated, and those belonging to the 3 clash with the others.

Root and 5 harmonics generally sound o.k. together, so it works.

But, to me at least, it still isn't a chord, but an interval - a dyad.

A chord is in no way always played at the same time.

Arpeggios and broken-chords are chords in the broader sense of the word and neither are played at the same time.

A proper melody also has a harmonic structure built on chords and again none of the notes are played at the same time.

Also a chord can have three notes as maybe the stadard but it could also have four notes or even five, there is nothing forcing a chord to only have three notes, it can be any number of thirds.

As for the specifics about two note chords with guitar, that is much more a peculairity of the guitar as instrument.

The guitar has a wealth of harmonics on each string that make playing two note chords still work, but you are right if you take the concepts away from the guitar

then G - B would be the space between two notes ie an interval.

Terminology is fickle.

If you want to be exact, don't try to find the "exact" line between what is considered a "chord" or not, because the line will always be arbitrary, as the other answers show.

Rather, specify the tones and don't worry about whether they constitute a "chord" or not.

A chord is, simply put, a group of notes (usually three or more although 2 can still be considered a chord) played as a basis of harmony.

They do not necessarily have to be played simultaneously.

So yes 2 notes CAN be considered a chord but it depends on their intervals and their relationship with a melody.

Although it is a hard question to answer because 'what a chord is' can almost be subject to personal opinion.

A chord is two or more notes played together.

An interval is the distance between 2 notes.

For example a 2 note chord might be the A5 power chord.

The most basic chord to which we give a name is a triad, a three-note chord.

C major, D minor, Eb diminished etc.

Two notes, or even one note can suggest or imply a triad, but they cannot fully define it.

And that is what people mean when they argue that you need three notes for it to be a 'chord'.

In more general terminology, we often call two or more different notes a 'chord'.

Question: I was studying music, and in my book it says that two notes played simultaneously are considered an  Interval  while three notes are considered a  Chord .Following up this question  Why are two pitches considered a chord? .   Are dyads considered to be chords?  If yes, then can we actually define a chord with just two notes, for example if we have G and B,  which are suitable for both Em and GM.  If not, why are power chords considered chords when they only have two notes?

Are two pitches played simultaneously considered a chord?

The most basic chord to which we give a name is a triad, a three-note chord. C major, D minor, Eb diminished etc. Two notes, or even one note can suggest or imply a triad, but they cannot fully define it. In more general terminology, we often call two or more different notes a 'chord'.

Most basic chord to which we give a name is a triad, a three-note chord. Two notes, or even one note, can suggest or imply a Triad, but they cannot fully define it. Two or more different notes a 'chord' can often be called two or more 'chords'


People have different viewpoints on this, but one prevailing view is that a modulation must change tonal center .

In other words, a move from A major to A Mixolydian is not a modulation, because the tonic (=tonal center) is still A.

As such, we just call this a "change of mode."

Is this all about the use of a bVII chord in the final choruses?

Just let it BE the bVII in the key of A. A chromatic chord doesn't necessarily imply a key change.

Think of a simple blues progression - A7, D7, A7, E7, D7, A7.

You have no problem with that being in the key of A, despite the Cnat and Gnat notes do you?

In the event of a modulation, the music is still with the same key signature, as modulations are generally a temporary move.

With a key change, the term says it all - the key has changed, it's not temporary, there needs to be a sign displaying the new key.

'Borrowing', from parallel key and other modes with the same root - as in A major using A Dorian, A minor, A Mixolydian etc., is going to be a modulation, and there will be the necessary accidentals in place, with the feeling that the piece will eventually return to the original key.

Other common modulations are moving to a related key, a fourth or fifth away, and relative major/minor changes.

A key change occurs whenever the key signature changes.

This is pretty objective and quite different from a modulation, which can occur with or without a key change (often with accidentals).

If you are switching modes but not tonal center, I would not call that a modulation; I would call it "borrowing (from a parallel scale)."

This is another example of terminology trying to put hard and fast lines where none exist.

If the "tonal center" changes for just one chord, it's not a modulation; if an entire movement is around a new tonal center, it's modulation.

But everything in between exists as well, and there's no convention (nor could there be reasonably) to say exactly when "modulation" occurs.

Changing from C Ionian to D Dorian is changing mode but isn't changing key.

Changing from C Ionian to D Phrygian is changing mode and changing Key.

More examples: D Dorian >

E Phrygian - Changing mode, not changing Key.

A

Aeolian

G Mixolydian - Changing mode, not changing Key.

D Dorian >

Db Lydian - Changing mode, changing Key.

F Aeolian

A Mixolydian - Changing mode, changing Key.

Another Example: Blue in green by Bill evans is... D Dorian is in Cmaj C Dorian

is in Bbmaj Bb Ionian

is in BbMaj

A Phrygian is in FMaj D Dorian is in Cmaj F Aeolian is in Abmaj

A mixolydian is in Dmaj The best modal music changes Key and mode.

Changing mode is not as weird as you think it's basically changing chords within a key.

The cool stuff comes when you change mode but to another key.

I've not listened to Green Light by Lorde but would assume it's just changing mode and not the key, which is kinda boring.

Also you could go: D dorian

> C dorian

But this is just a key change in my opinion and not a mode change.

Question: I was listening to Green Light by Lorde, during which there is a modulation from A major to the mixolydian mode. DOes that count as a 'key change' per se?

Do modulations from a major key to a mode count as 'key changes?'

In the event of a modulation, the music is still with the same key signature, as modulations are generally a temporary move. With a key change, the term says it all - the key has changed, it's not temporary, there needs to be a sign displaying the new key.  'Borrowing', from parallel key and other modes with the same root - as in A major using A Dorian, A minor, A Mixolydian etc., is going to be a modulation, and there will be the necessary accidentals in place, with the feeling that the piece will eventually return to the original key. Other common modulations are moving to a related key, a fourth or fifth away, and relative major/minor changes.

In the event of a modulation, the music is still with the same key signature, as modulations are generally a temporary move. With a key change, the term says it all - the key has changed, it's not temporary, there needs to be a sign displaying the new key. 'Borrowing', from parallel key and other modes with theSame root is going to be an example of a 'modulation' and there will be the necessary accidentals in place, with the feeling that the piece will eventually return to the original key.


Any readers may thank you more if the new key becomes Ab.

Ab has only 4 flats in it, whereas G# has 8 sharps.

The simplest, which always works, pretty well whichever key you're changing into, is to use the dominant of the new key for a bar.

Thus Eb or Eb7 will do the trick.

I've done it hundreds of times with choirs and bands and soloists - some of whom were genuinely unaware that a key change had actually occurred!

It works really well when going up a semitone, as there are common notes involved.

Think G - G B D, and the V of

Ab - Eb G

Bb Db. O.k., just the one!

but all the others are only a semitone from notes of G. Then Eb7 leads almost automatically to Ab. Going to any other key, ii-V-I is a tried and tested move (in the new key!)

Just jumping up the key up a semitone without a chord progression to lead into the modulation is a very common musical trope!

Simply change the key signature in-between two major sections of a song, such as transitioning from a verse to the chorus - the already-present transition prevents the sudden modulation from sounding out of place or overly abrupt.

This is sometimes called the " truck driver's gear change " and shows up frequently in pop, rock, and dance music.

When you abruptly modulate up a semitone, it immediately adds a lot of energy to a song.

As a result, it's most frequently used at the start of the final chorus of a song to make the ending have more of a punch to it.

I Won't Let You Down by OK Go has an excellent example of this modulation near the end of the song .

Run and Gun , an electronic dance track, starts with this modulation to gain some surprising energy coming out of the intro into the first drop.

The truck driver's gear change is somewhat cliche and, to my knowledge, rarely shows up in academic, classical, or neoclassical music, so it may not be an appropriate tool for the style of music you're writing.

A little more advanced method is to look at the shared notes between the two scales you're trying to modulate between (using enharmonic spelling to keep things simple):

G maj:

G A B C D E F#

G# maj: G# A# C C# D# F G

So the only shared notes are C and G.

Now make lists of all the run-of-the-mill triads you can make using those two notes in each of your two keys:

G major: CDG (Csus2),

CEG (Cmaj), CFG (Csus4)

G# major: CD#G(Cmin), CFG (Csus4)

Now look for any shared chords between the two keys.

There's only one in this case: CFG (Csus4).

That will be your most important one to modulate between the two keys, the 'pivot'.

From here, it's just a matter of playing around with those chords above until you find a progression you like.

For example, I came up with this one that sounds nice after a bit of noodling that lands you in G#maj: Csus2, Cmaj, Csus4, G#maj Edit

: Found these interesting plays on the I V vi IV progression that start in Gmaj and end in G#maj: Gmaj, Dmaj, Emin, Fsus4, G#maj, D#maj, Fmin, C#maj

If you sub Fmin->Fmaj you get a very interesting chromatic cadence with some delicious harmonic ambiguity: Gmaj, Dmaj, Emin, Fsus4, G#maj, D#maj, F maj , C#maj

One option is to take a detour through F# major.

We use a trick of borrowing the minor subdominant from F# to get us to the subdominant of Ab.

Then you've got a nice sounding IV-V(7)-I and only one minor chord which can easily be paved over when voicing it out: G Bm C#/Db Eb(7)

Ab G: I iii

F#: iv

V

Ab: IV V(7) I

Perhaps not what you are looking for, but I recall "Sampo" (Stroll) from Joe Hisaishi (opening theme of "My neighbour Totoro") which in the reprise repeats the full song a semitone up.

In this guitar arrangement of mine , you can see (and hear) the simple modulation: from the concluding chord (tonic) of A major, with higher note A, the chord is suddenly replaced by F7, (keeping the A high note)

- this is the dominant of Bb, which turns to be the new tonic.

Try G-major chord, followed by B-major chord (raising the iii-chord in key of G up to a Major), then follow with C#-major and then D#-major, which are the new IV and V chords of the new (raised) Key of G#.I'm still trying to find the theory-reason why the B-major works, but I've played it multiple times and it sounds to the ear like it "works.

"David : )

With most modulation there is a balance of technique (harmonically) and dynamics.

I won't pretend to know very many common harmonic sequences that will get you a half step up, but if you lack the technique, you can always set your audience up for a would be jarring transition by slowing down, and lowering to volume, then coming back to speed and volume after a simple chromatic step up.

The augmented fifth is always an interesting sound, and could be a nice hint for your listeners.

Question: I was asked to incorporate a modulation that goes one semitone up in a song initially written in G. So at some point it should go from G to G#.  I am having a lot of trouble finding a relatively nice sounding chords to transition smoothly from G to G#. Is there some known trick or commonly used chord(s) that makes this modulation flow nicely ?

modulating from G major to G# major

With most modulation  there is a balance of technique (harmonically) and dynamics.  if you lack the technique to make the modulation, you can always set your audience up for a would be jarring transition by slowing down, and lowering to volume, then coming back to speed and volume after a simple chromatic step up. The augmented fifth is always an interesting sound, and could be a nice hint for your listeners.

Harmonically there is a balance of technique (harmonically) and dynamics. The augmented fifth is always an interesting sound, and could be a nice hint for your listeners. If you lack the technique, you can always set your audience up for a would be jarring transition by slowing down, and lowering to volume.


Uncannily, youtube suggested this video for me to watch.

The instrument here is a an Istanbul Clap Stack.

Thank you youtube!

Not sure what you mean by "ensemble" hand claps, though there are a few ways drummers have tried to emulate electronic clap sounds.

Basically, they boil down to various rim-flam techniques .

You can experiment and adapt whatever sorts of drums you have available.

I wanted such an instrument to cover some pop songs tomorrow, e.g. Macklemore's "Thrift Shop" at 00:30:

I also couldn't find anything I could easily buy at a music store, so I experimented with household items.

I imagined maybe a folding paper or plastic fan might work, but I didn't have one.

But I found you can get pretty close with half a deck of cards.

Hold the half-deck in one hand and use the other hand's thumb to do a controlled snap on the short side, like a flip book but really fast.

It's easy to improve technique by playing around with it.

I've found that if you hold the deck in a shape like, um... remember those old-school rubber erasers?

If you make your deck look like that, you add on more choral "voices" (separation between claps), and sounds even more like an ensemble clap.

Of course, not loud enough by itself

but I plan to hold it near a microphone.

I don't think I've encountered an acoustic instrument as a percussionist that perfectly emulates a hand clap sound.

Typically you could use something like a small whip (two boards hinged together), or large castanets to provide a similar effect.

SONOR apparently makes a 'hand clap box' that is supposed to sound like hand clapping and would be playable by a single musician

(Although personally I think it sounds too close to a woodblock): http://www.sonor.com/instruments/percussion/hand-percussion-add-ons/hand-clap-block/

There was an acoustic clapping device that was a metal rod and it had plastic or hard rubber discs that you slid down to create the clap sound.

Haven't seen it in years......

Though you do specifically ask for acoustic percussion instruments, I'll answer off topic that, in terms of faithfully simulating a sound, an electronic sample would be very effective and there are hardware form factors that would work nicely in a live, acoustic group setting: pad or button to trigger, built-in speaker, etc.

Question: When there's a group of musicians playing, it's often not practical for several of them to stop what they're doing so they can clap instead, so is there an  acoustic  percussion instrument that can be played by one person, that sounds like ensemble handclaps, i.e a group of people clapping together?

What acoustic percussion instrument sounds like handclaps?

An electronic sample would be very effective in simulating a sound and there are hardware form factors that would work nicely in a live, acoustic group setting: pad or button to trigger, built-in speaker, etc.

In terms of faithfully simulating a sound, an electronic sample would be very effective. There are hardware form factors that would work nicely in a live, acoustic group setting.


It prevents the appearance of an overfull measure.

Without it, what we see on this staff is a quarter-note chord, a half-note chord, and a quarter-note chord.

1/4 + 1/2 = 3/4, and we're in the time signature 3/4, so the measure should be done already.

Then where does that quarter-note chord on the third beat come from?

It comes from another voice, as Todd Wilcox says — a voice that's silent on the second beat.

By writing a quarter-rest for that voice on the second beat, and writing it on the staff where it's about to have some notes, we properly set up, in advance, when that chord takes place.

Yes, the quarter-note duration already exists on the upper staff, but that's a long long way away.

The rest establishes that information locally , on the lower staff, to improve clarity.

The score has three voices.

We can call them the "lower voice", "middle voice" and "upper voice".

The lower voice is completely notated on the bass clef.

The upper voice is completely notated on the treble clef.

The middle voice switches back and forth.

When the middle voice is in the treble clef, its notes have down stems, and vice versa when the middle voice is in the bass clef.

In the first measure, the middle voice plays the G and Bb quarter notes (crotchets) that are in the treble clef with down stems below middle C.

The second beat the middle voice plays the rest that you are asking about.

For the third beat the middle voice plays the C below middle C and the Eb just above it, notated on the bass clef with up stems.

A bigger question is where is the middle voice for the first two beats of measure two?

And I'm a bit wrong because measure three seems to have four voices in it.

Perhaps that's the titular enigma.

Edit:

On further consideration, I think there are four voices the whole time, and it's just notated in an unclear manner.

I think the lower middle voice plays the Eb below middle C that is the top note of the first chord in the bass clef, then the lower middle voice rests for the second beat, and then the third beat is the C and Eb in the bass clef.

The upper middle voice is the G and Bb below middle C in the treble clef for the first beat, then the second and third beats are the middle Cs that are the lowest notes of the treble clef chords.

Then they proceed from there.

Though clear, it would be marked wrong in a theory exam.

The correct notation would actually be this.

Each voice technically needs to show a complete bars worth of beats.

As others have said, there are multiple voices.

Pictures are helpful:

Common practice nowadays is to show all notes that are played simultaneously on a staff using a single stem if they start and end at the same time, and if nothing else will happen on that staff during that time.

This is done even in choral music where a staff is shared e.g. between soprano and alto, or between tenor and bass.

Notation is only divided into up-stem and down-stem portions at beats where different notes start and end at different times, or when there are distinguishable voices (e.g. sopranos and altos) and some but not all should refrain from singing on that beat.

In beat 2 of measure 1, bass clef, not everything is supposed to sustain a half note, but something else is supposed to happen during that time (i.e. some quarter notes are supposed to play on beat 3).

Thus, at beat 2 the bass clef splits into two logical voices, one of which plays half notes, and the other of which rests for a quarter note and then plays quarter notes.

Note that on beat 3 of measure 2, the treble clef actually has three voices, with the middle one playing a quarter note while the outer ones play eighths.

The bottom voice is beamed with the eighth note on the second half of beat 3 in the bass clef because doing so avoids having to write an eighth rest for the first half of that beat, and because it makes clear that that note starts at the same time as the quarter note but lasts a different duration.

Had the bass clef not had an eighth note that could be beamed to that note in the treble clef, other ways of notating that measure would be: Notate the treble clef with homophonic eighth notes including a "d" which is tied to another "d",

avoiding the need for quarter notes.

This would avoid crossed stems, but such ties can make music hard to read. Place the "a" on the same stem as the "e" and "g" above.

This would avoid the need for ties, but at the expense of crossed stems.

Stack the notes as they are, but use a "flagged" eighth note on beat 3, and add an eighth rest for the second half of that beat.

Compared with the above, the use of the cross-staff eighth-note beam was a reasonable "least of evils" judgment.

A chord on a staff is executed immediately after the preceding chord, held for its full duration.

If the quarter-rest were absent, the (c e-flat) chord at the end of the 1st bar would be played on the 4th beat, instead of the 3rd, as we would infer from its alignment with the chord in the upper staff.

The quarter-rest explicitly indicates a splitting of the lower staff into two simultaneous "voices", but only in a notational sense.

There is no functional splitting of voices.

At a large scale, I would say the voices act functionally as follows, though individual subvoices become discernable around the eighth-notes:

Question: Beginner warning :-)    This is the piano sheet music for Elgar’s Variation, Nimrod.   Please do note: I am currently learning time and key signatures with my theory teacher, but in looking at the music here I can not understand why this rest is required.

Why you need a rest here in this score?

Common practice nowadays is to show all notes that are played simultaneously on a staff using a single stem if they start and end at the same time, and if nothing else will happen on that staff during that time. This is done even in choral music where a staff is shared e.g. between soprano and alto, or between tenor and bass. Notation is only divided into up-stem and down-stem portions at beats where different notes start and end at different times, or when there are distinguishable voices (e.g. sopranos and altos) and some but not all should refrain from singing on that beat.

Notation is divided into up-stem and down-stem portions at beats where different notes start and end at different times or when there are distinguishable voices. Some but not all should refrain from singing on that beat, and some notes should be beamed to other notes on the same beat. Notation can be complex, such as if the bass clef had three voices and the middle one played a quarter note, and the outer ones played eighths. Notations can also include homophonic eighth notes including a "d" which is tied to another "d", avoiding the need for quarter notes, or a "flagged" eighth note on beat 3, and an eighth rest for the second half of that beat. The use of the cross-staff eighth-note beam was a reasonable "least of evils" judgment in the case of the treble clef, which had no eighth note that could beamed from the bass to that note in the trebled clef. In some cases, the use of a single stem can lead to hard-to-read notes, like the "a" and "g" on the stem, which can make music hard to read.


Sorry, No You won't be able to get a good recording of a microphone in a line level input.

That's because microphones put out a very low level mic level signal that has to be amplified up to line level using a mic preamp .

Without a mic preamp, it doesn't matter what cables you use, the signal level will be too low.

What you can do is use a transformer like the image below and plug the mic into an XLR cable, then plug the other end of the cable into the transformer, and plug the transformer into any instrument input.

Instrument inputs are what guitar amps have and are often found on audio interfaces and on some mixers.

The type of cable used to carry an audio signal has no effect on the level of that signal.

You can apply mic/instrument level signals to 1/4" TS, 1/4" TRS, or XLR cables and connectors.

You can also apply line level signals to 1/4" TS, 1/4" TRS, or XLR cables and connectors.

You can but shouldn't apply speaker level signals to 1/4" TRS or XLR cables and connectors.

You should only use speaker cable (which has to large gauge stranded wires in it, and no shield) terminated with 1/4" TS connectors or Neutrik Speakon connectors or spade lugs or banana lugs or in the worst case scenario bare wires (don't use bare wires with high powered PA amplifiers).

If your recording device only has 1/4" inputs, then your best option would be to purchase an inexpensive mic preamp.

The output of the preamp will be at line level which you can record via 1/4".

The Art Tube MP preamp is going for $40 at Musicians Friend and it includes a 1/4" output.

ART Tube MP Studio Mic Preamp

You could probably find one even cheaper if you are willing to buy used.

At one venue I use, I normally have an SM58 going straight into an XLR on the p.a.

Recently, there's been a different head with only jacks.

I made up a lead between XLR and jack (male) which goes straight into the new head - it sounds better in the 'low' impedance socket - but it would, being a low impedance mic.

Don't know about TRS jack plugs, though - they usually get used with stereo.

Just thought - a different venue with a Bose p.a. has XLR, and for this I made up a TRS to canon (XLR) lead, to plug in a (stereo) keyboard.

This has all 3 pins on XLR connected to all 3 contacts on the TRS - all separate of course!

That works fine too.

Perhaps you can say what the application is to be used for.

Several different come to mind, and will require different wiring.

For one thing, everything between the source of the sound and the device recording it adds interference/lowers the quality of the signal.

This includes an adaptor.

If you want a good quality signal, get or make the right cable and also add a pre-amp because phantom power on a DI box or mixer will probably not cut the mustard.

For mics I would never suggest any connection type other than XLR to XLR.

A good quality recording device will have XLR in and so will the pre-amp.

You'll either need a preamp or you could consider a USB mic which is the easiest way, though divides opinion when it comes to sound quality.

First off, I know this is a year and a half late.

Second, the microphone is what determines the signal strength, not the cable.

All microphones I've seen have a mic level output.

Also, XLR can carry a line-level signal, and TS/TRS/TRRS/TRRRS can carry a mic-level signal.

Next, I'm assuming you wanted an XLR to TS

(Tip-Sleeve) cable, even though you said "TRS."

(Tip-Ring-Sleeve).

I'm assuming this because most people, when they use a balanced signal, will use XLR.

An XLR to TS cable will actually convert it into a half mic-level signal.

That's because XLR is balanced (one of the audio signals (the one on your right when looking at the socket, your left when looking at the plug) is initially inverted, and is reinverted (so now no longer inverted), and any noise picked up is cancelled out thanks to interference), and TS is not.

You'd lose one of the signals, since it goes to the ground, instead.

Question: Can a XLR female to 1/4 inch adapter give power like a XLR input.  I want to record dynamic mics into an line input. Will a TRS 1/4 inch cable give same level signal as xlr audio input.

Will an XLR female to 1/4" TRS plug work to connect a dynamic microphone?

For a TRS 1/4 inch cable to give the same level signal as xlr audio input, you'll either need a preamp or you could consider a  USB mic  which is the easiest way, though divides opinion when it comes to sound quality. The microphone is what determines the signal strength, not the cable. All microphones have a mic level output.

The microphone is what determines the signal strength, not the cable. All microphones have a mic level output. XLR can carry a line-level signal, and TS/TRS/TRRS/TRRRS can carried a mic- level signal. An XLR to TS cable will actually convert it into a  half mic-level  signal. You'd lose one of the signals, since it goes to the ground, instead of the plug, so you'd need a preamp or you could consider a  USB mic. The easiest way is the easiest way, though divides opinion when it comes to sound quality.


Yes, you'll want to play E♭

–F–

E♭ before the final two sixteenth notes.

My personal suggestion is more along the lines of: But some purists will insist on the rhythm of the D–E♭ being precisely as written, and therefore:

This is where your own interpretation comes into play.

I recommend listening to as many recordings of this opening as you can find; you'll find several interpretations of how others have approached this trill, and they can help inform your own interpretation.

User 11684

very helpfully pointed out that the above interpretations are actually not consistent with performance practice of the Classical period.

Their answer deserves your attention!

Oddly, my four recordings of this sonata all include the top interpretation above.

It seems that the historically accurate interpretations would begin on the upper note, suggesting either: or:

Both other answers overlook a crucial point.

In Mozart (and contemporaries and earlier composers) trills should generally start on the upper note, which is the case here.

However, many professional pianists do not know this and start on the lower note anyway.

This is, historically, simply wrong.

There are plenty of sources on this, for example CPE Bach’s Versuch über die wahre Art das Clavier zu spielen.

Yes, it’s fast, but it should be “F Eb F Eb D Eb” (with extra “F Eb” added if you have time, but I guess not).

The good news is that the sixteenth notes probably are just there to indicate a nachschlag , so you can play them later and shorter than written.

Well, if you can fit two trills there, it's certainly better.

At least it's what some performers do, despite the fast tempo.

In that case, you certainly do not care about the timing inside the beat and play it basically as one long ornamentation of the quarter Eb note.

I hope my ears don't betray me and here it's really played as Eb--

Eb-F-

Eb-F-Eb-D-Eb:

The ABRSM edition (pub 1982) - an Urtext edition, as much as is possible with Mozart - has these notes, from Stanley Sadie: Editorial realizations of ornaments are shown in small notes above the text at the first occurrence of the ornament concerned in each movement.

These realizations are based on the leading sources contemporary with Mozart, such as CPE Bach's Versuch über die wahre Art das

Clavier zu

spielen

(1753-62), Leopold Mozart's Versuch einer gründlichen Violinschule (1756) and Daniel Gottlob Türk's Clavierschule (1789) ... ... in a trill a player should feel free to play more notes, or fewer, as seems right.

No ornament that feels awkward to the player, or sounds clumsy, is being satisfactorily realized.

A player who wants to vary the realization of ornaments more extensively ... should note that except in very rare circumstances a trill should begin on the upper note in music of this period

The editorial realization given has demisemiquaver (32nd note) F E♭ F E♭ then semiquaver (16th note)

D E♭.

Every performance I can find on YouTube is in line with this .

The awkwardness involved with a repeated E♭ at this tempo would (IMO) sound terrible.

Trills generally begin on the upper note, yes, but this is an exception.

If this trill were to begin on the upper note, then the preceding sixteenth note (e-flat) would sound like it is part of the trill, thus giving the impression of a trill that started on the main note too early.

I must respectfully disagree with almost all the recent comments above.

CPE Bach says the following: All embellishments... must not corrupt the purity of the voice leading (Eulenburg edition p 95 point 17 and his examples figure 81).

In this case the melodic line is a very obvious ascent up the C minor arpeggio

(C to Eb to G) and therefore the F would be a most illogical/ unwelcome note to accentuate or focus on.

In music there are always competing rules and we must weigh up (through our ear) which rule offers the most musical solution.

Question: How does one play this trill in this Mozart Sonata? Does it mean we play 3 notes (Eb, F, Eb) before the last two notes of the second bar? Or how many trills does one have to play?

How to play this trill in Mozart's Piano Sonata 14 (K457)

How to play the trill in Mozart's Piano Sonata 14 (K457): CPE Bach says the following: All embellishments... must not corrupt the purity of the voice leading (Eulenburg edition p 95 point 17 and his examples figure 81). In this case the melodic line is a very obvious ascent up the C minor arpeggio (C to Eb to G) and therefore the F would be a most illogical/ unwelcome note to accentuate or focus on.  In music there are always competing rules and we must weigh up (through our ear) which rule offers the most musical solution.

ICPE Bach says the following: All embellishments... must not corrupt the purity of the voice leading. In this case the melodic line is a very obvious ascent up the C minor arpeggio. F would be a most illogical/ unwelcome note to accentuate or focus on. In music there are always competing rules and we must weigh up which rule offers the most musical solution.


6/8 is duple time - the bar is split into two equal parts.

With the first note, a dotted crotchet, it makes the first half.

There's no reason to have two quaver rests at the end in 6/8 - a crotchet rest will suffice.

Having said that, it would also be fine in 3/4 time, which would query the dotted crotchet at the beginning, which may be more acceptable (in 3/4) as a crotchet tied to a quaver.

But, we see this sort of thing more and more - notes across the middle of 4/4 for example, so perhaps we just need to get used to what used to be called sloppy writing...

As an aside, should one give out work that one hasn't scrutinised for potential discrepancies, with all possible answers researched?

Maybe another way to read it is using notes in place of rests.

As in, would the last note have to be two tied quavers, or would a crotchet be acceptable?

If this were 3/4, 'old' theory would demand the dotted quarter was written as a quarter tied to an 8th.

OK, we don't always do that now.

But in 3/4 the bar would be completed with a single quarter rest, not two 8ths.

We can't wriggle out of that one!

It's 6/8.

The grouping of the rest tells you it is 6/8 time.

If it was 3/4 time the last two quaver rests would be a crotchet rest as to better indicate the crotchet beats, this time signature has two beats of dotted crotchets that is better illustrated with the given rest grouping.

To the best of my knowledge, they are not the same.

3/4 feels like there are 3 "binary" beats each bar.

Think of waltz.

6/8 feels like there are only two beats and where each beat can be felt as having 3 subdivisions.

So it's a matter of figuring out the "beats" that there are on the bar cause

they feel completely different.

Coming from Venezuela myself, I know in venezuelan music there are some types of music where they can be mixed (and which is very tricky to figure out for people from other countries).

The best example I can think of right now is "Preludio Criollo" by Rodrigo Riera where he has the bass voice going on 3/4 and yet the main voice is going 6/8.

Tricky to play.

Talking about (venezuelan) genres, probably Pajarillo or other varieties of Joropo like "Seis por Derecho" are the hardest to pick up.

For the most part: the best way I explain it my lead guitarist; (Who plays as well as Chet Atkins did, but my guy can't read music); is to just think of it as a waltz no matter what and follow my bass guitar.

I have only noticed it wrote that way in hymnals usually.

They use 6/8, 9/8 and so forth to control the layout of the music to fit one or two pages at the most.

For example "Softly and Tenderly" is written in my hymnal as 6/8

but I can just as easily convert it to 3/4 and

it will play exactly the same way.

It just requires more bars to write it out.

Double the amount of bars in this case.

Question: When I gave a worksheet today, 2 of my students labeled this notation as 3/4 time, simple triple. Are they wrong or is this acceptable? If it's not acceptable, why? Is it simply because it wouldn't make sense to use 2 eighth rests at the end here in 3/4 time?

Can this notation be considered either 3/4 or 6/8 time?

They use 6/8, 9/8 and so forth to control the layout of the music to fit one or two pages at the most. For example "Softly and Tenderly" is written in a hymnal as 6/8 but it can just as easily be converted to 3/4 and  it will play exactly the same way.  It just requires more bars to write it out.

They use 6/8, 9/8 and so forth to control the layout of the music to fit one or two pages at the most. Double the amount of bars in this case.


There are various solution to neck dive.

I'm afraid my solution doesn't look very cool, but it works for me - fasten the strap at the headstock, rather than the neck heel or top horn.

I find that especially comfortable with a nice wide strap; sometimes a wide strap on its own helps, but it's the headstock anchoring that really allows it to hang stably and free up my fretting hand for fretting instead of holding the instrument up.

Bass guitar forums are a good place to search for solutions for neck dive, as it's a common problem with bass.

When seated, the guitar will be either on your left or right thigh - most seem to favour right, although the accepted for classical is left.

When you stand up, the centre of gravity changes, mainly due to where the strap buttons support the guitar.

The lower the guitar is slung, the more exaggerated the problem is.

A strap that doesn't slide round is probably the only answer.

This is an issue on bass also - you could try lighter tuners, there is a surprising amount of weight in six of those.

Try and find ones where the screw holes are in the same places to avoid excessive damage.

Also consider a more grippy strap that will shift around less so you can place your guitar where you want and balance will not be an issue.

Hollow bodies naturally have lighter bodies, so they are more prone to neck dive.

Short scale basses also suffer from this issue.

Get yourself a long, wide, soft strap

(Ernie Ball makes a good one) that you can adjust well.

Lengthen the strap, pulling the ax downwards and neck upwards, wedging it with the strap around your shoulder and back.

Keep experimenting until you find the right angle for you - take your time until you find the right point of balance.

Eventually you will find it.

Sometimes you will have to raise the headstock quite a bit to get into a comfortable playing position, depending on your style of play.

You can also try putting something heavy down by the bottom of the guitar to pull the neck back up.

Here's a good thread from TalkBass.com about it the problem: Short scale, hollow/semi-hollow with no neck dive?

I picked up a cheap Rogue VB100 violin bass and like the sound (with some setup work and flats) - but it has terminal neck dive (as I expected).

I "solved" the problem by putting 8 oz of fishing sinkers in a Neotech wireless pouch on the strap - not a very elegant solution...

Lots more there.

You could experiment with different straps.

Some straps are elastic, to mitigate the weight of heavier guitars (Les Paul, basses).

My guess is such a strap might allow you to balance the weight of the guitar better when standing.

Even better, I have a leather strap that is suede on the inside.

It really doesn't slide over my shoulders.

It is kind of annoying, if I adjust the angle of the guitar, it makes my shirt bunch up!

But I imagine it could help with neck dive as well.

Pick up your guitar, strap up, and stand up with it.

Take the strap off of the peg on the bottom of your guitars body and hold it there.

Let go of your neck.

Most likely the body dove toward the floor, since most likely it's much heavier than the neck.

Grab the neck again and put it in a comfortable playing position.

While balancing the guitar, move the strap button up toward your low E string.

Eventually you'll find the spot where it balances correctly.

Mark it with a pencil and drill a hole there for a new strap button.

Move strap button to new spot; no more dives.

Question: I have an arch-top Epiphone that I really like the feel of the neck when I'm playing seated, but when I stand and play, the weight of the headstock and neck keep making a dive for the floor and I spend a lot of time and energy just trying to keep it propped up in a comfortable playing position. Any one have a workable solution for me?

How to deal with a guitar balance problem?

When you play an Am fingering with a capo on the 4th fret, the sounding chord is C#m and  sound is what counts. When other people listen to your guitar and sing or play along with it, they don't need to know how you used a capo. The capo thing can get real confusing and all the capo cheat sheets online look different, so its hard to know what's the best logic to use to figure this stuff out. The best logic to understand how it functions is to learn the chromatic scale  to learn the names of the strings and  to understand what tones will sound when you play a certain chord pattern

You could experiment with different straps and you eventually you'll find the spot where it balances correctly.

When you play an Am fingering with a capo on the 4th fret, the sounding chord is C#m and sound is what counts .

The best logic to understand how it functions is: to learn the chromatic scale to learn the names of the strings to understand what tones will sound when you play a certain chord pattern

Fasten the strap around the neck rather than at the headstock. I prefer to use a wide strap instead of a for these, because it holds the instrument well and frees up my hand.

When you're seated, the guitar will be on your left or right - the majority of guitarists prefer to sit on their left, but it's normally seated to the thigh.

Tightening a strap is the only way to make it more comfortable. Straps are made from elastomerized materials to help reduce the weight of heavier instruments. You could experiment with different straps. Drill a hole and mark the new strap there with a pencil to mount a new button. It will balance when the weight is in the center of the scale.