If you mean that your written sax music will be in A, then you are not changing the key, as it would still sound in C.

If you mean you want the song to sound in A, then that would put your sax part into 6 sharps!

Basic transpositions for sax,l trumpet etc

Bb instruments (Bb clarinet, tenor/soprano sax, trumpet ...) Up one tone.

C =>

D, F => G

etc Eb instruments (alto/baritone sax) Down 3 semitones.

C =

A, F =>

D etc Players of transposing instruments need to know these by heart (and being able to do simple transposition more or less by sight is also recommended.)

Saxophone are transposing instruments:

Your instrument is called Eb-Sax because it plays an Eb when you play a written C.

This means it transposes a minor 3rd up (and as a Bariton an 8ve down!)

So you have to notate and play an A on your instrument when you want to hear C.

(your instrument will transpose the A a minor 3rd up ...)

It seems from your question that you want to play a song in C major on your baritone sax so you can play it in the same key as any accompanying instruments (that is, in "concert pitch").

To do that, you have correctly identified that you will be playing in the key of A major.

You can do this at sight by imagining that the treble staff's bottom line isn't there, and that it has an extra line on the top.

In other words, the real G line that has the treble clef on it becomes an imaginary E line.

You also need to add the key signature for A major to your imagination, which comprises three sharps, namely, F#, C#, and

G#.

Any accidentals on those notes will have to be adjusted accordingly, so for example if there's an Eb in the original, the transposed note is a C-natural.

This will be easier for some people than for others.

This technique may also be more difficult if it transpires that you need to transpose up a major sixth instead of down a minor third.

Another way of doing it is just to think relatively.

That's how I have done it in the past when playing Bb trumpet from a concert-pitch score.

That is, when you see a written D, for example, you know it's the second degree of the C-major scale, and since you're playing in A-major, you play the second degree of the A-major scale, which is B.

In older times, musicians learned to read every possible C clef in addition to the treble and bass clefs, so the technique for transposition would be to imagine that the notes were written in a different clef.

For this transposition, you would imagine that the C clef is on the bottom line.

If you ever have to play a cello part on baritone sax, or any other part notated in bass clef, just imagine that it is notated in treble clef.

The end result is that the distances between the notes of the melody remain the same when measured in half steps.

If you have difficulty doing this at sight, write it out.

I encourage you to do it by hand rather than using a computer, because you will learn the music better that way.

Start with a treble clef and the correct key signature.

Copy each note that's on a line to the next lower line, and copy each note on a space to the next lower space.

Finally, if even that proves difficult for you, you can copy the music verbatim into a computer music notation program and then use the "transpose" function to lower the pitch by a minor third or raise it by a major sixth.

Again, I encourage you to copy the end result by hand to gain experience in writing music by hand and because hand copying (in my experience, at least) leads to a more thorough understanding of the music than does entering it into a computer.

Here's the quick dodge for transpositions (as long as you know your key signatures!)

E♭ baritone has three 'built-in' flats.

It's 'in E♭' after all! So, to play music for an instrument 'in C' (i.e. normal untransposed piano, no 'built-in' flats or sharps)

we have to take away those three flats.

Which is the same as adding three sharps.

So yes, to match C on piano, your bari will need to play in A. To match F (one flat)

it would need to play in D (two sharps).

Get the idea?

Question: I need to change the key of a song I’m playing. The song is changes by David Bowie and I’m hoping to change it from the original key in piano (C) to my baritone saxophone (the bari sax is in the key of Eb but I’d play it in the key of A) I’m very confused and I don’t even know if I’m doing it right. Someone please help.

Changing keys from the piano to Baritone Saxophone

Saxophone are transposing instruments:   Your instrument is called Eb-Sax because it plays an Eb when you play a written C. This means it transposes a minor 3rd up (and as a Bariton an 8ve down!). So you have to notate and play an A on your instrument when you want to hear C. Any accidentals on those notes will have to be adjusted accordingly, so for example if there's an Eb in the original, the transposed note is a C-natural. Finally, this can be done by copying the music verbatim into a computer music notation program and then using the "transpose" function to lower the pitch by a minor third or raise it by a major sixth. It is a better experience to attempt to do it by hand as it leads to a more thorough understanding of the music.

Saxophone are transposing instruments. Even if that proves difficult for you, you can copy the music verbatim into a computer music notation program and then use the "transpose" function to lower the pitch by a minor third or raise it by a major sixth.


Piano strings are attached to a cast iron frame, also known as harp.

Cast iron is much less sensitive to humidity and temperature changes than wood.

This is the main reason why they stay in tune relatively well.

In contrast, harpsichords are somewhat similar but their frames are made of wood and they require much, much more tuning.

Other factors are that that pianos aren't usually moved and won't get knocked out of tune.

They usually require tuning after moving.

The metal strings are stable once initially settled, unlike synthetic or gut strings.

Playing the piano also doesn't involve touching the strings with your hands, which puts dirt and moisture on the strings.

Most pianos can hold their tuning quite well, but can do so only under ideal conditions.

Because pianos weigh quite a bit they tend to not get moved around very much and are usually kept where temperature and humidity hold a fairly steady level over an extended period of time.

Expose a piano to the same conditions that smaller more portable instruments are subject too and you find they need to be tuned quite often.

Move a piano and it will probably need tuning.

Expose it to considerable temperature change, either hot or cold, and it will probably need to be tuned.

Although piano strings are considerably heavier in weight and gauge, they are still susceptable to the laws of physics just the same as violins and guitars.

They do, and they are!

But only really with concert grands prior to a concert.

Not as far out as maybe a guitar or violin might be, but just a subtle tweaking. Guitar and violin, for starters, have exposed tuners which get knocked easily - in and out of its case, for example.

Pianos are different.

The mass of a piano also means its tuning is more stable, but over time it will still go out of tune, humidity and temperature differences being the main culprits - which also affect guitars and violins more rapidly, and to a greater degree as well.

Stretching strings on guitars will affect tuning, and that's one thing we don't do on pianos!

In critical concert and studio situations the piano WILL be tuned before each performance, and sometimes even 'touched-up' during it.

But the design and construction of a piano is such that they hold tuning pretty well, and in domestic situations tuning twice a year or even less frequently can be practically sufficient.

Other instruments can hold tuning too.

In Carol Kaye's instruction book - bible to a generation of bass guitar players - she recommends checking the tuning 'at least once a week'!

A friend, who used to stay with me when he visited London, died 10 years ago.

He left an acoustic guitar at my house.

When I opened the case recently, it was still perfectly in tune!

It very much depends on strings and their fixtures.

Pianos have steel strings on a steel frame: short of moving the piano or changing temperatures, not a lot happens here.

On a violin, the E string usually is a steel string as well and mostly needs fine tuning.

Guitars similarly: steel strings need less tuning action than nylon strings, so concert guitar players tend to spend more time tuning than, say, Western guitar players (which is a tiny saving grace for 12-string guitars).

But wooden neck and corpus still move more under different temperature/humidity than a cast-iron frame.

Question: I usually tune my guitar and violin whenever I play them. I assume most people do too. But what makes piano strings different?  I know it is a lot of work to tune a piano, but I'm under the assumption that pianos do not need to be tuned as often as say a guitar.  Is this incorrect?

Why do pianos not need to be tuned every time you play?

Piano strings are attached to a cast iron frame, also known as harp. Cast iron is much less sensitive to humidity and temperature changes than wood. This is the main reason why they stay in tune relatively well. Other factors are that that pianos aren't usually moved and won't get knocked out of tune. They usually require tuning after moving. The metal strings are stable once initially settled, unlike synthetic or gut strings. Playing the piano also doesn't involve touching the strings with your hands, which puts dirt and moisture on the strings.

Piano strings are attached to a cast iron frame, also known as harp. Cast iron is much less sensitive to humidity and temperature changes than wood. Most pianos can hold their tuning quite well, but can do so only under ideal conditions. Playing the piano also doesn't involve touching the strings with your hands, which puts dirt and moisture on the strings. The metal strings are stable once initially settled, unlike synthetic or gut strings.


The 2.5A and 250V on the cable is just the highest current (Ampere) and voltage (Volts) that it's safe to use at.

Provided that your mains supply is in the range 100V to 240V

then that's no problem.

If you're not sure about the voltage in your country take a look at the Mains electricity by country article on Wikipedia.

To plug what to what??

If your cable fits the power supply for the keyboard, then that's fine.

If you're considering plugging it straight into the Waldorf directly, it will go BOOOM big time.

[I'm assuming it's the first - the second really shouldn't be physically possible.

If it was, someone would have set their house on fire by now]

A simple cable with just wires and no electronics inside, as the one your photo shows, will simply forward any voltage.

It won't change it.

The label on the cable specifies the maximum voltage it was made for.

You can use it for any lower voltage as well.

The ~ says that the voltage is alternating, in contrast to = where the voltage is constant (aka.

direct).

I'm not sure how many different Waldorf Blofeld models exist, but one looks like this: If your keyboard has this connector labelled AC

In (alternating current in), then your cable will fit into the wall on one side and into the keyboard on the other side.

No serious electronics engineer would construct a 12 V= plug with that kind of connector, simply because everybody expects to put 110 V~ or 230 V~ into it.

A typical low voltage DC connector looks like this:

So there's no way you could accidentally mix a high voltage AC cable with a low voltage DC plug.

If your keyboard has a low voltage DC connector, then you need a power supply that converts 110 or 230 V~ to 12 V= like this (should have been shipped):

As you can see, it has the high voltage connector on one side and the low voltage connector on the other side.

No.

The 250v is AC, and the keyboard is DC, and only 12volts.

Completely incompatible.

Playstation plug is a 'figure of eight' or 'Grundig' plug, used exclusively for mains powered items.

It also gets used to power the black boxes (psu) which do transform 250vac into the 12vdc that your keyboard requires.

But do not connect up direct.

I can't think how you could anyway, as the keyboard will have a round socket for power, so it wouldn't (thankfully) fit.

EDIT _

I get it now!

The figure of eight plug will fit your keyboard, it's just that the end which goes in the wall socket isn't right for your country!

Any wire with the right plug ito the wall, and a figure of eight at the other end will do!

The Waldorf Blofeld requires a "tip positive" DC barrel connector supplying 12 Volt at least at 500 mA.

The mains should only connect connect to a step down transformer and rectifier to convert it from 250 Volts AC to 12 Volts DC.

Only use the mains PlayStation cable to the mains transformer.

Cite from the FAQ at https://support.waldorfmusic.com/products/Blofeld%20Keyboard

Can I use my Blofeld Keyboard with the power grid in my country?

The device comes with a wide range power supply which covers everything between 50-60 Hz and 110-240V.

You just need a power cord with a "figure of 8" cable, also known as C7 connector and the other plug matching the power grid standard in your country.

A voltage converter is not needed.

Cite from https://www.power-plugs-sockets.com/south-korea/ In South Korea

the power plugs and sockets are of type C and F.

The standard voltage is 220 V and the standard frequency is 60 Hz.

So your cable should fit.

Question: I just got my new synthesizer, Waldorf Blofeld Keyboard.  I live in Korea and the power plug that came with won't match.  This is the plug that came with the keyboard:   and this is the receptacle on the back of the keyboard:   The Waldorf specs are  Nominal voltage: DC12V Supply Voltage: 100-240v Maximum current consumption: 0.3 A Maximum power consumption: 5 W    I have playstation cable which is 2.5A 250V~   Could I plug this to my Waldorf Blofeld Keyboard ?   Would it be ok ?

Can I plug a 2.5A 250V~ cable to a synth that is 100 - 240v?

The 2.5A and 250V on the cable is just the highest current (Ampere) and voltage (Volts) that it's safe to use at. The mains should only connect connect to a step down transformer and rectifier to convert it from 250 Volts AC to 12 Volts DC.

The Waldorf Blofeld is safe to use at 2.5A and 250V. It requires a "tip positive" DC barrel connector to supply 12 Volt. The mains should only connect connect to a step down transformer and rectifier to convert it from 250 Volts AC to 12 Volts DC.


That’s an Em chord.

Any chord that has the notes E, G, B is an E minor chord, and if E is the lowest note, its chord symbol is ”Em”.

(If, say, G was the lowest note, it would be a so-called inversion and the chord symbol would be ”Em/G”.)

The sounding notes at the start are E, G, B and G as the high melody note.

E string open (0) : E (lowest note, bass note)

A string : not played, no note D string : not played,

no note G string open (0) : G B string open (0) :

B E string 3rd fret :

G (melody note) E + G

+ B is a basic E minor chord.

After that the melody goes down from G to F#, E.

Most times, yes, Em open is played with just the two notes fretted on the A and D strings, 2nd fret.

However - E minor is made up from just three notes - E G and B. They could be played as a three string chord on guitar, or, could be doubled up or even tripled - which is what happens to the E notes in the chord you know.

But - by losing the top E and replacing it with a top G?

Well, we still have the same three notes, just a different mix!

It's called a different voicing , and is quite permissable and correct - just not the one shown in most books to beginners!

An excercise I use with students is to consider the notes making up a chord, and find each one on a convenient string.

When all 5 or 6 are accomodated, look at the shape.

It's probably one that's very familiar!

Have a try with some triads - GBD is a nice one.

It'll help you understand why chord shapes are like they are on guitar.

I suspect you're confusing chord-shapes with chords.

There may be a hundred way to play Em on the guitar.

What they all have in common is the notes E,G and B.

The notes may be this way up or that; they may be arpegiated or simultaneous; they may all be present or just two of them; they may be doubled or trebled.

It makes no difference.

In all case it is the same chord.

A chord is a fixed and definite set of notes.

A chord-shape is one of many and various ways of playing those notes.

That's an E minor chord at the start.

I don't think the contents of chords are any different in fingerstyling (though the most often used voicings very well could be).

The played notes at the very start, from bottom to top, are E-G-B-G: a match for an E minor chord.

The next two notes you need to play are F♯ and E. (Treat the F♯ as a passing note.)

An E min chord is just the notes (E, G, B) with possible repeated notes.

There must be a dozen ways to play this, and every other chord out there, on the guitar.

So, when judging what a chord is try to use the formula.

Use the major scale degrees.

Major scale degrees = (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7) or (1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13).

Major chord =

(1, 3, 5) Minor chord = (1, b3, 5) Diminished =

(1, b3, b5) Augmented =

(1, 3, #5) Maj 7th chord = (1, 3, 5, 7) Dominant 7 =

(1, 3, 5, b7)

Minor 7th = (1, b3, 5, b7) etc, etc.

Question: I am fairly new to guitar, and I've been learning the basic chords for a month and so now, and I came across this yesterday, when trying to learn a song.   It says it starts with an E minor, but that doesn't look like an E minor. Are chords different in finger styling?

Em in fingerstyling, is it different?

This is an Em chord. Any chord that has the notes E, G, B is an E minor chord, and if E is the lowest note, its chord symbol is ”Em”.


No, you are playing in C# min.

The point of the capo is to allow you to use open string chord forms in any key rather than bar chords.

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.

would this technically change the Key to A minor?

No.

If there's another guitarist, you can explain as a technical detail that you're fingering the chords like in A minor, but with capo 4.

All those chords are diatonic to key Am - when there's no capo.

Wherever the capo goes means you count up that many semitones.

So if it was on the second fret, all the chords would be one whole tone higher.

In this scenario, they'd be Bm D A Em G F♯, respectively.

However, you've gone up another tone, making two tones higher than original no capo chords.

Now, they're C♯m E B F♯m

A G♯.

Putting the key into C♯m .

The chord shapes as quoted make it easy to change the key to whatever you want.

They're basic chrds, and become dependant on where the capo is.

That song, with capo on 4, will come out as in C♯m on a standard-tuned guitar.

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 to understand what tones will sound when you play a certain chord pattern

The best is you write on a stripe of paper the chromatic scales on the neck along the frets:

e.g. referring to the A-string A-A#-B-C-C#-D-D#-E-F-F#-G-G#-A (A = fret 0 or open string)

let's assume you know the string names from 6,5,4,3,2,1 = E,A,D,G,B,E

The chord of Am is built on the triad A,C,E:

so we can use the open strings

E,A and E (6,5,1) Finger:

String: Fret: Tone: 1

---> C (up 1 semitone) 2--------

E (up 2 semitones) 3

> A (up 2 semitones) and

you play the finger pattern 123: what happens if you push or press down a string? by each fret higher

you shorten the string and the tone is a semitone higher!

this explains why you have to put your fingers on the frets mentioned above to build this tones A,C,E on the strings G,B,

D what happens if you put the capo?

all strings are shortened and the chord is transposed up by each fret you move the capo: also the A-minor chord (and any other chord you learn ... like C, G, Dm, F and E) will be transposed up a semitone by each fret.

so we get moving the a-minor chord with the capo (mind the chromatic scale A,A# B,C,C# ... fret 1 =

A#m fret 2 =

Bm fret 3 =

Cm fret 4 =

C#m etc.

if you play the A-minor chord with capo you will transpose up this chord by each fret (+ a semi tone; mind that you have to learn also the enharmonic names of flat notes (the black keys of the keyboard) that are equivalent to the sharps (#) that are described above.

Here's a quick and dirty rule that you can apply without thinking about it.(Though

it's good to eventually get a real understanding.)

The open strings of a standard guitar are tuned to C major (and A minor).

Imagine the note C (or A) on the piano, count up 4 additional semi-tones, and you'll be on E (or C♯).

The guitar is now tuned to E major (and C# minor) with a capo on the 4th fret.

I don't know what you mean by 'technically' changing the key?

You're playing chord shapes in A minor - THINKING in A minor -

but on an instrument that has been shifted up by 4 semitones.

So an Am chord shape produces a C♯m sound.

No technicalities, just that straightforward fact.

The method I use to determine the capoed key is based on which root chord form (C, D, E, A, F, G, etc.)

in first position I'm using to play higher on the neck in the capoed position.

I simply add 1/2 steps represented by the frets to the original chord fingering pattern to arrive at the newly adjusted key.

In order to determine the scale fingering pattern for playing a melody, you can then use the CAGED fingering patterns, selecting the fingering pattern associated with the original uncapoed root chord, but I have to say I don't know any players that actually use a capo to play melody.

Most melody players/ improvisers, simply determine the key and chose their own preferred fingering patterns to play along with.

It's a simple concept made more confusing by the number of root position chords in the first position.

The main thing to know is which root chord

you start to count from.

Question: I have a song I'm playing on guitar and the original key is C# minor. If I play with a capo on the 4th fret, the chord shapes in the song are Am, C, G, Dm, F and E. So would this technically change the Key to A minor?

Key of a song with capo on the 4th fret

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

The best way  to understand how it functions is to learn the chromatic scale and learn the names of the strings.

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 and learn the names of the strings. The chromatic scales can be written on a stripe of paper on the neck along the frets.


Never.

C° is always C diminished.

C major seventh can be signed with a triangle after the C. Bear in mind that half-diminished is signified by a circle with a diagonal line through it.

Cmaj7 is C E G B. C°7 is C E♭

G♭ B♭♭. C half dim.

is C E♭

G♭ B♭.

Note: they all contain C E G B something .

I have never ever seen "o" denoting a major 7 chord.

A triangle can be used for maj7 in some books (e.g. the Aebersold play alongs), and 'o' is always diminished.

You may also encounter a slashed cirle (ø) for half diminished (min7 b5) chords.

If you're playing from sheet music that's been handwritten, or perhaps photocopied multiple times, it's not uncommon for the small △ symbol, which denotes Maj7 to end up looking like small circle °, which, as you say, denotes Diminished.

Or if the copyist isn't particularly careful, the circle and triangle can end up looking similar.

o a degree sign for diminished triad or o7 for diminished seventh chords.

ø7 for half-diminished seventh chords. Δ7 a delta or triangle for major seventh chords.

Other signs are used capital M for major or lower case m for minor, etc.

You may have been mistaking the delta for a diminished sign.

I had always thought that this notation indicated a major seventh chord: [C°].

At least it seemed to make sense that way in some of the chord sheets I have used in the past.

This must have been an error.

As Cmaj7 is a static chord (or eventuell would lead to F)

it couldn't be substituted by C°, while latter might have a dominant function to Db, (or E, G and Bb) and certainly can't be replaced by Cmaj7.

Edit: As the other answers confirm C°7 was never meaning C major 7 .

` I've edited the last words ...

was never a major 7 as someone could understand A-major 7 ( a was meant as article not as chord).

While answers are correct that C° means C diminished and CΔ means CMaj7, there is more to the story here.

In jazz, C° is a very common delayed resolution to CMaj7.

For example, in a simple ii-V-I: | Dmin | G7 | CMaj7 | CMaj7 |

it's very common to hear pianists harmonize this with:

| Dmin | G7 |

C°7 CMaj7 | CMaj7 |

In this context, the scale typically used over C°7 is C whole-half (enharmonically, C D E♭ F G♭ A

♭ A♮ B ).

This diminished scale contains the BMaj triad, which resolves up a half step to a CMaj triad when we reach the CMaj7 chord.

However, while the C°7 can be voiced with a BMaj triad, this isn't necessarily and isn't always done in jazz.

We can simply voice the C°7 chord in its typical fashion.

This isn't all that different from a common-tone diminished 7th chord , which resolves ii o7 to IMaj (for example, D♯ o7 to CMaj).

After all, D♯ o7 has the same notes as C o7 .

But in a jazz context, the bass is often still playing the I, establishing the progress

as i o7 - IMaj7.

Lead sheets may show this i o7 chord written into the bar, or they may show it above the bar in parentheses to indicate that it's a possible chord substitution.

Or, it may not be shown at all, in which case the musician(s) are choosing to add this substitution into the music on the fly.

Question: I had always thought that this notation indicated a major seventh chord: [C°]. At least it seemed to make sense that way in some of the chord sheets I have used in the past.  I am now finding that it more commonly seems to represent a diminished chord, as in [Ab°(b13)] or [A flat dim flat 13]. My first question is has anyone here ever seen [°] used to represent a major seventh, or am I labouring under an illusion ;-)

Does C° also indicate a major seventh chord?

C° is always C diminished. C major seventh can be signed with a triangle after the C.You may also encounter a slashed cirle (ø) for half diminished (min7 b5) chords. If you're playing from sheet music that's been handwritten, or perhaps photocopied multiple times, it's not uncommon for the small △ symbol, which denotes Maj7 to end up looking like small circle °, which, as you say, denotes Diminished.

Or if the copyist isn't particularly careful, the circle and triangle can end up looking similar.

C° is always C diminished. C major seventh can be signed with a triangle after the C. Half-diminished is signified by a circle with a diagonal line through it. Lead sheets may show this i o7  chord written into the bar or they may show it above the bar in parentheses to indicate that it's a possible chord substitution. In jazz, C° is a very common delayed resolution to CMaj7. It's not uncommon for the small △ symbol, which denotes Maj7 to end up looking like small circle °.


If you're happy playing open chords as opposed to the barres involved here, take the song up by a semitone - most likely not going to strain any tonsils - and substitute as follows.

G for F♯, D for C♯, Em for D♯m and C for B. Pretty simple and straightforward.

The only drawback really being you won't be able to strum along with the track - but that wasn't mentioned...

Indebted to trolley813 - by tuning the guitar a semitone down, it will render averything back to the 'original' key.

Assuming the trouble for you is playing all barre chord, you can try playing the chord on 3 strings... F# xx432xC# xx312xd#m

You can't strum them in the way of open chords, but a broken chord pattern with pick or fingerpicking will work nicely.

If you put a capo on fret 4 you can play three of the four chords using open chord shapes.

F# at the 4th fret can be played with a 'D' shape: %x.x.4.6/1.7/3.6/2[Fmaj]

C# at the 4th fret can be played with the 'A' shape: %x.4.6/2.6/3.6/4.4[C#maj] B at the 4th fret can be played with the 'G' shape: %7/3.6/2.4.4.7/3.7/4[Gmaj]

The only slightly more awkward one in this situation is the D#m, which could be played as a barre chord: %x.6/1.8/3.8/4.7/2.6/1[D#m]

Here's my take on this.

Chords where you only play the three highest strings, and you do not play the bass strings marked with X.

The chords are not in root position, except B, but I don't think that matters, because the notes are so high anyway.

It's a bit like ukulele.

You ask about using a capo.

By putting one on the second fret, you can use open chords as if it's in key E. The F♯ now gets an E shape, the B gets an A shape and the C♯ can be played as B7.

Yes, there's an extra note, but that's acceptable in a V chord.

The slightly odd one's going to be vi - the D♯m, which is pretty close to F♯6.

By playing an E6 shape (022120) it will sound o.k.

So, you'll be using 'open' chords, four fingers maximum, all changes straightforward.

Give it a try - and you're still sounding in the same original key - F♯.

Question: I really like a song and when I saw the chords they are : F#, C#, Dm#, B.And I'm  beginner so is there a easier version  for these chords or like change the chords and use a capo?

How to simplify difficult barred chords in a song

If you put a capo on fret 4 you can play three of the four chords using open chord shapes.  F# can be played with a 'D' shape. C# can be played with the 'A' shape. The only slightly more awkward one in this situation is the D#m, which could be played as a barre chord.

By putting a capo on fret 4 you can play three of the four chords using open chord shapes. F# at the 4th fret can be played with a 'D' shape. C# at the 4th fret can be played with the 'A' shape. C# at the 4th fret can be played with the 'A' shape.


You cannot omit an altered fifth.

In other words, you cannot omit the b5 from either a half-diminished chord or a diminished chord, or the #5 from an augmented chord.

The omission of the 5th only works for unaltered fifths that are implied by the harmonic overtones of the root.

Quite often the most important note of a "m7-5" chord is the "-5", and leaving that out spoils its harmonic effect more than leaving out some other note.

If you have to leave something out, ditch the seventh or maybe even the third.

This is one reason why it's better to look at "Bm7-5" as Dm6/B.

In the contexts where it's commonly used, there are two important notes: F and B.

It's like, F is for the minor character (like in Dm) and B is for the bass movement, like in Bm7-5 - E7 - Am.

Or what do you say, isn't the fact that the seventh can be left out rather than the "-5", a telltale sign that it's more of a Dm than a Bm? :)

The P5 from the root of a major or minor chord can be omitted because that sound is already heard in a harmonic from the root note, albeit more quietly than if it was played as a saparate note.

The diminished chord has 1, ♭3 and diminished 5.

That dim.5 is not contained in the harmonics of ,well, either note from that chord.

So leaving it out means just that - it's not going to be there at all.

So, no proper chord!

So, the 'rule' that you can leave out the 5th won't apply to diminished (or augmented) chords, only majors and minors.

In fact, the 'rule' ought to be you can leave out P5 .

In Levine's Piano Jazz book he gives an example of Bud Powell voicings (shells) where the minor seventh and half diminished are the same - a minor seventh over root, all other tones omitted... ...

it isn't stated in the text around that figure, but I think the assumption is the flat fifth will be supplied in the right hand.

what's the difference between the the two chords if we have the removed the 5th which is not essential?

The diminished fifth is essential to define the half diminished chord, but apparently it isn't required to be in the shell.

Supply it in another voice (or possibly it will be implied by the surrounding harmony.)

The whole point of shell voicings is to provide some "flavour", often for the purpose of supporting a soloist (maybe yourself), rather than to completely define every single chord, or to tell the soloist what they should play.

Similarly, the lead sheet may say "G13" but you might well choose to play a G7 - and leave a bit of space.

So although the answers above may be technically correct in terms of harmonic theory - from the point of view of a musician on a gig - they should not be your primary consideration.

Which actual notes you choose should be determined by what you hear the other musicians do, making nice voice leading, and so on.

Question: I am learning about shell voicings for 7th chords. I understand that you you remove the 5th because it makes no difference in the quality of the chord.That leaves me with Cmin7 being C Eb BbC half diminished being C Eb Bb  So because we removed the 5th, both chords have the same notes and therefore the same sound. In that case, what's the difference between the the two chords if we have the removed the 5th which is not essential?

What's the difference in sound between the shell voicing of a minor 7th chord vs a half diminished 7th chord?

The P5 from the root of a major or minor chord can be omitted because that sound is already heard in a harmonic from the root note, albeit more quietly than if it was played as a saparate note. The whole point of shell voicings is to provide some "flavour", often for the purpose of supporting a soloist (maybe yourself), rather than to completely define every single chord, or to tell the soloist what they should play.

Actual notes you choose should be determined by what you hear the other musicians do, making nice voice leading, and so on.

Shell voicings are often used for the purpose of supporting a soloist, rather than to define every single chord. Similarly, the lead sheet may say "G13" but you might well choose to play a G7 - and leave a bit of space. Which actual notes you choose should be determined by what you hear the other musicians do, making nice voice leading, and so on.


The only way to learn to be an effective sight reader is to practice it.

Concentrate on reading above and below the staff notes.

I sometimes practice hand excericises with my eyes closed.

this familiarizes your fingers with the keyboard.

Learn to know the keyboard like driving your car: orientation on the keyboard: a) all 2 black keys open eyes b) with closed eyes) Find all 3 black keys (all octaves), in the same way: all 2 black keys, all EF and BC (the white semitones), all D (between the 2 black) all DC, triads and scales Play ceg, dfa (the scale of C)

blind, always stay in contact with the black keys and always mind the shape of the pattern.

Play the scale of

B major:1231234 (thumb on B and E) go through all sharp keys

the accompaniments of the l.h. are often triads and tetrads up and down.

Practice them in all keys, always analyzing the You can invent similar short orientation exercises and practice them without shhet music, blind, but always imagine or singing the notes you‘re playing, 2-3 minutes before you start reading.

Another way is reading and playing bar by bar or phrase by phrase, memorizing the keys and notes, seeing and blind, but always listening.

At the end you can play the piece by heart.

Btw.

it‘s not just a bad habit to look down on the keys

: you can also express a lot of music by looking down.

You have all the time of your life for reading notes, stay in contact with your piano, it loves, when you look into its (k)eys.

For disclosure, I worked on developing the above system.

There is a kind of hymnal (Reformation church) that uses only long note values for four part harmony.

Like The Scottish Hymnal .

I think these can be good for sight reading for a number of reasons: lots of (homophonic) music is based on adding rhythmic figures to a basic harmonic framework, the long note values in these hymnals focus on only those important harmonic tones most of the movements from chord to chord involves only single step motions or held tones which you can use as "anchors" for changing your hand position without looking at your hand

a lot of harmony examples are packed into a short space

most of the key signatures are easy If you practice playing double notes in one hand and changing fingers on repeated notes, along with sight reading the hymnals, it really help develop skills to play without looking at your hands.

At least it's helping me.

My son worked with a sight reading book series by Paul Harris.

It was excellent.

I'm sure there are other good ones as well.

Each exercise is short, and includes phrasing and dynamics.

Interestingly enough, that is helpful.

In addition, the exercises are extremely graduated.

Also, the student is given a procedure to follow.

Look over the exercise carefully before putting your hands on the keyboard:

time signature, tempo, key signature.

Count out or imagine the rhythm once through, without playing yet.

Also, look at the melody and ask yourself, what scale degree is this starting on? -- this can help one visualize , so to speak, what the melody will sound like.

Some knowledge of music theory will be helpful.

The main thing is to work at your level -- which will be lower than the level of your repertoire pieces.

Imagine it as well as you can in your mental ear before you play it, and choose a very slow tempo -- and stick to it.

Give it phrasing.

Make it beautiful or at least interesting.

No short cuts.

Suffer like the rest of us!!

And no book recommendations either.

Know your scales thoroughly.

12 majors at least.

Harmonic minors would be next.

All without reference to the black and white keys.

Before starting any sight-reading of a piece, play through its key scale several times

- this gets your head and fingers in the zone of that key.

Concentrate on one hand at a time initially.

Remember there are two aspects involved in early sight reading - rhythm and melody.

Split them, starting with the rhythm part.

Tap out the rhythm of the notes, a few times so it's internalised.

Almost learned if you like.

You're learning to sight-read.

Only then try playing the tune, which will fit better over the rhythm you've established.

With no music, try to feel how far a stretch various intervals are.

, P5 etc.using different fingers in different keys.

Take some time trying out sight singing.

Keep to mainly white note keys initially.

Give yourself the occasional note as a check, and work through a single line melody slowly.

I've always said if you can sing it, you'll play it more easily.

A few ideas out of many.

Just practise sight-reading every day, and it'll get better.

Gradually or quickly - we don't know!

Question: Are there any recipes/shortcuts that can train a piano self-learner into being able to sight-play, at least simple pieces? How to overcome the difficulty of constantly checking the keyboard while reading notes?

recipes of piano sight-play for a self-learner

Learn to orientate yourself on the keyboard blindfolded using orientation exercises without sheet music but while singing  the notes you are playing. Another way is to read the sheet music and playing it bar by bar and memorizing the keys and notes.

Learn to know  the keyboard like driving your car. Find all 3 black keys (all octaves), in the same way. All EF and BC (the white semitones), all D (between the 2 black) all DC,   triads and scales. Another way is reading and playing bar by bar or phrase by phrase; memorizing the keys and notes, seeing and blind, but always listening. At the end you can play the piece by heart.


In some sense, any modifications of the waveform "makes one instrument sound like another" think of all of the effects pedals used by electric guitarists.

More specifically, various flavors of fuzz pedals give results that start to resemble horns or strings, c.f. Even if they don’t accurately capture "the real thing",

at the very least it's somewhat evocative of a different instrument.

In more recent times, there are more direct modeling approaches, mostly by EHX to make guitars sound like other instruments in a passable manner, e.g.

Yes, you can modify the waveform.

But it might not make it sound like another instrument as much as you hoped.

A surprising amount of the 'sound' of an instrument is contained in the attack portion of the note, the complex waveform before the relatively consistent waveform of the sustain.

This is why the 'hybrid' synthesis of instruments like the Roland D50 and Yamaha SY range was

so successful - a short sampled attack was combined with a synthesized sustain.

And why the facility to draw a waveform on the screen of a Fairlight was not all that useful.

When turning one instrument into another, replacement of the attack will be more important than modifying the sustain.

Izotope Iris 2 is a vst/AU plugin that has a “spectrogram” which allows you to edit the transients and shape of any waveform.

It is multi-Timbral and has 4 Sampling engines.

You can load the respective samples and blend the waveforms.

The editing tools are unique as you edit the waveform with graphical tools such as paint, lasso, erase, etc.

It is not strictly necessary to use post-processing.

I heard a skilled violinist play a short tune in double-stops that sounded almost exactly like a bagpipe.

A 'very non-skilled' soprano sax sounds like an oboe with a bad head cold :-) .

Here

and there composers have written parts for 2 or 3 woodwinds such that the combined output sounds like some other (usually wind) instrument.

It's certainly possible to morph from one sound to another - this can be done using a technique as simple as cross-fading samples, or by doing an additive resynthessis of each sound and slowly changing from one spectrum to another.

Bear in mind that even the sound of a single instrument isn't defined by a single waveform or spectrum - most instruments' spectra change over time.

Question: An instrument's distinctive "sound" comes from its timbre which comes from its various harmonics and these in turn affect the shape of the waveform.  As such, I feel like it would be possible for software to be used (fourier transform?) to modify one instrument's waveform to resemble another instrument's shape and thus "sound" like it.  Not sure if anyone here has any experience with this

Is it possible to modify an instrument's waveform to sound like another?

It's certainly possible to morph from one sound to another - this can be done using a technique as simple as cross-fading samples, or by doing an additive resynthessis of each sound and slowly changing from one spectrum to another.  Bear in mind that most instruments' spectra change over time.

It's certainly possible to morph from one sound to another. Bear in mind that even the sound of a single instrument isn't defined by a single waveform or spectrum. Most instruments' spectra change over time.


...Take the progression Am

F C G

That list of chords doesn't determine a key.

Those chords as a bunch of tones could match the key signatures of A minor or C major... or you could even say it's in F where the G chord is a secondary chord, etc.

etc.

The real point of putting Roman numerals on the chords it to say what key the chord are in!

IMO it's more important to say what the key is than exactly which chords are used, because key structure is paramount in understanding compositional form.

Put a key label with the Roman numerals...

Am:

i VI III VII or C: vi IV I V

However, you need to consider one other important point.

The traditional way to define a key is with a dominant chord , and the clearest way to do it is a progression from a dominant to tonic chord.

So, you would want either Am: V I or C: V I somewhere in the music to make a clear case for a key actually being established.

If you don't establish a key with a dominant to tonic the music can be described as non-functional harmony .

That sounds bad, but it isn't.

It's simply a harmonic description.

Lots of pop & rock music is non-functional.

But, when the harmony is non-functional - lacking a clearly defined key - it sort of become irrelevant which Roman numeral labels you use.

My rule of thumb is: is the tonal centre of the song Am ?

Stick to i VI III VII .

Does the song start in the relative major key for instance ( C in this case), then feature this passage?

Then stick to vi IV

I V .

See Hallelujah by Leonard Cohen , the verse is in the major key (starts with the I/vi vamp, then explicitly says it goes like this, the 4th the 5th ...), and goes vi/IV in the chorus.

Depends if you choose to relate it to the key of C major or A minor.

If you choose A minor - and if A is established as the tonic you probably should - there's then the additional question of whether to call C III or ♭III.

I know which I prefer - after all, if you call C III, what would you call C♯?

(It COULD happen!)

But some people disagree, and it's pointless to brush aside an established practice as merely 'wrong'.

Am F C G - in key Am will make Am i .

F is VI , C is III , G is VII .

In key C it will make Am vi , F is IV , C is

I , G is V .

Usually the telling chord in Am is V - E.

So if the piece has some E chords, it's more likely to be in key Am.

If not, it'll more likely be key C.

The last chord is also a good clue to the key.

That's what will be the decider as to how you designate the Roman numerals.

It's maybe not a good idea to call it a minor chord progression -

there's ony one in there!

Chord progression in a minor key make it clear that it's not in key C!

-> The axis of awesome 4 chords songs

Your example starts with Am: so this one i VI III VII and it is modal.

Compare it with: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I%E2%80%93V%E2%80%93vi%E2%80%93IV_progression

I'm not sure what the context of your situation is, but if you can make those chords more than a triad (such as adding dominant/minor 7ths, etc.), it could be possible to determine the key.

For example, if: Am -> Am7 F -> Fmaj7 G -> G7 C -> Cmaj7 , then it would definitely be in C.

The pattern of this in any given major key is: I -> maj7 II -> m7 III -> m7 IV -> maj7 V -> 7 VI -> m7 VII -> (half diminished)

The dominant is a great indicator because it's easier to recognize (in my opinion) and is the only one of its kind.

Albrecht Hügli is partially right in his answer, though.

This looks like a form of a standard 4 chord progression.

It shows up in some form in a large portion of modern songs.

In that wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I%E2%80%93V%E2%80%93vi%E2%80%93IV_progression

This chord progression exactly matches the example given for the variation termed the "sensitive female chord progression" with the numeral expression "vi–IV–I–V".

Question: Quick question,  Take the progression Am F C G   Would the correct way of writing this in Roman Numerals be   i VI III VII   Or  vi IV I V  Thanks

Roman Numerals for minor chord progression E.g. Am F C G

Am F C G in key Am in Roman Numerals is i VI III VII and In key C is vi IV I V

In key Am, the telling chord in Am is V - E. If the piece has some E chords, it's more likely to be in key Am. If not, it'll more likely be key C. The last chord is also a good clue to the key.


I wouldn't call that a modulation at all, it's a common pop/folk song, mostly in E minor, just with a short visit on the relative major side.

The minor's relative major lives in the same double house, just the next door, and the visit is short, just having a cup of tea, not starting to use the major's fridge or sleeping in the same bed or anything.

Modulation would mean a more long-term change.

In other words, even during the G chord, would you say that's home, where your journey ends naturally?

In my opinion, if right after the G chord you play an Em, that's a possible home and could be the end, although a bit surprisingly quick ending.

There's a few different ways to move harmony around, see my answer to "How to determine passing chords" How to determine passing chords If you want to keep the Em and G while still preparing the listener for the D chord in a slightly less abrupt way, put an Am7 before the D in place of the Em.

This is "trick 2" in the answer linked above.

If you start changing things, you might try, for example moving a voice down in steps like this, and setting the chords accordingly.

This is "trick 1" in the answer linked above.

(A little bit of trick 2 applied as well, in B7 - Em and Am6/F# - B7 - Em.)

However, that changes many other things as well, like the chord rhythm, which doesn't go One-two-

THREE One-two-THREE anymore.

And now "liljor och akvileja" get quite a different feeling, etc.

And we don't go to the G major chord at all. :)

The simplest, most effective and most used transition chords are Vs, or V7s.

The dominant of the new 'key'.

So here, in Em, D G is unsurprising.

It may not even go under the banner modulation, as those other chords at that point are all included within the key Em, so it's hardly that it's gone into G, especially being back in Em after only three bars.

You ask if there's another way.

Several.

Going direct from Em to G is one.

Cm to G works, as does Co to

G. A basic premise is notes moving a semitone to the new chord.

The last one does easily - C>B, E♭>D, G♭>G.

One way (but as Tim notes above) that one can move along the cycle of fifths e-a-D-G.

This may not sound much like a modulation though.

(One cannot play notes in the new key that don't occur in the old key.

That's useful on things like C-G or Ab-d or the like).

To get the G to "stick" as a key, one

my find it useful to use an extended cadence like A7-D7-G or the like.

In a short piece like the one posted.

These harmonic movements may be "tonicizations" rather than complete modulations.

There is not enough time to indicate a full modulation.

This is the best way and quite usual, many minor tunes do this as G is the relative key of em.

i (em) =

vi (G) em-D-G

= vi-V-

I could also be reached by em C D G (vi IV V I)

I wouldn’t call it a modulation.

This is a short extension to the relative key ... 4 bars later we are back in e-minor.

An F#7(#9)(#5) would resolve to G (deceptive cadence)and would keep the melody on top.

Although if you choose to use such a chord it would be important to have a few other similar secondary dominants in your arrangement.

In this case - a simple folk-song style and a modulation to such a closely-related key as to hardly count as a modulation at all - I see no advantage to anything more complicated.

I'm no theory expert in the least.

In fact I would say novice is a stretch when it comes to theory.

I use this change quite often when noodling around.

When I can think to not jump back and forth with the standard walk up & down.

Couldn't this be considered

iv V

I progression in Gmajor?

Question: In this version they modulate from Em to G by the chords Em-D-G? Is there a better way of doing it?

With what chords do we modulate from Em to G?

I wouldn't call that a modulation at all, it's a common pop/folk song, mostly in E minor, just with a short visit on the relative major side. Modulation would mean a more long-term change. An F#7(#9)(#5) would resolve to G (deceptive cadence)and would keep the melody on top.  Although if you choose to use such a chord it would be important to have a few other similar secondary dominants in your arrangement.

Modulation would mean a more long-term change. If you want to keep the Em and G, put an Am7 before the D in place of the Em

A common pop/folk song in E minor has a short visit on the relative major side. Modulation would mean a more long-term change. If you want to keep the Em and G while still preparing the listener for the D chord in a slightly less abrupt way, put an Am7 before the D in place of the Em.

An F#7(#9)(#5) would resolve to G and would keep the melody on top. Even if you use a chord such as this, it is critical to incorporate a few complementary dominant harmonies.

In this case - a simple folk-song style and a modulation to such a closely-related key.


Let's try to write out a list.

(Leaving out dims on purpose - no help here!).

In key C major - C=I, Dm=ii, Em=iii, F=IV, G

=V, Am=vi.

In key Am - Am=i, C=III, Dm=iv, Em=

v (E=V),

F=VI, G=VII.

In key Cm - Cm=i, E♭=III, Fm=iv, Gm=v (G=V), A♭=VI, B♭=VII.

There is NO natural minor key .

There are natural minor notes, but only minor keys!

Does the list above hold your answer?

Cont...

In key C major, going to key C minor, chord 3 is E♭.

So, using C major notation, it'll be ♭Ⅲ .

Chord 6 is A♭, so it'll be ♭Ⅵ .

3 major to 6 parallel minor is correct, iii-bVI.

3 minor to 6 parallel major is bIII-vi.

One should establish the correct interval from the tonic when labeling chords with Roman numbers regardless of whether it’s a major or minor key.

In the key of C (major or minor) the first example is Em-Ab and the second is Eb-Am Also, FYI chords are not generally called “the third chord” but rather “the three chord” or in the case of your first example, “the three minor chord to the flat six chord”.

If a chord is anything other than a major triad it should be identified.

If I understand the question (correct me if I misunderstood), for example in Cm, you wish to go from and E major to an A major chord.

The way I've seen this notated would be #III followed by #VI.

The # before the chord means raise the root and the numerals mean a major chord.

Let’s say we’re in a-minor.

You mean: III(a-minor) =

C -> bVI of parallel key (A-major) =

F your question: iii (A-major) =

c#m ->

bVI of parallel key (a-minor) =

F

your question: Is this bVI F-major or f-minor chord?

As you change from A-major to a minor bVI = f,a,c = bVI -> F-major chord.

This question illustrates perfectly the sort of muddle that is caused by labelling the three triad of a minor scale III rather than ♭III.

A minor 3rd is still a minor 3rd whatever scale it occurs in.

It's ♭III in my book.

However, people DO use the convention of calling Eb ♭III in a C major context, III in a C minor context.

All I can advise is to make it clear which convention you're using.

Illustrating a discussion with notated examples can help.

(Also, is there some confusion between 'parallel major' and 'relative major'?)

Question: If I'm in a major key and I have a progression from the three chord to the six chord borrowed from the parallel minor (modal mixture) I would go:  iii bVI     But if I was in a natural minor  key  scale and I want my progression to go from the three chord to the six chord borrowed from the parallel major then would it be:  bIII vi  or would it be:  III vi  <-- because isn't the three chord in a minor scale generally considered III?

How to notate a borrowed chord if you're in a key other than major?

This question illustrates perfectly the sort of muddle that is caused by labelling the three triad of a minor scale III rather than ♭III. A minor 3rd is still a minor 3rd whatever scale it occurs in.  All I can advise is to make it clear which convention you're using.

(Also, is there some confusion between 'parallel major' and 'relative major'?)

Minor 3rd is still a minor 3rd whatever scale it occurs in. People use the convention of calling Eb ♭III in a C major context. Make it clear which convention you're using, and Illustrating a discussion with notated examples can help.


It's towards the dusty end, but barre 10th fret, and finger 12th

fret 5th string, and 12th fret top string gives the 9th part of the chord.

So Dm barre there,(with 12th fret 4th string if you want

, otherwise it's Dm7) and Dm9 follows easily.

EDIT: an alternative - similar to the chord window in the question, but maybe not easy

fo you, would be very much like D9 where evrything is in 5th fret, except 4th fret 4th string (quite an easy chord to finger), but move the 4th string from F♯ down to 3rd fret, giving the m3 of F♮.

But getting to it from where?

Maybe 5th fret barre Am shape?

Do you really need the 7th?

If not, could you use this inverted m9(no 7)

(or m add 9): or even this sus2:

Use the open E for the 9th.

Dm : x5776x Dm9 :

x5x560 (leave out the 5th)

How about- Dm11 : x57060

It's a nice idea to combine one or two open strings with stuff.

Here's an etude x57060 8x7060 7x7760 6x7760 6x5760 5x5760 5x5660 3x3330 3x2330 1x2230 x13230 3x2330 x02330 x08680 x57460

That depends on a few factors.

Like whether or not you want all notes in the voicing, whether the style of the song is folk or rock versus Jazz.

I personally have no problems with the fingering (x, 5, 7, 7, 6, x) to

(x, 5, 3, 5, 5, x) which would require a shift back.

Another option is.

(x, x, 3, 2, 3, x)

or (x, 0, 3, 2, 3, x) to (x, 5, 3, 5, 5, x)

You could even use (x, 5, 3, 2, 3, x) if you can grab it.

Lastly if you want an open string tone and feel.

(x, x, 0, 2, 3, 1) to

(x, x, 3, 2, 3, 0) or (x, x, 0, 2, 3, 0)

if you don't mind the ambiguity of not having the 3rd.

An more obtuse voicing might be, (x, x, 0, 2, 3, 1) to (x, x, 2, 2, 3, 1)

It really depends on the style you are playing, e.g. full strums vs fingerpicking.

On top of existing answers, you can play Dm7 either ways: x5356x , with the minor 3rd on top; x5353x , with the root on top .

You bar on the 3rd fret with the 1st finger, so you are basically playing a G7sus4 on 3rd position.

Drive by Incubus makes exactly that

(but in Em) by the way!

you also got the strechy voicing of Dm-add9 Dmadd9x57975to Dmx57755 or Dm9x5355x

toDm/fx877710x way up:Dm9/cxx10101012to Dm/cxx10101010

Question: I'm playing a song that goes Dm to Dm9. Moving from either open Dm or fifth-string bar Dm to the pictured Dm9 shape feel pretty awkward. Is there a better shape or fingering? I imagine Dm->Dm9 in any key can't be too uncommon.

How to finger Dm -> Dm9?

It really depends on the style you are playing, e.g. full strums vs fingerpicking, but barre 10th fret, and finger 12th fret 5th string, and 12th fret top string gives the 9th part of the chord. So Dm barre there,and Dm9 follows easily.

It's towards the dusty end, but barre 10th fret, and finger 12th fret. So Dm barre there,(with 12th tighten 4th string if you want 4th fret), otherwise it's Dm7) and Dm9 follows easily. It really depends on the style you are playing


The first solution is correct.

The slur should start at the beginning of the first note under the slur.

The second solution is difficult to sight read.

It seems ambiguous at first glance, and it is only with careful analysis that one realizes that it isn't.

I'll try to remember to edit this answer to cite some examples of this notation sometime in the next couple of days.

In such a situation you should set the slur above the system to make it better readable.

But there are other alternatives:

The slur could end on an other syllable in the next bar.

The time could be notated in 4/4 and with triplets: in this bar you’d have just a dotted half-note.

Edit: As you say below your question the slur is underlying the word ye-ni , what means long year .

So I wouldn’t interrupt the phrasing of this word, as it would be 2 short years.

(S. my comment above).

The slur must end at the last note of the 2nd syllable of ye-ni to make sense.

A tie simply gives the opportunity to make longer notes than are available, or need to go across a bar line.

A slur 'joins together' a series of notes, (which are usually not the same pitch), that would then be played 'all in one breath'.

Since what you show isn't even the full word, it might be better still to make the slur curve between the beginning and end syllables.

However, if you only want the first part to be slurred, you're joining all the notes from the first utterance of 'y', not the end of it, so the second example isn't good anyway.

The first is fine for as far as we can see, but bear in mind my earlier thought.

Certainly not the second example.

The first is correct.

Maybe putting the melisma (one syllable, several notes)

slur on top would be clearer.

The first solution is most correct, although the slur could be placed above the note stems instead.

The second solution may appear to performers to be a typo, and interpretation of the composer's intent may be debated.

That aside, I'm wondering why you need to slur a note that's held across a single syllable.

If a breath should be taken in the middle of the syllable after the C#, perhaps a breath mark would suffice better than ending a slur (assuming the note after the C# holds the same syllable).

The end of a slur in the middle of a held syllable across notes may also be open up to interpretation by the performers as they won't know whether to take a breath or keep the syllable held as they normally would have.

So for this instance I'd say don't use a slur or if anything use a breath mark where intended.

If more than two notes are tied together, there should be a separate tie connecting every note but the last to its successor.

If more than two notes are slurred together, however, they should generally all use one slur unless layout considerations force them to be placed separately

(e.g. if a slurred passage doesn't fit on one line).

Although not all engravers are consistent with this, it is useful to place ties between the notes being connected, while slurs should extend between points that are above and below the notes in question.

If one makes ties and slurs visually distint in that manner, there will be no confusion about whether something is a tie or a slur.

Otherwise, if has a curved mark which connects a point above or below a note that has an accidental with a note on the same staff position in the next measure, it may be unclear whether it's a tie that extends the duration of a note that sustains the altered pitch, or a slur which connects an altered note in one measure with an unaltered note in the next.

If ties are placed horizontally between notes, then ties and slurs would be recognizable as different.

Question: I'm writing a choral piece in 12/8 where the basses have a dotted quarter C, tied to a dotted half, tied to a dotted quarter, and then slurred to a C# - all while on the same syllable. How should I configure the slurs and ties to best show this:  Like this?   Or like this?   Thanks!

How to configure slur with tie when writing choral music?

What you show isn't he full word. So, it might be better to make the slur curve between the beginning and the end syllables. However, if you only want the first part to be slurred, you're joining all the notes from the first utterance of 'y', not the end of it, so the second example isn't good anyway.

That aside, I'm wondering why you need to slur a note that's held across a single syllable.

A slur 'joins together' a series of notes, that would then be played 'all in one breath' A tie simply gives the opportunity to make longer notes than are available, or need to go across a bar line. Since what you show isn't even the full word, it might be better still to make the slur curve between the beginning and end syllables.

Why you need to slur a note that's held across a single syllable. If a breath should be taken in the middle of the syllable after the C#, perhaps a breath mark would suffice. The end of a slur in the midst of a held syllable across notes may also be open up to interpretation by the performers.

If more than two notes are slurred together, they should all use one slur, unless layout considerations force them to be placed separately.


Without researching the matter (and thus preserving Internet Tradition), I'd say that it's because the input energy to a guitar is a single pluck whereas a violin is bowed giving a continuous energy transfer.

Pizzicato violins are not as loud a bowed.

You are asking for loudness, not volume, correct?

Volume is refering to physical properties (i.e. the amplitude of the sound waves), whereas loudness is the perceived volume which can differ a lot from the actual SPL (sound pressure level), althoug the SPL is still a major factor.

The loudness is also dependent on frequencies and bandwidth of the audio signal.

One other factor, which can play a significant role, is your ears.

With age some form of hearing loss occurs.

Some people hear certain frequencies much louder than others.

I, for example did a hearing test and found out that I perceive a 2 kHz signal as loudest compared to other frequencies at the same SPL.

When I play my electric guitar without an amp, I clearly perceive the higher strings to be much louder than the lower strings.

But I have a calibrated decibel meter

and I have just run a test: it showed the same dbA value for the lowest and highest string (I know that dbA is different from db SPL but for the sake of this argument, the difference does not play a great role in this situation.)

This clearly proves that perceived loudness is highly subjective and it all happens in our brains.

According to this post , higher-pitched sounds seem to the human ear to be louder than lower-pitched ones.

In general, a violin is going to be playing in a higher register than a guitar.

The idea, that the the size of an acoustic instrument is an indication of its loudness is somewhat astonishing.

It simply effects (based on trustworthy physical laws), that is maximum resonance frequency is in a different range.

So violas are typically likely less loud than violins.

As hinted in my comment, the material of the string can't be neglected either in respect to color of tone and volume, as the pure guitar-based comparison of nylon and steel strings shows.

How loud an instrument sounds is not determined by its size.

It's determined by the amount of coupling between the string (or whatever is generating the tone) and the air around the instrument.

Compare an acoustic guitar with an electric guitar

: They are both of the same size, they both may use exactly the same strings (though they prefer different gauges).

But one is loud enough to sing along (the acoustic guitar)

while the other can hardly be heard unless you plug it into an amp.

The difference?

The electric guitar is basically a solid slap of wood that's purposefully way too heavy to vibrate significantly.

As such, the vibration energy stays in the strings for a longer time, giving the instrument a much longer sustained sound than the acoustic guitar does.

The acoustic guitar, by contrast, is built such that the thin planks of wood vibrate along with the strings, so that the vibrations can actually be turned into sound waves efficiently.

The acoustic guitar has a much, much higher coupling between the strings and the surrounding air than the electric guitar.

Of course, this coupling is a continuous scale.

You can find guitars that are louder (stronger coupling), and you can find violins that are quieter (weaker coupling) than other instruments of the same sort.

But the violin has seen very intensive use as an orchestra instrument where a certain amount of volume is a must.

And a strong coupling is not a problem for a violin because energy is constantly being supplied by the bow: There is no need to sustain a sound for a while.

The guitar, on the other hand, is a plucked instrument, and as such the amount of available energy is fixed.

The longer a note sounds, the quieter it gets.

And the stronger the coupling is, the quicker the note will fade away.

Which is not what most guitarists want: When they were able to reduce the coupling by relying on electric amplification instead, they almost immediately reduced the coupling to effectively zero in order to get a good, long sustain.

music.stackexchange.com/users/56638/cmaster - reinstate monica

If you want to reduce the amount of sound a violin makes then move the soundpost.

If you want to drastically reduce the amount of sound then remove it altogether (but be careful of the bridge falling down if you do that).

OK, not a serious suggestion to try on a good violin

but it makes the point that the quality and amount of sound a violin makes is determined by the way the instrument is "set up" and in particular the positioning of the soundpost.

According to Wikipedia : The position of the sound post inside a violin is critical, and moving it by very small amounts (as little as 0.5mm or 0.25mm, or less) can make a big difference in the sound quality and loudness of an instrument.

For non-violinists, the soundpost is a small wooden dowel which is placed (not glued) roughly under the bridge.

When the strings are tuned (i.e. tightened)

this applies pressure to the soundpost and it performs acoustic coupling with the back of the violin transferring additional sound energy.

A guitar doesn't have a soundpost and hence produces less sound.

Resonance.

Range and bow help too.

Question: The violin is comparatively louder than a guitar.  This is a surprising fact, given that:   the violin instrument is generally smaller than, say, a typical classical or folk guitar,  both use strings.    In other words, how can such a small instrument as a violin be so loud? Is the fact that the strings of a guitar are pinched compared to the bowed strings of a violin the main and only reason?

Why is a violin so loud compared to a guitar?

How loud an instrument sounds is not determined by its size. It's determined by the amount of coupling between the string (or whatever is generating the tone) and the air around the instrument. Loudness is the perceived volume which can differ a lot from the actual SPL (sound pressure level), although the SPL is still a major factor.

Volume is refering to physical properties (i.e. the amplitude of the sound waves), whereas loudness is the perceived volume which can differ a lot from the actual SPL (sound pressure level), although the SPL is still a major factor.

How loud an instrument sounds is not determined by its size. Some people hear certain frequencies much louder than others. Loudness is also dependent on frequencies and bandwidth of the audio signal. With age some form of hearing loss occurs, and your ears can also play a role in how loud you hear. The SPL (sound pressure level) is a major factor in the perceived volume of a sound. The loudness of an instrument is determined by the amount of coupling between the string (or whatever is generating the tone) and the air around it.

Size doesn't determine the loudness but coupling between strings


Your hands don't seem extremely small.

It's your hand-position that makes things impossible for you.

I can't see your thumb but it seems to be stretched completely to the left, and your wrist is totally straight.

Your fingers shouldn't be pressed against each other.

Try to bend your wrist a bit, put your thumb behind your middle finger, and let it point upwards.

Also point the neck of your guitar a bit upwards instead of downwards or parallel to the floor.

This should help fix many of your problems.

Maybe something like this:

Trying to understand why your fingers slant over like in the picture, I get the impression you may be "gripping" the chord with a lot of force squeezing the ball of your thumb onto the back of the guitar neck.

When you position your hand like in @MattL's photo you should have the tip of the thumb (your thumb print area) on the neck.

It may take some time to get used to this position, but eventually when your hand becomes trained it should not take much force.

Think of your finger position when making a fist compared to wrapping your hand around a tennis ball.

With a fist your fingers collapse against the palm.

Holding a ball the fingers are arched away from the palm.

You want to fingers more in that arched position.

Pay attention to your whole arm and elbow position.

You might try holding your elbow away from your body a bit to get your whole forearm more perpendicular to the neck.

Instead of gripping with just the hand, think of your whole arm sort of pulling back.

I'm exaggerating things, but it's like pulling your forearm back instead of only gripping a fist.

Also, if are not already playing these embellishment in open position, try that first and then move into the barre chords.

Barre chords can be tough to play.

If you first get your fingers coordinated to embellish with hammers and pull offs in open position, embellishing the barre chords should be easier.

Looking at the tips of your fingers, you are pressing way too hard.

There's no blood left in them!

Bear in mind with that shape, only 3 strings need pressing hard enough to sound - 5, 3 and 1.

You could also do with having the neck higher, the lower it goes, the harder it is to get your hand round.

Maybe also rotate the guitar so the neck isn't parallel to the floor, but the head of the guitar is higher.

That will help the whole of your hand from having to be bent in the way shown in the pic.

For tht shape, fingers need to be almost perpendicular to the fretboard, which then brings pinky in line for that 10th fret.

Maybe the action on the guitar is bad enough for you to have to press really hard - in which case, lower it.

Checking dimensions, yes, your hand is small - even smaller than mine, which is not even medium.

Consider looking at other guitars with different profile necks and different radius fingerboards.

Usually I would recommend lighter strings to aid a beginner.

But in this case it looks like your wrist is too bent, forcing your hand to 'claw' the neck.

Try positioning the guitar to allow your elbow to move further away from your body, straightening your wrist.

This will give extra free movement for your fingers to achieve the better position in the photo someone else shared.

It will be difficult and feel unnatural at first, partly because you have to unlearn your existing position.

Not at all, your hand is good enough.

The issue is in the angle of the wrist.

It is not perpendicular to the neck.

If you keep the wrist straight then the pinky finger can get to the 10th fret.

During my early days, I would try this method.

First practice normal bar chord.

I pick all strings in a clean way.

Next, I reach some higher frets with my pinky finger, keep it there and play clean.

I take of my pinky finger and sound clean.

I then repeat 2 with the pinky fingers and other higher frets as much as I can.

Note not only the requirement is to sound clean, but the requirement is also to hold it quickly.

Some stretching exercises are surely going to help, before you begin your playing.

Question: I’ve been playing guitar for about a year and I’m learning to play RnB style chord embellishments and right now they seem absolutely impossible. Playing an Emin7 and hammering on the 10th fret seems so hard. Any help?

Are my hands too small for chord embellishments?

It's your hand-position that makes things impossible for you. I get the impression you may be "gripping" the chord with a lot of force squeezing the ball of your thumb onto the back of the guitar neck. Try positioning the guitar to allow your elbow to move further away from your body, straightening your wrist. This will give extra free movement for your fingers to achieve A better position.

You may be "gripping" the chord with a lot of force squeezing the ball of your thumb onto the back of the guitar neck. Try positioning the guitar to allow your elbow to move further away from your body. It will be difficult and feel unnatural at first, partly because you have to unlearn your existing position. If you first get your fingers coordinated to embellish with hammers and pull offs in open position, embellishing the barre chords should be easier.


In a diminished triad the diminished refers to the fifth of the chord and the third in understood to be a minor third.

In a diminished seventh chord the diminished refers to the seventh of the chord and the third is understood to be a minor third and the fifth is understood to be diminished.

The names are not a complete list of the intervals of the chords.

Think of it like the name major scale , not all the intervals in that scale are major, it's just a name, you still need to learn the interval structure.

To some degree the simple names work because the interval structure is understood relative to the diatonic scale.

Major/minor triad refers to the third only and the fifth is assumed perfect, because all fifths are perfect except the one above the leading tone, and so the triad built on the leading tone is called diminished referring to the unique fifth in only that one diatonic triad.

In the case of non-diatonic seventh chords, the naming becomes more explicit, sort of listing out intervals.

For example a minor major seventh chord is a minor triad with a major seventh added.

Why do diminished chords have 3rd minor?

Because the thirds of the triads built on the leading tone of diatonic scales, or the second degree on minor diatonic scales, are minor thirds.

A diminished chord has a diminished fifth , not diminished third https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diminished_triad Diminished third is two semitones

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diminished_third "root + 3rd diminished + 5th diminished" ...

if you play that rooted on the first scale degree, it gives a Lydian'ish sound, because it's enharmonic to something like II 7 / I.

Let's say the root is F#, for example.

The diminished chord would be F

# A C. (If it were a diminished 7th chord, it would be F# A C Eb.)

The diminished third would be Ab.

That would make the chord F# Ab C (plus Eb if you add the diminished seventh).

That chord exists: it's the German sixth chord.

A minor third is unambiguous, and generally accepted to be consonant ("pleasant sounding").

By using a diminished third, we are dangerously closing in to a non-third-based chord, which are generally regarded as too dissonant for basic harmony (i.e. a different area or level of expertise).

A diminished third is more similar to a "second" interval.

If we define the triads of all degrees of any scale (minor or major) we have major thirds and minor thirds with perfect fifths: the terms major / minor refer to the lower third.

Only the seventh degree ti-re-fa (= B,D,F) in a major scale and the second degree of a minor scale se-ti-fa (= G#,B,D) has a diminished fifth -

that's why this chords are named "diminished": the term diminished refers to the dim.

(In a chromatic minor scale the 3rd degree can contain 2 major thirds (do-mi-se = C,E,G#).

This triad is named "augmented" referring to the augmented fifth (+5 or #5).

"Double diminished" would mean that both intervals (3rd and 5th) are diminished:

double diminished refers to the third and the fifth!

(so double means that both intervals are diminished ).

There isn't always a completely logical reason why things are named as they are.

A diminished triad has minor 3rd and diminished 5th A diminished 7th chord has minor 3rd, diminished 5th and diminished 7th.

I suggest you accept this and move on!

A diminished 3rd is theoretically possible.

(So is an augmented 7th.)

But they sound so like a major 2nd (and an octave) that there's rarely any point in spelling them that way.

And I don't think you'll gain anything from worrying about such extreme cases.

Root, diminished 3rd and diminished 5th (C, E♭♭, G♭) will be heard as C, D, F♯, a bare-bones D7.

Question: Why do diminished chords have 3rd minor , not 3rd diminished ?  and what is the name of this chord : root + 3rd diminished + 5th diminished?

Why do diminished chords have 3rd minor?

S5: Major/minor triad refers to the third only and the fifth is assumed perfect, because all fifths are perfect except the one above the leading tone, and so the triad built on the leading tone is called diminished referring to the unique fifth in only that one diatonic triad.   In the case of non-diatonic seventh chords, the naming becomes more explicit, sort of listing out intervals. If we define the triads of all degrees of any scale (minor or major) we have major thirds and minor thirds with perfect fifths: the terms  major  /  minor  refer to the lower third. Only the seventh degree ti-re-fa (= B,D,F) in a major scale and the second degree of a minor scale se-ti-fa (= G#,B,D) has a diminished fifth - that's why  this chords are named "diminished": the term  diminished  refers to the dim. 5th

Major/minor triad refers to the third only. In the case of non-diatonic seventh chords, the naming becomes more explicit.

A minor third is unambiguous, and generally accepted to be consonant. By using a diminished third, we are dangerously closing in to a non-third-based chord.

If we define the triads of all degrees of any scale (minor or major) we have major thirds and minor thirds with perfect fifths. Only the seventh degree ti-re-fa in a major scale and the second degree of a minor scale have a diminished fifth.


I advice you to learn about modal scales and what modal scales fit what chord progressions.

There are many resources about that, in particular in jazz music handbooks.

Then you can think of the pentatonic as a subset of notes in the scale.

You will understand which characteristic notes from the modal scales are present in given pentatonic, and which are omitted.

In particular, in key of Bm Bm pentatonic (b d e f# a) is a subset of B aeolian (b c# d e f# g a), dorian (b c# d e f# g# a) or phrygian

(b c d e f# g a) scale Em pentatonic is a subset of B aeolian or phrygian scale (so may not work as a substitute for dorian)

F#m pentatonic is a subset of B aeolian or dorian scale ...and there is one more!

Less commonly known for its a bit more exotic sound: C#m pentatonic is a subset of B dorian scale

Here's a web page where you can enter a chord progression and it will show you which parent scales may be used over one or more chords.

You can then use major pentatonic scales instead of regular major scales, and minor pentatonic scales instead of regular minor scales.

As @user1079505 already commented, the minor pentatonic scale contains all the notes that are common to the minor modes (aeolian, dorian, phrygian).

So it all depends on the context (that is, the exact chord progression).

Normally, if you're playing over a progression in Bm, you would play the Bm pentatonic.

Regardless of whether your progression is Bm aeolian, phrygian or dorian, the Bm pentatonic would be a good match.

Also, you will find that the other 2 scales you mention lack important tones (the minor 3rd in the case of F#m and the 5th in the case of the Em).

You could just stick to the Bm pentatonic, and it would be "fine".

However, I would argue that it is not enough.

You will get more variety in your sound if you add some extra notes.

In particular, the 2nd and the 6th, which are the notes missing from the pentationic.

These 2 will depend on the other chords in your progression, and will determine what mode you're in.

Also, bear in mind what @Tim said about the V chord.

That's an issue you will find when playing in minor modes, whereby you will have to get out of the strict mode, and weave into the harmonic minor scale when you're playing over that one.

There are 2 common pentatonic scales, the major and the minor.

Using the major scale degrees as a reference (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7), the Major pent is (1, 2, 3, 5, 6) and the minor pent is (1, b3, 4, 5, b7).

I am not sure of a third but in fact you can create your own 5 notes scales (or 6, or 13 note, ;-)) but removing, adding, altering notes to Do-Re-Mi...

so I might "know" other 5 notes scales but don't recall them as "Pentatonic".

You can, for example, play the either of these two 5 note scales starting on another note other than the "1".

This generates alternate fingering patterns on the guitar which I, and most guitarists, are aware of.

But in fact, if you play the Major pentatonic starting on the last note (the 6) you will be playing the minor pent.

This is related to the fact the the relative minor scale of any major scale starts on the 6th degree.

FOr example

C major pentatonic and A minor pentatonic are the same scale in a sense (same set of notes).

The great value of the 5 note scale has been stated by other answers but bears repeating.

Namely, that there are three related major modes, Ionian, Lydian, and Mixolydian, and three minor modes, Dorian, Phrygian, and aeolean.

The notes are, respectively, (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7) =

Ionian (major) (1, 2, 3, #4, 5, 6, 7) =

Lydian (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, b7) =

Mixolydian (1, 2, b3, 4, 5, 6, b7) =

Dorian (1, b2, b3, 4, 5, b6, b7) =

Phygian (1, 2, b3, 4, 5, b6, b7) =

Aeolean (minor)

The petantonics cover the "common" notes among these sets.

When choosing a scale to play over a set of chords it helps to be able to analyze the progression to identify a common key, or notate key changes.

Since all these modes are related if you know one you know them all.

But a short rule of thumb is play the minor pent over minor chords and major pent over major chords.

If all these chords are in the same basic key then matching to the first chord would suffice.

You'll have to use your ear to hit the "right notes at the right time".

why would you use one [pentatonic scale] over another?

Each pentatonic scale has a tonal center -- a pitch toward which the others are directed.

That's how the letter-name part of the scale is derived.

So you would either pick a pentatonic scale that has its tonal center in common with the chord you're playing over (say, B minor pentatonic over a B minor chord), or you might choose to play against the chord by choosing a pentatonic that has a contrasting tonal center or perhaps other notes that present dissonances against the bass (say, E major/C# minor pentatonic against a B minor chord).

Question: Since there are three pentatonic scales that work with any diatonic chord progression, how do you decide which one to use? If I have a chord progression in Bm, I could use Bmin, Emin or F#min pentatonic scales and all the notes will be found in the Bminor scale. What are the differences between those 3 pentatonic scales and why would you use one over another?

how do you choose which pentatonic scale to use over a progression?

You can then use major pentatonic scales instead of regular major scales, and minor pentatonic scales instead of regular minor scales. There are 2 common pentatonic scales, the major and the minor. Using the major scale degrees as a reference (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7), the Major pent is (1, 2, 3, 5, 6) and the minor pent is (1, b3, 4, 5, b7).

Here's a web page where one can enter a chord progression and it will show you which parent scales may be used over one or more chords.  http://www.micrologus.com/tools/online_harmonic_analyzer

Here's a web page where you can enter a chord progression and it will show you which parent scales may be used over one or more chords.  http://www.micrologus.com/tools/online_harmonic_analyzer

There are two common pentatonic scales, the major and the minor. The Major pent is (1, 2, 3, 5, 6) and the Minor pent is b3. There are three related major modes, Ionian, Lydian, and Mixolydian.


In addition to the other correct answers here... It's the third mode of the Lydian dominant (or Acoustic) scale.

Lydian dominant =

C - D - E - F# - G - A - Bb - C = WWWHWHW

Thus the third mode = E - F# - G - A - Bb - C - D - E = WHWHWWW

Or, transposed: C - D - Eb - F - Gb - Ab - Bb - C

It's also called the Half-diminished scale ().

C D Eb F

Gb Ab Bb

It's 6th mode of melodic minor scale (it has the same notes as Eb melodic minor).

Putting the notes into a better known order gives the melodic minor, rising (or the jazz melodic minor.

E♭ F G♭

A

♭ B

C D.

Keeping the same order but starting on its 6th note gives a mode of that.

C D E♭ F G♭

A♭ B♭.

This mode has a couple of names - Aeolian ♭5 and Locrian ♯2 .

The bottom of your question has been answered correctly.

Just to help and give some additional information referring to your comment: I fiddle with keys and not really study the theories and relationships behind them.

I might be lacking the terminology to search for .

The lacking term you have to look for is: the modes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mode_(music) and if you are interested in modern scale theory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jazz_scale

I know this scale as "locrian ♮2"

Question: I'm looking for a name for the minor scale with a flattened fifth note.   WHWWHWW -> WHWHWWW    C min: C D Eb F G Ab Bb; C ???: C D Eb F Gb Ab Bb   The closest my searching has come to an answer was  this  SE:PT question of the same name (and yet not the same question?).

Name for minor scale with flat fifth

It's the third mode of the  Lydian dominant  (or Acoustic) scale. It's also called the  Half-diminished  scale.

It's the third mode of the  Lydian dominant  (or Acoustic) scale. Lydian dominant =  C - D - E - F# - G - A - Bb - C  = WWWHWHW. Thus the third mode =  E - F# - G - A - Bb - C - D - E  = WHWHWWW


Your 1st example is an improvisation.

With improvisation, how does one tell if a note is 'wrong'?

You ask 'is it o.k. to hit a wrong note?'

I counter with 'what constitutes a wrong note?'

If one is playing something like a classical piece from the dots, and trying to re-create it exactly, then yes, it's wrong.

If one is playing most other sorts of music, and happens to hit a completely out-of-key note, yes, it's wrong.

If one is playing most other sorts of music, and happens to hit a note which works - how does anyone know whether in fact it actually was a 'wrong note'?

Wrong notes are never "okay".

Even as a total beginner it's very important to try to play all the right notes

so you're ingraining the right ones into your fingers and your brain.

Professionals of course try to reduce wrong notes to almost zero, but absolute perfection is almost unobtainable.

If you are improvising, it's a different story: there are no 'wrong' notes, only good or bad choices, but you should still try to avoid choosing 'bad' notes.

At orchestral concerts mistakes are rare.

That's 80 musicians playing at least 90 minutes of music without a mistake.

You can't have an off day.

But an occasional wrong note from the soloist in a fast movement of a concerto is accepted, as long as his/her performance is exciting.

Orchestral musicians prefer a principal French horn who plays freely and dangerously, even if that means an occasional split note.

When a jazz musician is improvising and hits a wrong note they can often cover their tracks by embracing that note and convincing you

they meant to do that.

This trick is unavailable to classical musicians.

Feel is valued over accuracy.

And that's also true of folk musicians, though folk audiences aren't even that bothered about feel!

In standard pop music, the stuff's so goddam easy to play there

really shouldn't be any wrong notes.

You should aim to play all notes correctly.

This is not everything, but it is important.

If you miss notes often, practice slower.

It pays off.

Professionals circumvent situations in which they play wrong notes.

They even practice for this.

This is a second stage.

Could it be you mean e.g. someone plays Imagine by John Lennon and instead of

the triad ge-c

he adds a d?

This wouldn’t mean that he plays a wrong note!

The d is the 9th in the tonic chord ceg and gives an additional color to the music, but in the ear of a beginner it might sound weird.

There’s a typical honky tonk piano style to add chromatic approaches (#9 with the 3rd=10) in jazz and blues but also in modern classic compositions like Prokofiev’ Peter and the Wulf or Bernsteins Westside Story (Ouverture, Sgt.

Krupky, The Rumble).

P.S.

I haven’t listen to your examples.

But it could be that this is a wanted effect.

Question: As a beginner, I try to do my best to play exactly the notes as in the sheet music but sometimes I see some professionals hit accidentally some notes, two examples:  The wrong note was D when he wanted the C with left hand (the notes in the video are shifted by one note to the right):    Or here when he hits the C# the second time with the left hand:    My questions are how a professional can hit wrong notes frequently and is it okay?

Is it okay to hit wrong notes?

Professionals of course try to reduce wrong notes to almost zero, but absolute perfection is almost unobtainable.  At orchestral concerts mistakes are rare.

If improvising, there are no 'wrong' notes, only good or bad choices.

At orchestral concerts, mistakes are rare, so musicians should aim to play all notes correctly. If improvising, there are no 'wrong' notes, only good or bad choices, but you should still try to avoid choosing 'bad' notes. Professionals try to reduce wrong notes to almost zero, but absolute perfection is almost unobtainable.


If we need to analyse a work written strictly in Am , I think VI and VII are clear enough.

If there is a modulation between Am and A , and we want to keep A as root, I would use ♭VI for F and VI for F# .

Same if any modal interchange occurs, e.g.: A F#m F GI vi ♭VI ♭VII

Regarding the occurrences of

F# and G# as chord roots, it really depends on the context - usually F# would appear in D first inversion (so IV/6 ) or as V/V/V , while G# would be in V/6 or in viio .

If both G AND G#dim join the game, I would use VII and #viio respectively.

Usage varies.

But I'd suggest that the only unambiguous method is to name chords, whether as chord symbols or Roman numerals in relation to the major key.

Whether the key is C major or C minor, C,E,G is 'C', C, E♭,G is 'Cm'.

Similarly, C,E,G is 'I', C,

E♭,G is 'i'.

B♭, D, F is '♭VII', B♭, D♭,

F is '♭vii'.

There will be disagreement about this!

I think it's important to remember a vital distinction here: an accidental before the Roman numeral applies to the root of the chord.

An accidental after the Roman numeral is figured bass.

So in A minor, F major is VI, because F is scale-degree 6 in A minor.

Only in A major would we need to clarify this F-major chord as ♭VI (or ♮VI if we want to be really fussy).

♭VI in A minor would actually be F♭ (=

E!)

major.

But neither one of these is to be confused with VI ♯ in A major, which would be an F♯-major chord.

Here the accidental applies to the third above the bass, thereby making this a collection of {F♯, A♯, C♯}.

It really depends on the convention one adopts.

Some music theory symbols are pretty standard, but one sees variances among textbooks, theorists, and the style they are analyzing.

I'd say the most standard pattern in American "classical theory" textbooks of the past 40-50 years is to assume in A minor that VI means F major, VII means G major, and vii o means G♯dim.

I've seen some textbooks that tack on a flat or natural to VII (i.e., ♭VII or even ♮VII to accord with the key signature) to refer to G major, but most books probably omit it.

In classical theory, a chord on the seventh scale degree is just assumed by default to be built on the subtonic if major and on the leading tone if diminished.

However, that assumption may not be true of pop/jazz theory books, where Roman numerals with accidentals are more commonly employed and there are fewer assumptions about the implications and function of Roman numerals.

For the sixth degree, VI in minor is just assumed in classical theory to be built on the minor sixth scale degree, so no accidental is necessary.

In fact, as Richard points out, putting a flat on it could confuse some people -- though again, I think that's dependent on convention.

I'm pretty sure I've seen at last one book (I think in pop or jazz theory)

that assumed the major scale was the scale, so any deviation from it was notated with an accidental.

Thus ♭VI would be necessary to designate F major in that system for any key or mode based on A.

(I'd personally avoid using a symbol like ♭VI in a minor key, to avoid confusion, but again it depends on the convention you're working with.)

In the end, I agree with Laurence Payne: if you want to be absolutely clear what chord you're referencing and the specific notes, use a chord symbol (like Fmajor) rather than a Roman numeral.

Roman numerals are a shortcut to designate function ( not just label chords, though many people confuse this), and the function of a VI or VII or whatever should be pretty clear from context.

I learned the classical way of naming chords and also a more modern way which I prefer where everything is literally spelled out in relation to the root note of the keys regardless of whether it’s major or minor.

There are no small letters and all relationships are spelled out like the way intervals are named.

Examples:

Diatonic major chords: I IIm IIIm IV V VIm VIIo Eb in the key of either C or Cm:

bIII Amaj7 in the key of G or Gm: IImaj7 Em7b5 in the key of D or Dm: IIm7b5 Fmaj7 in the key of E or Em:

I prefer this method because there is no doubt as to what the interval from the home key or what the quality of the chord is.

Question: We know that in minor  keys  the 6th and 7th notes can be 'basic' or a semitone higher.  By 'basic', I mean they obey the key signature. So, in key Am, would chords F and G be better portrayed as VI and VII, or as ♭VI and ♭VII respectively?  Or is there a more accurate, less ambiguous way?

Specific Roman Numeral naming for chords F and G in key Am

I'd say the most standard pattern in American "classical theory" textbooks of the past 40-50 years is to assume in A minor that VI means F major, VII means G major, and vii o  means G♯dim. While, For the sixth degree, VI in minor is just assumed in classical theory to be built on the minor sixth scale degree, so no accidental is necessary.

A minor VI means F major, VII means G major, and vii o  means G♯dim.

The most standard pattern in American "classical theory" textbooks of the past 40-50 years is to assume in A minor that VI means F major, VII means G major, and vii o  means G♯dim.