Consider the following two measures from the piano transcription of the song "You'll Be Back" from Hamilton :

In case it's not clear, the top line of music is the vocals, the middle line is the right hand piano part, and the bottom line of music is the left hand piano part.

This shows a very common style of arrangement.

The singer sings the vocal melody, the right hand plays chords and the left hand plays the bass line.

Sometimes the right hand part is transcribed to double the vocal melody.

That means the right hand is playing the melody and the chords at the same time and the singer would sing the exact same notes as the melody notes that the right hand is playing (the left hand usually still plays the bass line in these cases).

Those transcriptions are usually meant to make things easier for the singer by giving them a melody to follow.

If you listen closely to professional singers and pianists, most of the time the vocal melody is completely separate from the piano part.

First, get rid of the idea that LH chords, RH melody is 'normal'.

If solo keyboard, who's doing the bass line?

If in a band, your role may be to play melody, play a counter-melody or 'fill-ins' or play chords.

Probably just one of those.

Back to your question.

Maybe it's the sort of song that could be effectively accompanied by simple guitar strumming.

Fine, emulate this on the keyboard.

Very often a strong bass line would best help the song.

Try this in the LH with sustained or rhythmic chords in the RH.

Maybe doubling the melody is appropriate (but probably not ALL the time).

Or lots of other possibilities.

Think 'support'.

If in doubt, play less.

Very dependent on the song.

Some benefit from a bass line with l.h. -

maybe a walking bass - some from l.h. chords, some from single bass notes l.h. and chords in r.h., some from partial chords with both hands, some with a counter melody in r.h.

In fact, think of a combination, and there'll be a song in which it will

ft.

Or think of a song, and decide which combination fits best.

But don't do the same idea in each and every song!

Assuming that you don't read sheet music, and are learning to play by ear?It depends upon the song.

Many singers play chord figures with the left hand, and arpeggios with the right, during the interludes between vocals.

Paul McCartney tended to play chords with both hands, during his singing of the verses and the chorus, and subtly alternate the timing on the down-beat.

I have found that I can most easily play while singing, but usually while gently playing chords with the right hand, and striking just the bass note for each chord with the left.

Each performer develops their own style, in the end.

If you're just talking about being the piano man , then all you need is some chords and maybe a little countermelody here and there.

But if you take a look at classical piano + voice pieces (which granted can be difficult to perform solo), you'll see a full chord and melodic structure in the piano part which complements, rather than duplicating, the singer's melody.

Then again, there's no strict rule that the melody can't dive into the bass here and there with some "twinkle" notes or chords in the treble range.

If you are singing, that is the melody, so you would play harmony on the piano.

Which hand plays which part is totally up to the arrangement.

One hand should at a minimum keep the rhythm.

Depending on the vocal range of the singer, a counter melody, baseline (usually left hand), chordal harmony, etc.

will all leave space for the singer's voice as well as other potential instruments.

You could also add a melodic harmony, playing octaves, 4ths, 5ths, or some other part right along with the vocals.

When the phrasing of the singer is paused after a line, the piano parts can alter quite a bit and temporarily run into the range of the singer for some sort of riff or fill - then back out again before the singing resumes.

Of course, you can throw every bit of structure out the window whenever appropriate for the desired effect of the song!

If the singer is amplified, you can collide a bit more, as long as the melody, or lead, can still be heard.

Question: If we want to play a song on a keyboard, the right hand plays the melody and the left hand plays the chords. What is the case if I want to sing the song? Should one hand play the chords? Which hand should this be, and what about the other hand?

What should I play on a keyboard to accompany singing?

In case it's not clear, the top line of music is the vocals, the middle line is the right hand piano part, and the bottom line of music is the left hand piano part.  The singer sings the vocal melody, the right hand plays chords and the left hand plays the bass line.  Sometimes the right hand part is transcribed to  double  the vocal melody. That means the right hand is playing the melody and the chords at the same time and the singer would sing the exact same notes as the melody notes that the right hand is playing (the left hand usually still plays the bass line in these cases.

For the record, the main musical part is the vocal tracks, the secondary musical is the right hand piano tracks. Τhe singer does the vocal melody, and the guitarist plays the accompanying chords. Doubling the vocal melodies, the left hand typically plays the bass line.


Jazz is an unbelievably expansive genre with over 100 years of musical tradition; a big part of this tradition is an ever-increasing list of sub-genres that fall under the larger umbrella term of "jazz."

Your "(I'm guessing it is)" is encouraging; it suggests you realize it's maybe a little silly to think you can mimic such a broad tradition by "just randomly add[ing] sevenths.

" It's a bit like asking if we can mimic Classical music by "just randomly adding cellos."

But more than that, you've unintentionally simplified jazz to just one musical feature: harmony.

The jazz genre includes particularities of rhythm, of meter, of instrumentation and voicing, of articulation, of interpretation, of phrasing, you name it.

And included in that list, yes, is harmony.

Suggesting that you can play jazz just by adding sevenths suggests that the only thing that makes jazz jazz is harmony, which is clearly not the case.

Playing jazz requires an awareness (and eventually mastery) of everything that makes jazz jazz, not just this one feature.

In other words, playing jazz takes quite a bit more than adding sevenths.

All great things take time and patience, and jazz is no exception.

If you're asking about first steps in jazz piano, most people would suggest, as you've intuited, learning your ii7–V7–I7 pattern in all major and minor keys; doing so will teach you quick resolutions of minor sevenths, dominant sevenths, and half-diminished sevenths built on all twelve chromatic pitches.

Ninths are good too!

Even thirteenths.

Yes, there's more to jazz than extended chords, though you'll certainly need more than triads to play it, so start learning m7, maj7, 9, b9 etc.

chords

so they're ready for when you work out what jazz IS.

And that's a big question.

Start with a New Orleans Blues, travel to Miles Davis and beyond...

But whatever style you choose to explore first, yes you'll need some 7th chords.

If you're really into rock/pop and just want a quick, easy jazz flavour, slip in a 'b5 substitution'.

In place of Dm7, G7, C impress your friends with Dm7, Db7, Cmaj7.

But again, yes you'll need a vocabulary of 7th chords to even start this.

But don't try to enter the world of jazz through the 'theory'.

Get some jazz sheets and learn the chords you need to play them.

If you are trying to move towards learning jazz, you should learn your 7th chords (esp.

dominant, major, and minor).

After you get the hang of these, you can learn less common 7ths as well as extended chords out to 9/11/13.

If you are not too familiar with jazz, the most important thing you can do is to listen to a lot of good music in this genre.

To keep things simple, I would suggest starting with blues.

It is technically its own genre of music, but the form is simpler and the harmony tends to be less complicated.

If I wanted to play jazz do I just add sevenths (ie dominant7, major7, minor7) to chords in my chord progressions or is it alot more involved than that?

(I'm guessing it is).

This very abbreviated list should help you answer this question: The Jazz Language: A Theory Text for Jazz Composition andImprovisation Jazz Theory Resources:

Volume 1 Jazzology: The Encyclopedia of Jazz Theory for AllMusicians Fundamental Changes in Jazz Guitar: An In Depth Study of Majorii V

I

Bebop Soloing:

Master Jazz Guitar

Soloing

The Jazz Theory Book @Richard's answer explains why these books were written and are popular, as well as numerous others.

Another very easy way to answer your question

: Look through a book like this, and see how well you do

*by just adding sevenths (ie dominant7, major7, minor7) to the chords instead of the suggested chords, which often include far more than just 7th chords.

The Hal Leonard Real Jazz Standards Fake Book: C Edition

When I was playing rhythm guitar in a swing band there were many times when I would only play root, third and fifth of a chord as the horns were (many times) covering the 'weird' notes.

So, in chording for jazz you don't always need the 7th and beyond.

As Richard stated above - there is much more to playing jazz (or other genres) than just the chord patterns chosen.

There is much to explore.

That's what is so wonderful about learning and playing music - there is always something new to learn.

I've had classical and jazz guitar lessons.

Played bass (with no training) in a rock band.

I now play acoustic and electric guitar at church doing praise & worship stuff and also play mandolin and guitar in a bluegrass band.

I'm continually learning new stuff as that's what keeps me interested (I do the same in my day job as a software geek).

Happy playing.

Question: I've been up until now just practicing triads on all major/minor keys. If I wanted to play jazz do I just add sevenths (ie dominant7, major7, minor7) to chords in my chord progressions or is it alot more involved than that? (I'm guessing it is).

To get to jazz do I just add a seventh?

The jazz genre includes particularities of rhythm, of meter, of instrumentation and voicing, of articulation, of interpretation, of phrasing, you name it. If you're asking about first steps in jazz piano, most people  would  suggest, as you've intuited, learning your ii7–V7–I7 pattern in all major and minor keys; doing so will teach you quick resolutions of minor sevenths, dominant sevenths, and half-diminished sevenths built on all twelve chromatic pitches. If you are not too familiar with jazz, the most important thing you can do is to listen to a lot of good music in this genre.

Work on the patterns of I7–V7–I, ii7–V7–I, I7–vi, and I–vi in all major and minor keys. For music fans who are less familiar with jazz, the most important thing is to hear lot of good music in this genre.  Go through a book like this and find out how well you do by replacing sevenths (ie dominant 7, major 7, minor 7) The Hal Leonard Real Jazz Standards Fake Book: C Edition.


Common notation for tenor voice prior to 1900, especially if older than that.

See, for example, this TTBB arrangement of Cornell's Alma Mater at Wikipedia .

I’m not familiar with this particular clef.

However, judging by the context, this is equivalent to a treble clef lowered by an octave for the tenor voice part.

In choral music today, this is usually represented by a treble clef with an 8 below it, sometimes called an octave clef:

music.stackexchange.com/users/6851/Ben Miller - Remember Monica

This is very speculative and I hope someone can give a more reliable answer.

At some stages in the history of printed music, printers may have only had accidentals available on lines; if an accidental was required on a space, for example low F# in treble clef, they would put it on one of the neighbouring lines instead ( reference - see footnote on page 4).

Perhaps the same thing was true of clefs in your example, and the "D clef" is actually a C clef which the printer was unable to print correctly on the space below.

This would make the part treble clef (presumably sounding an octave lower), which seems right.

The general shape is similar to that of some variant C clefs which are relatively rare today ( image ).

This is most likely a C-clef, and not a D-clef.

In the History section on the Wikipedia article on clef, there is an indication that an older way of writing the C-clef assumed a "ladder like form".

In the sample you have provided, the clef is indicating the third space on the staff (and not the fourth line) is Middle C.

This is obscured by the stylistic slanting of the clef.

Wikipedia also has another example of this clef in its article on TTBB choral music, which appears to have held onto this form of writing the C-clef longer than other genres.

My understanding is that the C clef was a mobile clef prior to being in a fixed location.

It designated where the C (below middle C) was located.

Much the same as the G clef designated where the G above middle C was located.

If you go far enough back to where the staff was split away from 16 lines, there needed to be a clue to what notes would be represented on the particular staff.

Alas, my understanding may be entirely wrong.

As can be looked-up in the Havard Dictionary of Music , the C clef has some very different appearances (middle three of first picture), and the middle one matches your example.

I would not pay to much attention to the placement, which seems somewhat high.

This was the original sign of the tenor clef, that defines that the middle C (C4) is on the 4th line.

The tenor part is transcript to G - but the notation is an octave to high.the soprano voice is missing (cut)

, we see at the sheet copy that it is a SATB setting, where the tenor voice originally was set in a C-clef and now it is transcript in a G-clef, that's why the C-clef is written between two brackets.

Irritating is that it's not a G clef with an 8ve below the clef as the tenor must be transposed an octave down.

Question: I recently came across  this score  by Henry Work called "Grandfather's Clock". And i was a bit confused at first regarding this clef in the chorus. It seems to be a D clef.   I was wondering if this clef was popular at the time, or was used for any particular instrument?

Where was the D clef used?

In the  History section on the Wikipedia article  on clef, there is an indication that an older way of writing the C-clef assumed a "ladder like form". n choral music today, this is usually represented by a treble clef with an 8 below it, sometimes called an octave clef. Perhaps the "D clef" is actually a C clef which the printer was unable to print correctly on the space below.

The tenor part is transcript to G - but the notation is an octave to high. the soprano voice is missing (cut)

In today's choral music, this would be an octave clef on the treble staff. The 'D' is actually a 'C' which the printer was unable to print in the corrected space. In an older style of writing, the C-major sign represents a "ladder like form". However, the tenor part is transposed to a key of G, while the rest remains in their original key. This vital capacity in baritone singers, where one of the major alterations in baritones is the lack of the distinctive soprano voice, which gives them a roughness in the lower notes that is generally compensated for in the tenor and baritone (cut)


Songwriters tend to start with the chords.

Composers tend to start with a melody.

This is a gross and prejudiced over-simplification :-)

From having heard/read hundreds of accounts of 'how I wrote this hit song' over the years, it's fairly clear that in the world of popular song, approaches that might be characterised as 'Harmony First' and 'Melody First' are both frequently used.

One extremely common story is for the a concept or a lyrical idea to give rise to a little fragment of sung melody, which then evolves into a song.

Another common type of story is for a player to be experimenting with an instrument and come up with an interesting sounding riff or progression over which lyrical ideas are generated - e.g.

This account of R.E.M.'s Losin my Religion .

I think it's relatively rare in pop music to come up with a complete melody and only then to harmonise it.

What may be more common is to almost simultaneously come up with a melodic fragment and accompanying riff or chords, and expand that structure into a whole song.

Journey's Don't Stop Believin' is an example of this, as recounted here .

It's always interesting to read more accounts to get a feel of how different creative processes can work: Sound on Sound "Classic Tracks" ( newer articles

require subscription, but most can be read in full ) Keyboard Mag "Song stories" Independent "Story of the song" One of the things that makes it possible for pop musicians to quickly flesh out an idea in different directions

is that they will quite often be working in a well-understood form, where there are strong expectations about how a song will evolve, what kinds of chords will be used, how the lyrics will relate to the song structure, the function of the song (e.g. whether it has a dance rhythm, and if so, which one) and so on.

These specifics can be very different in different styles (grunge will have very different norms to modern r'n'b), but within a style they often form strong guidelines.

I think it's probably true across genres that what really comes first (or at least, early on in the process) is a set of assumptions that come from the style that the artist is working in and the function a song will have.

I worked at a newspaper press room where the rhythm of the press inspired me to write songs.

I've written songs where I started with the lyric

and I've written songs where I started with the chord progression.

I can't remember starting with the melody, but each time, each song seemed to come from out of the ethers to me, kind of like an inspiration, so perhaps I'll have the experience of starting with a melody in the future.

When I have tried to sit and write a song using any method, that's when I have had disastrous results, it only seems to work for me when I let go of the process.

Chicken or egg?

It's anything and everything.

If it's a few words, they often have their own rhythm, so the next part of the chain is automatic.

If it's a melody line, that may well spawn some words.

With the same melody comes the opportunity to narrow down the underlying harmonies.

It could be a set of chords, which again will help dictate what notes fit to produce a tune.

Inspiration is odd.

One could wake up with the whole caboodle as a finished article, ready to listen to.

There certainly isn't a magic formula.

although an individual may work best with notes first, or words first.

Or work with another person who is better at what they're not.

Many, many couples have written many, many good songs.

The Gershwins, Rodgers and Hammerstein, Lennon and McCartney, Elton and Bernie come to mind.

What on Earth gave you the idea there may be rules?

So you want to compose?

(I assume your question really is -- what should I start with) ?

The answer is both.

But not at the same time.

If you want to learn to compose music, you need to train.

One very good suggestion I tend to give is to train a lot.

I recommend a regime where you complete one song a day for a month

( It is Ok to take Sundays off ) .

None of the songs will be good, none will survive -- a full wastebasket is a sign that you are learning.

So make a plan

: start every other time with the harmony, every other day with the melody.

After a month you will know which works best.

For you.

Anyway, my two cents.

The answer is "Yes".

Both approaches and others may be used to compose music.

Creating music comes from Inspiration.

So, if a melody comes and inspires you, follow it, develop it and see where it leads.

Same goes for a single chord or chord progression or a rhythm, sound effect or any sound that inspires you.

Once you've got that then you can apply your theories.

Enjoy!

Question: I'm wondering if when composing one would start with an idea for harmony such as a chord progression, or does one start on the melody side maybe developing a melodic motif. What comes first, or maybe there are no rules?

Harmony or Melody First in Composition?

Songwriters tend to start with the chords.  Composers tend to start with a melody.  It's fairly clear that in the world of popular song, approaches that might be characterised as 'Harmony First' and 'Melody First' are  both  frequently used.

Most songwriters begin with chords, whereas composers start with a melody. If a melody interests you, explore it and see where it takes you.

There are several "Harmony First" and "Melody First" approaches used frequently in pop songwriting

It's rare in popular music to have a complete melody and only then to harmonise it. More often you'll find an acoustic melodic fragment together with some time signatures or chords


Yes, reeds do need breaking in.

It's only after breaking a reed in that you can decide if it is up to the job or not.

Normally you end up with a number of broken in reeds so you can choose which one is best to use.

Yes, reeds have a breaking-in period.

The cells in the bamboo literally swell and and the cell walls burst, making the reed more flexible.

The length of breaking in time varies, but should not be too long, maybe 4-5 sessions of playing.

If it takes much longer, then the reed strength may be too hard for you or the reed may not be milled well.

As was stated above, reeds can also die.

The first signals for me are that my sound has become thin and I start to have serious intonation problems.

If a reed that seems good "dies" too quickly, the reed strength may be too soft.

The trick is finding a reed strength that will last but will also not have an overly lengthy breaking in process that is unbearable.

You may need to try different brands of reeds to find the one you like best.

Knowing that reeds require a breaking in process, I make sure to always have at least 2, preferably 3, reeds broken in and "ready" for a performance in case one cracks at the last minute.

I mark my reeds 1st/2nd/3rd choice on the back.

Rotating reeds, practicing on one for a session while another rests, is a good way to help ensure that you are breaking in more than one.

It also helps the reeds last longer.

Experiment with it.

You may find breaking in is important to ensure a quality, long-lasting reed.

Or, maybe not.

For my jazz setup, I can play my reeds right out of the box and achieve the tone I'm looking for with the comfort I desire.

This could be the brand of reeds that I use; it could be my standards for a reed.

Who knows.

For my classical setup, I have a 2-day process.

Day 1

: Soak the reed in lukewarm water for 60 seconds.

Play for 120 seconds only notes between G and C. Drain the reed on a piece of glass.

Place reed on glass over night.

Day 2

: Play for 240 seconds only notes between low D and mid F. Drain the reed on a piece of glass.

Place reed on glass over night.

If I don't do this for my classical reeds, the reed is basically unplayable for me

and I have severe discomfort playing.

Maybe it's the reed, maybe it's me.

Who knows.

Different reeds and different people need different things.

Experiment with your reeds -- trying breaking in a few using different methods that you find online, try playing a few right out of the box.

Also make sure that when you wet the reed in your mouth before playing that you wet the entire reed, not just the tip.

The amount of break-in can vary from reed to reed.

I recommend a few techniques which both help the break-in process and help keep the reed healthy and long-lived.

First, perhaps most obvious: always clean off and gently rub dry after playing, and store on a flat surface to keep the underside from warping.

Next, I always (used to, as I don't play reeds anymore) burnish the underside by rubbing it over a high-quality sheet of typing paper, the paper itself on some large flat surface.

Do this a little bit every session for a week or so.

Burnish the top as well, using light pressure with some smooth, rounded object such as a ballpoint pen housing --

tho' I'll grant that this last bit may be my personal religion.

My personal favorite, and most successful, reed case consisted of a thick glass plate in a small box, with some soft foam rubber inside the top to apply gentle pressure on the reeds to keep them flat when the case was closed. YMMV

Reeds do, in fact, need to break in, as other answers have stated.

As a new player, one thing that you need to keep in mind is that no matter how well you care for them, eventually, reeds will die .

I worked in a band instrument repair store for eight years, and one of the chronic complaints of new reed players was that the reeds inexplicably stop working.

This is natural.

Just keep an eye out for it (a mouth out for it?), and when you start to notice the quality of your sound decreasing for no other apparent reason, it may be time to buy new reeds.

Question: I was curious if woodwind reeds need a break in period to meld to the mouthpiece. I am learning saxophone and it seems the longer I use the same reed, it seems to play better.

Do woodwind reeds (Sax, clarinet, etc) need break in to play better?

S0: Yes, reeds have a breaking-in period.  The cells in the bamboo literally swell and and the cell walls burst, making the reed more flexible. The length of breaking in time varies, but should not be too long, maybe 4-5 sessions of playing.

Reeds have a breaking-in period. The bamboo cells expand and rupture, making the reed more pliable.The amount of time required to wear in varies, but should not be too long; possibly four to five times. These should be used for at least five years after they have been brought on to the market.


I believe that in this case it is an affectation for the purposes of the video, c.f this live performance , where standard modern technique is used.

Basically, I think that some combination of the artist and the director thought that it would look more archaic.

There are indications that earlier Baroque technique would involve holding the instrument lower .

And of course, the viol de gamba would be played with the instrument in the lap.

Overall, I find this posture most similar to how the nykelharpa is held;

which is a significantly different instrument in that mechanical keys are used to stop the strings.

I've seen folk fiddlers hold the instrument like this - on the breast rather than under the chin.

I agree, holding THAT low is probably artistic licence.

In Jean Roch Coignet, there is a fiddler playing "Fanchon" on violin.

That's how I first saw this stance.

He holds and plays it from the hip.

It's near the end of episode 3.

I can't imagine there is any justifiable advantage to playing fiddle like this.

I'm not a fiddle player, but it seems like the left hand might have it's work cut out for itself, having to hold the instrument in a playable position while moving up and down the neck to land on the notes with any kind of precision.

It reminds me of the old expression, sawing on the fiddle.

I expect it would feel very much like trying to play guitar without a strap while standing, definitely not easy to do.

It would make singing at the same time easier.

Lower positions (usually it would more be ribs than hip) are sometimes seen in folk styles.

I think I've seen it "in the wild" in Budapest with a restaurant fiddler.

Stefan Skrzypek 's style, in comparison, is rather idiosyncratic.

Question: I cannot seem to find a reference to this practice anywhere outside of this video     (seen from the beginning (~0:32) of the video) Is there an official term for this type of stance? Are there any advantages or disadvantages to playing like this? Or, does it violate some kind of general violin posture rules?

Holding a violin against the hips?

I'm not a violin player, but it seems like the left hand might have it's work cut out for itself.  Lower positions (usually it would more be ribs than hip) are sometimes seen in folk styles.

Lower positions (usually it would more be ribs than hip) are usually seen in folk styles.


The V alone is a considered a dominant chord.

The reason for this even without the extra tension of the major 3rd/minor 7th interval is the 3rd of the chord is the leading tone.

The leading tone is the bread and butter of tonal harmony so much so that minor harmony makes use of it even not being in the scale "naturally".

If you were to use the major 7th instead the tension from the leading tone would still be there, but the resolution definitely wouldn't be as strong.

The major 7th of that chord would be the tritone in relation to the root of I. Going down to the 3rd of I is the typical desire of the 7th in a dominant chord, but would be awkward jumping from the tritone by more than 1 semiton.

Going up to the 5th might be more desired, but 7ths in general like to resolve downward so the resolution may not sound as expected.

Although the Ⅴ maj7 can't be as forcing a dominant as Ⅴ 7 , it can still be used as dominant- ish .

Crucial is that the maj7 wants to resolve upwards, not downwards (which brings us to the Ⅴ of Ⅰ ).

Now, the other notes in the chord (save for the fundamental) also want to resolve upwards, so you end up with a very parallel voice-leading situation.

Common-practice generally frowns upon this, but it's always the question

what effect you aim for.

And it so happens that this kind of dull, hard-synchronised movement works excellent as a ticking-clock effect.

As such it was used by Gustav Holst in the Planets.

The upper voices are mostly just moving around block chords in this parallel motion, but (unlike in the Mars movement)

Holst keeps them in the tonality – the signature of the movement is am, but the passage is clearly in cm: X:1T:

Saturn, the Bringer of Old AgeL:1/4M:CK:Am%%score

T BV:

T clef=trebleV:

B clef=

bass%

[_EGc]2 [D^FB]2 |

[_EGc]2 [^FAd]2 | [G_B_e][G_Bd] [

F_Ac]2 | [^FAd]2 [D^FB]2 | [_EGc]2[V:

B] z

C, z G,, | z C, z _B,, | z _E, z F, | z D, z G, |

C,2 Notice in particular the cadence

Ⅱ

- Ⅴ maj7 - Ⅰ at the end.

The chances are that if you're looking at a piece of music where Vmaj7 pops up, it's actually not functioning as dominant harmony.

It could be modal, or it could be that there's been a modulation, or it could be that the chord is just being used for color and is not functioning as a dominant.

The dominant chord, diatonically, is based on the 5th note.

So for its triad, it will include the 5,7 and 9.

In C, those notes would be G,B and D.

The B is the leading note of C, which gives its dominant feel, trying to return to root C. Going to the next note in the chord series, F, produces a tritone (B>F) which unstabilises the sound.

It's dissonant.

It also has that same one semitone move to get back to the maj3 of C, which is F>

E.

By making the V into a maj7 chord, a non diatonic note (F#) would need to replace the F. F

is diatonic in the present key (C), but F# would be the leading note in key G, which is not the present key.

Without the tritone, which begs for resolution, Vmaj7 is weak, so weak it doesn't push.

Therefore it's not dominant.

Also keep in mind that the interval between the 3 and 7 in the dominant 7 chord is a tritone, and it's the instability and tension of this interval that makes it wish to resolve itself by a semitone in each direction.

Question: I just read another question about dominant chords and in reading the answers this question came to mind for me. Can a V chord still be considered dominant if the seventh in that chord is not flatted?

Is the V chord still dominant if it is a major 7 chord?

S0: The V alone is a considered a dominant chord.  The reason for this even without the extra tension of the major 3rd/minor 7th interval is the 3rd of the chord is the leading tone. The leading tone is the bread and butter of tonal harmony so much so that minor harmony makes use of it even not being in the scale "naturally". Also keep in mind that the interval between the 3 and 7 in the dominant 7 chord is a tritone, and it's the instability and tension of this interval that makes it wish to resolve itself by a semitone in each direction.

Dominant 7 chord is considered a dominant chord without the extra tension of the major 3rd/minor 7th interval. The 3rd of the chord is the leading tone. The instability and tension of this interval makes it wish to resolve itself by a semitone in each direction.


The D chord is acting like the V of the Gm chord, and is followed directly by the Gm chord.

The F# in the D chord is acting like a leading tone into the G of the Gm, essentially "tonicizing" the Gm chord and making it a temporary tonic chord before moving on in the progression.

The D-g-C7-F is just a ii=

V7-I ending preceded by the (local) dominant of the ii chord.

The analysis is often given by V/ii-ii-V7-I.

(Or is some books, VI-ii-V7-I.)

Any major or minor chord may be preceded by its own dominant (or a few other chords) without changing the essence of the progression.

The fundamental bass (D-G-C-F) falls by fifths so sounds good.

With a slight change, one could have vi-ii-V7-I which is common from at least the Baroque era to today.

The two progressions have different sound (or color) but are basically the same harmony.

It has been said that the D is acting as a 5 chord to the Gmin.

This is a common device.

D is the relative minor to Fmaj (clearly the key).

Tunes will often put a dominant seventh chord on the vi in a progression.

Case in point, any Bebop Rhythm Changes: Anthropology, Oleo, etc.

Cycle extensions work this way by treating a chord in the progression as a temporary I and placing its V7 or a ii-V before it to create resolution.

In Jazz this is sometimes overdone, filling up measure after measure with 4 chords.

The effect can be interesting.

It's only 'theory', but as Heather states, it's the dominant of Gm (V/ii).

Another theory states that chords can be 'borrowed' from parallel keys .

It's a little convoluted, but key F has Dm as its relative key, which has a parallel key of D major.

Thus it fits!

And cycles of fourths/fifths have been used for centuries.

Usually getting back, eventually, to the root.

How far away from that root the 'modulation' starts varies, but this sequence is quite short compared with others.

As Laurence says ( and rightly keeps saying)

we spend maybe too much time trying to justify everything.

Maybe that's just human nature, but in this case, the sequence works, like it does in hundreds of other songs, so by now, it's simply de facto.

It used to be a very common progression in popular music, a "circle of fifths" starting from as far away from the tonic as you like, and working back to it.

In F, the longest sequence would be F E A

D G C F. Add 7th's, or change some of the chords to minor, as you like, but the first chord after the tonic is almost always major or a (dominant) 7th.

The chord after the F (whether E, A, or D) comes as a (slight) surprise, because of the major 3rd of the chord (and the 5th of the E chord) are not in the scale of F, but the sequence of dominant-tonic resolutions gets it back home safely.

You can find lots of examples "before rock" -

George Formby used it in many songs, for example.

And in classical music, it goes back at least as far as Mozart.

In the baroque era, similar progressions using minor chords or minor 7ths, staying within the notes of the key, were very common.

"It is neither a diatonic chord in F major nor F minor."

And why should it be?

There's no requirement or virtue in using only diatonic chords.

I'm slightly surprised it's plain D,

Gm... rather than D7, Gm7...

But it's still a standard 'cycle of 5ths' turn-around.

Add it to your musical tool-box!

Question: I am taking a music theory online course and there is an example I don't understand. The chord progression is:  F Bb C F D Gm C7 FMaj7  The first 4 bar is just I-IV-V-I and the last three bar is II-V-I. Question is what brings D here?? It is neither a diatonic chord in F major nor F minor.

theory - D major in F major chord progression?

The D chord is acting like the V of the Gm chord, and is followed directly by the Gm chord. The F# in the D chord is acting like a leading tone into the G of the Gm, essentially "tonicizing" the Gm chord and making it a temporary tonic chord before moving on in the progression.


It can happen when the groupings of note change per measure and don't stress any exact metric pattern.

While not common, it can happen and the most famous example of this is in the 3rd movement of Quartet for the End of Time .

As you can see the tempo is defined, but the meter is not.

The eighth note gets the tempo markings, but it's not technically the beat because there is none.

Listening to it should give you an idea how it flows.

The most interesting thing to me is how the bar line is kept not because of the metric hierarchy, but to show accents in place of it.

Indeed, some songs' time signatures cannot be neatly categorized into 3/4, 4/4, 2/4, 9/8, 5/4, etc.

Songs in free time aren't notated with any time signatures at all.

Satie was pretty fond of writing such pieces.

Songs in mixed meter are notated with time signatures, but they change time signatures as necessary (and sometimes pretty often).

Perhaps covertly the most famous mixed-meter song is "The 12 Days of Christmas".

Other mixed-meter songs that stick out in my mind include Stravinsky's "The Rite of Spring" and Dream Theater's "Ytse Jam".

Would you count music without even tempo?

Lots of Penderecki has just minutes and seconds of elapsed time marked off.

There's no meter or tempo.

And there are lots of vertical dotted lines to show where the different changes in the music line up between instruments.

Also the theme to

The Terminator is based on a loop that doesn't really fit in a time signature or meter.

One genre where a time signature is completely alien is plainchant:

This even applies where "chant" is written out on five lines: English has time-based stresses, so the notes are compressed in some cases (like "God" in "Let God arise") so that the stresses in the words come as they would be spoken.

The stressed syllable "rise" is as long as the three notes on "God a-", in order that the next stressed syllable, "let" falls at the right time.

But that would be extremely complex to notate in the normal way, so a different convention is followed.

Images: Sanctus from Mass XVIII, my origination;

Introit for Sunday 17 by Robert Rice in his collection St Michael Antiphons .

To add to Andrew Leach's answer, another historical example of music without time signatures is the French prélude non-mesuré for harpsichord or lute, which was in vogue during the mid=to-late 17th, early 18th century.

Composers of such pieces didn't even notate rhythms, leaving those up to the performer.

(Although of course certain implicit stylistic conventions would have been assumed known to any competent harpsichordist or lutenist.)

An example of an unmeasured prelude with sound and notation.

Question: My understanding is that a time signature like 4/4 time is known because certain beats are emphasized, for example:  ONE , two, three, four. But let's say someone created a song with tempo alone (ie just used a metronome) and didn't emphasize any beats. Then can a song's time signature be simply unknown and cannot be categorized into 3/4, 4/4, 2/4 etc?

Are there situations where a time signature is unknown?

Songs in free time aren't notated with any time signatures at all.  Songs in mixed meter are notated with time signatures, but they change time signatures as necessary (and sometimes pretty often). Indeed, some songs' time signatures cannot be neatly categorized into 3/4, 4/4, 2/4, 9/8, 5/4, etc.

Songs in free time aren't notated with any time signatures at all. Some songs' time signatures cannot be neatly categorized into 3/4, 4/4 or 2/4.


Your chord actually fits perfectly in G# harmonic minor, but since your question really remembers me when I was learning theory for the first time, I'd like to tell you some facts that may have helped me.

There is more than major and minor scales:

There are tons of scales and there is no best scale.

Actually, a scale is just a set of notes, not necesarilly following any rules .

I've already told you about harmonic minor scales, but I hardly suggest you to google more of them, and just as a warning message let me tell you that since modes are just translations of the major scale, the harmony structure "keeps" the same, so it's not like you are going to find any new chords there.

There is no phenomenon on not be major: the fact that this chord doesn't fit into any major scale is not a phenomenon.

Major scale was born as a imitation of the accents that nature adds when a fixed frequency sound sounds (if you are interested in this approach you can read Arnold Schoenberg's book called "Theory of Harmony"), but there is no logical reason to think that we are attached to the major scale just because it is more natural than other sets of notes.

Feel free to use every single combination of notes.

In this context, it may just be an intended Eb chord, the player hit the open E string by mistake and thought 'that sounds nice!'

Chords don't HAVE to come from one scale.

A common one that doesn't is the 'Hendrix' chord, a dom7 shape with the minor 3rd on top.

(Theorists like to call it a #9, your ears will tell you it's a b10.)

However, when a chord is in general use, and has an accepted name, the jazzers generally WILL have discovered (or invented) a scale that fits it.

They like a chord symbol to imply a scale.

Don't worry over esoteric 'slash chords' though.

They might just indicate a pedal note.

C, Db/C, D/C,

Eb/C etc. is a common trick, and you can leave the bass note out of any 'chord=scale' analysis.

Without context it's not so easy to identify the chord.

I'd think that it's an Eb chord in root postion with an E as a non-chord tone; the type of non-chord tone depends on the context.

Of course, it could be an E-diminished chord with Eb as a non-chord tone.

There is more than just major and minor scales, Look up Dorian, Lydian, PentatonicMixolydian.

They are called "Modes" and they vary from the usual Tonic Solfa configuration.

Keep a clear head, remember folk were making music centuries before they decided to put them into categories.

You can alter notes in a chord made from a scale.

A classic example are the Dom 7-th altered chords.

Consider G9 =

{G, B, D, F, A}.

You can create a G#9, Gb9, G7(b5#9) etc.

The #9 is used in blues, jazz, and rock quite a bit and is {G, B, D, F, A#}.

As almost everyone else has stated context helps.

In the case of the Dom 7th chords the alterations create more "tension" and more half steps to neighboring chords in a progression.

This can be done with any chord.

Sometimes we alter chords and they sound good alone.

Mostly these alterations help with movement in a progression.

The ordering of the chords also helps identify it.

Based on you notes you've provided it could be an Eb Maj add b9

(The E is the b9 to the Eb, more strictly the #1

but it's enharmonic to b9).

It could also be an E dim with a Maj 7th added (but I cannot imagine why).

Again, context.

What are the other chords?

Understand that the note after the slash is a bass note, and the bass may have its own thing going on, working toward its own resolution, so that its combination with the notes above it may be incidental.

Especially in modern popular music, a certain set of notes may not necessarily be functioning together as a chord.

Always look at what's happening before and after the notes in question, where they are coming from and where they are going.

Think of a musical composition as a story, with multiple ideas moving from point to point; any given chord is an incomplete snapshot, so don't read too much into it.

Question: I thought that to create a chord I am supposed to use one scale. And then I saw this chord, called Eb/E that is made of Eb E G Bb notes. They seem not to fit to either major or minor scale (I cannot find a scale that contains all these notes).  Could someone explain to me that phenomenon, please?

Chord that does not fit into any scale

Especially in modern popular music, a certain set of notes may not necessarily be functioning together as a chord. Always look at what's happening before and after the notes in question, where they are coming from and where they are going. Think of a musical composition as a story, with multiple ideas moving from point to point; any given chord is an incomplete snapshot, so don't read too much into it.

In modern popular music, a certain set of notes may not necessarily be functioning together as a chord. Always look at what's happening before and after the notes in question, where they are coming from. Think of a musical composition as a story, with multiple ideas moving from point to point. Any given chord is an incomplete snapshot, so don't read too much into it.


The thing for a lot of players is that they'll learn riffs, by copying what's played (obviously!), but not understand where the notes from the riff come from.

It may be a riff that uses major pentatonic notes, or minor blues notes, or notes from Mixolydian.

When that's established, the riff should make more sense, and improvising the next few bars at least becomes more straightforward - use the same scale/set of notes to follow!

And, more importantly for good improvisation - don't necessarily play a riff exactly as you learned it.

Play around with it, play it inside out, backwards, upside down, change the last couple of notes, move the timing, consider different dynamics, etc., etc.

My advice would be too practice the songs/progressions you want to improvise slowly, and as a riff pops into your head, play it.

The end goal with improv is for the musical ideas that come into your brain to immediately come out of your instrument, so start by slowing the tempo.

Play along at this slow tempo, and when you feel the riff should be inserted, let it fly!

The main thing with improv is not to overthink.

As you do the above at a leisurely pace, you'll start to get used to hearing the riff in your head at certain points and it will naturally come out.

You'll make mistakes, but just keep playing!

When your inner ear gives you the cue to start another riff, launch into it.

Keep going, and eventually you'll develop the spontaneity you're looking for as you get used to this "playing it when you hear it" mentality.

Hope this helps!

A key to practicing anything is isolating the problem that you're having and finding a way to counter the problem .

You've isolated that your problem is that you can't seem to work the vocabulary that you're learning into your improv.

So spend some time trying to do that explicitly .

Try this.

Take a riff, lick, pattern, or whatever that you're learning and try playing only that first.

Start by playing the riff instead of improvising.

When the chord changes adjust the riff accordingly to fit the changes.

Then slowly start changing a note here

and there gradually moving on to improvisation.

Come back to the original riff occasionally as your theme.

Then move on to another lick and do the same thing.

After that try stringing two or more licks together separated by an equal amount of improv between them (ex. 2 bars riff, 2 bars improv, repeat with next riff).

Work on both expanding the improv in between and adding more licks in the chain.

Also keep working on varying the licks a little each time you play them.

So basically we've built an exercise that does a few things: drills the lick into your head, gives you practice varying a theme, and it gives you practice moving between recalling existing vocab and creating something new.

You could change that exercise as you see fit just remember to narrow your focus to the problem that you're trying to solve and tailor the exercise to fit that.

Also, when it comes to vocab, it's important to just play it a lot .

Whether it's a lick or an arpeggio, the more you drill it into your brain, the more likely

that musical structure will come to you in the moment when improvising.

After you've taken a lick and you've learned it in every key so comfortably to the point where you can play it in any random key without thinking about it, then take a head that you're learning and literally just force yourself to play that lick wherever it fits.

Keep doing that and do just that.

Then, start playing filling in the other parts with improvisation, but always hit that lick when it comes time to in the progression.

Also, sing solos.

When you sing, sing the lick you're working on.

Sing it in the places where it clearly works, sing it in the places where it might not clearly work.

Jam the sound of that lick into your ear.

Overtime, it'll naturally start coming out in your playing when you aren't thinking about it.

It's a long process, but it's important.

I include melodic patterns in my practice routine

and I have found them to help me hear complete melody lines including short licks and other embellishments in my head as I'm improvising on the fly.

I practiced scales by themselves and that only got me so far, but when I started practicing the melodic patterns, that's when I started hearing the parts I play and knowing what to play next immediately before I play it.

It became an all new ball-game for me.

Question: I can learn riffs pretty easily, but I have a hard time remembering to work them into my improv. Do you have any good techniques/tips?

Practicing including riffs into improv?

The end goal with improv is for the musical ideas that come into your brain to immediately come out of your instrument, so start by slowing the tempo. Play along at this slow tempo, and when you feel the riff should be inserted, let it fly!

Τhe end goal with improv is for the musical ideas that come into your brain to immediately come out of your instrument.

Practice the songs/progressions you want to improvise slowly, and as a riff pops into your head, play it. The end goal with improv is for the musical ideas that come into your brain to immediately come out of your instrument.


Perhaps this is a non-answer, but I wanted to state that there's very little musical reason, in my opinion, for that rule; it really sounds like a rule that will prevent you from making other errors (like doubling the leading tone, which is the third of a major triad).

Furthermore, I wanted to suggest that you treat this as a very bendable rule that can be broken.

Indeed, when you get to V–VI deceptive cadences in a minor key, you must double the third of the root-position VI chord (!), because it's better than doubling the root (which would be a result of parallel perfect octaves or an augmented second) or the fifth (which would result in parallel perfect fifths).

In other words, there are situations where this rule must be broken, so (in my opinion), don't worry too much about breaking it.

One reason why may be to avoid parallel octaves.

Dominant chords are always major chords (or at least based on them), and doubling the third of a dominant chord means doubling the leading tone.

In common practice period voice leading, the leading tone should resolve to the tonic, so you get parallel octaves right there.

The common story I've read is that parallel octaves should be avoided because they make contrapuntal voices sound less independent from each other.

In practice, due to how rare they are, they also stick out to my ears in polyphonic writing in a rather raw way.

As mentioned in Dekkadeci's answer, doubling the third can lead to using parallel octaves (neither of which sound bad) and it can sound like a voice dropped out.

This is a problem with the dominant chord; the third is note 7 of the scale and it strongly leads to the tonic.

(Parallel octaves or fifths can sound "thin" in harmonic texture.)

Another problem is that a major with a double third sounds like a Neapolitan Sixth (in perhaps another key).

It's a special sound that listeners are used to hearing in particular situations.

Neither of these is a risk with minor chord third doubling.

Doubling the third of a minor chord (in a major key) doubles the 1, 4, or 5 note.

This strengthens the sense of key.

(I'm not sure this is all that important though.)

Although the chorale rules evolved somewhat organically, there may be a physics component to it as well. Consider the harmonic series for the note

C:

C, G, C, E, G, (7),

C.Now, the harmonic series for the note

E: E, B, E, G#, B, (7), E.And the harmonic series for the note

Eb:

Eb, Bb, Eb, G, Bb, (7)

, Eb.

In a C Major chord, a doubled E would also reinforce a G# against the chord's G -- Eew.

But in a C Minor chord, a doubled Eb would reinforce a G natural -- no problem.

In a major chord, the 3rd is probably the most 'active' note.

If the chord has a dominant function to the one following (as is so often the case in Common Practice harmony)

it will be particularly active, having a leading note function, and as @Dekkadeci says allowing two instances of it to resolve will give parallel octaves.

(The same reasoning applies to not doubling the 7th in dominant 7th shape chords.)

A minor 3rd is less active.

Doubling

it is as innocuous as doubling the 5th.

But, as always, use this 'rule' as a warning to listen carefully if you are tempted to double a major 3rd.

DOES

it stand out too much?

DOES

it cause bad part-leading?

I think it has more to do with what we're used to hearing, culturally.

Most of the time, if we have 4 voices but only 3 notes, we'll double the root.

It sounds more stable and we perceive the chord's function more accurately.

Besides the voice leading perspective (avoiding parallel octaves/5ths)

we don't mind hearing 'C' in a C Major triad more strongly than the other notes, so the root ends up being doubled for aesthetic reasons (like in a rock 'n' roll band where the bass almost always plays the root of a chord).

I suspect cultural exposure has more influence on aesthetics than the overtone series.

The minor third has a much easier tone that the Major third, the major third is a much more dominant interval than the minor third.

it is also worth noting that one of the Major chords in tonal harmony (The Dominant) has the Leading tone note for a third, something which is a big no-no to double.

In general, the Major chords almost always want it root note doubled, sometimes you are by necessity forced to double the fifth

but you only do this when there is a good reason to do so.

Dieter da la Motte says in his "Harmonielehre" Which tone is doubled in the sixth chord?

Ask ten textbooks.

They give ten different answers between the extremes of Bumcke ("The third should not be doubled") and Moser ("so that in the sixth chord all three doubling possibilities become more equal").

There is a lot more to say about doubling the 3rd in root position that I will post here later ...

Question: In a manual for four-part harmony that I am reading, it is suggested to avoid doubling the 3rd of a root position major chord, as it sounds harsh. On a minor root position chord however, it is acceptable.   Why is it better to double the 3rd of minor chords and less good in major chords? The overtone series has a tone very close to the major 3rd, so shouldn't doubling the major 3rd actually be preferable to doubling the minor 3rd?

Doubling the third of a root position major chord in four-part harmony

Dominant chords are always major chords (or at least based on them), and doubling the third of a dominant chord means doubling the leading tone. In common practice period voice leading, the leading tone should resolve to the tonic, so you get parallel octaves right there. It is also worth noting that one of the Major chords in tonal harmony (The Dominant) has the Leading tone note for a third, something which is a big no-no to double. In general, the Major chords almost always want its root note doubled, sometimes you are by necessity forced to double the fifth

Dominant chords are always major chords (or at least based on them), and doubling a third of a dominant chord means doubling the leading tone. In common practice period voice leading, the leadingtone should resolve to the tonic, so you get parallel octaves right there.

Major chords almost always want it root note doubled. Sometimes you are by necessity forced to double the fifth. Major third is a much more dominant interval than the minor third. One of the Major chords in tonal harmony (The Dominant) has the Leading tone note for a third.


C°7 actually includes a B doubleflat .

A major seventh above C is B and a minor seventh above C

is B♭.

This means that a diminished seventh above C is actually B♭♭, which is enharmonic to A.

But the seventh is not A, because A is just a sixth above C. A is enharmonic to B♭♭, but since we want the seventh above C, it must be B♭♭, not A.

But it gets more interesting:

since fully diminished sevenths are just stacked minor thirds, they can be spelled four different ways, with each pitch as root; we say that these chords are enharmonic, just like we say that A is enharmonic to B♭♭.

This then means that C–E♭–G♭–A is a diminished seventh chord, but with A as the root: A–C–E♭

–G

If E♭ is the root, we'd rather spell it as D♯–F♯–A–C.

If G♭ is the root, we'd spell it as F♯–A–C–E♭.

These chords all sound the same as C°7, but they are spelled differently.

Other answers have pointed out that it's a B♭♭, not an A.

To answer the question "

why not a B♭":

The chord in question is the chord of the diminished 7th.

As David Bowling and Richard have stated, if the root is C, the diminished 7th is B♭♭.

The chord is also called the "diminished 7th chord".

This name and its chord symbol Cdim7 are perhaps confusing.

I don't know if this is what you thought, but, just for the record, "Cdim7" does not

mean

the diminished triad C-E♭-G♭

as indicated by "Cdim" the pitch B♭ as indicated by "7", just as C7 means a C triad plus B♭

It's not a [ diminished triad ] with a seventh.

It's a chord of the [ diminished seventh ].

A Cdim7 chord is actually spelled C-Eb-Gb-Bbb, where the interval from C to Bbb is called a diminished seventh.

The interval from C to A is a major sixth, but sometimes you do see people spell Cdim7 as C-Eb-Gb-A for convenience to avoid the double flat, it is just technically incorrect.

This chord is sometimes called a fully-diminished chord, in contrast to a half-diminished chord.

A half-diminished C chord ( Cmin7b5 , C-7b5 , or C ∅ ) is spelled: C-Eb-Gb-Bb.

These are often found in ii-V-i progressions in jazz.

It actually contains a Bbb (double flat).

Often (mis)spelt as A for convenience.

You'll also often see it notated as C, Eb, F#, A.

A dim7 chord is a pile of minor 3rds.

A minor 3rd up from Gb is Bbb.

Adding a little to the others.

Cdim7 cannot contain a Bb note.

Bb only produces a minor 7th from the root.

To make it a diminished 7th, the space between root and m7 needs to be one semitone smaller.

That's the reason it gets called Bbb.

It sounds just like A, but since C>A is a M6, that wouldn't be correct if the chord was to be called dim7.

Question: CM7 - C, E, G, B  C7 - C, E, G, Bb  Cm7 - C, Eb, G, Bb  Caug7 - C, E, G#, Bb  But...  Cdim7 - C, Eb, Gb, A.  Why Does Cdim7 contain an A and not a Bb?

Why does Cdim7 contain an A instead of a Bb?

Since fully diminished sevenths are just stacked minor thirds, they can be spelled four different ways, with each pitch as root; we say that these chords are enharmonic, just like we say that A is enharmonic to B♭♭. A  Cdim7  chord is actually spelled C-Eb-Gb-Bbb, where the interval from C to Bbb is called a diminished seventh. The interval from C to A is a major sixth, but sometimes you do see people spell  Cdim7  as C-Eb-Gb-A for convenience to avoid the double flat, it is just technically incorrect.

A  Cdim7  chord is actually spelled C-Eb-Gb-Bbb, where the interval from C to Bbb is called a diminished seventh. Sometimes people Cdim7  as C-Eb-Gb-A for convenience to avoid the double flat, it is just technically incorrect.


I taught myself to sight-read music by remembering the whole process of how I learned to read out of books in school.

I started with simple words that I already knew and understood and worked on recognition of those words on sight and using those words in phrases that made sense.

After working on it for awhile, I could see the word and hear that word being said in my brain.

It's much the same experience for me when I learned to sight read.

I practice reading until recognition becomes automatic and I can hear the sound of the note in my brain.

Just like learning songs, the process is slow at first and tests one's patience, but then the pace usually picks up and soon enough reading becomes easier.

After a while you might even be able to know how a song goes without ever actually hearing it anywhere except in your head.

I am a pretty good sight reader now

but I still work on it because there are things I don't recognize as easily as others, and I'd like more speed and fluidity.

Also I combine my sight reading with practicing scales and melodic patterns and it goes a long way towards tying everything together for me.

The process is simple, though not easy: Select a piece that's just above your current ability to read easily,one that makes your brain work.

Set a metronome to an easy tempo (this isthe crucial step.

A metronome will reveal all kinds of hiddentendencies and paradoxically help you relax since it relieves you ofthe responsibility of staying solid in tempo.)

Play only the first beat of each measure.

Then the first and thirdbeat of each measure (assuming 4/4 time).

Fill in notes as desired.

Forgive yourself for mistakes, just keep moving.

I think it's actually quite unimportant how you learn sight-reading, what is important is that you do it – practice frequently!

So, use whatever music you like to play, which adds incentive for that.

Once you have the basics

right

you should also make sure to get acquainted with unusual key signatures or whatever that may not be found in the music you'd choose to listen.

Bach is definitely a good source.

Play whatever you can play easily – it's ok practice, but this is not the most important thing in sight-reading.

The first key to sight-reading is training yourself to ignore your mistakes and keep a steady tempo at all costs.

Usually this means lowering the tempo, and gradually raising it over the course of a single piece, and many pieces in the long run.

Secondly – and theoretically – sight-reading is about recognition of common patterns that are found in music.

For example, it is almost impossible to sight-read many contemporary piano pieces because they often use very unusual combinations and progressions of notes.

Classical music, on the other hand is based on typical patterns - chords, arpeggios, progressions, scales, etc.

A further goal is to learn to recognise patterns of patterns at a glance.

This is God-mode of sight-reading.

This brings us to the importance of practicing your scales, arpeggios, and chords in all keys – once these can be played with very little effort, you will match them with what you see in your score, and as a result you'll be able to sight-read most music without having to read each individual note.

The end goal is to be able to read patterns , not each note, in other words – read words and sentences, not letters.

To sum up: Condition yourself to keep a chosen tempo at all costs, and to look ahead.

Practice your scales, arpeggios, and chords (in all voicings) in all keys.

Read patterns, and patterns of patterns, not notes.

The important thing is that you choose music which is technically simple enough to fully comprehend immediately.

This means music that would otherwise be well below your level.

Bach is quite complex, and is hard for even advanced players to sight read.

I don't know where this idea that Bach is simple came from, and it's seriously misleading.

Look into music of the Classical and early Romantic periods, such as Clementi, Haydn, some Mozart, and portions of Beethoven (his sonatas #19 and #20 are very easy, and there are easy movements of most of the rest).

For what it's worth, I'm pretty sure it's not very easy to teach oneself to sightread.

I use many, many strategies with students, very few of which would work with an individual who was a beginner, alone.

There are many aspects to learning how to sightread, and for me, the most important is - find a teacher!

Question: How would I go about teaching myself how to sight read for piano, should I practice out of a sight reading book? Or should I take a piece of music with a lower grade level (such as Bach) and sight read that?

How should I teach myself sight-reading?

Learning to sight read music is the same as learning to read words and you need to follow the same process to be successful.

After working on it for awhile, one could see the word and hear that word being said in his brain.

I taught myself to sight-read music by remembering the whole process of how I learned to read out of books in school. I started with simple words that I already knew and understood and worked on recognition of those words on sight. After working on it for awhile, I could see the word and hear that word being said in my brain.


My ad-hoc list of reasons for using a minor dominant in a minor key.

Milder, more ambiguous feeling - it doesn’t shout ATTENTION ALL LISTENERS!

THIS IS A DOMINANT CHORD.

I REPEAT.

DOMINANT CHORD.

Make your music cooler and more suitable for young rebels/snobs/kids who cannot stand proper dominants, because it reminds them of the kind of uncool music old farts like their parents listen.

Different jazzing-up possibilities.

If the melody is compatible with it, try a minor 9 or even a IV/V (i.e. D6/E for Am)

If you want to make a harmonic variation or arrangement of a melody that was written for a major key, and use the relative minor key instead, the melody might clash with a major dominant’s third.

So use a minor as a dominant - it’s a dominant all right.

Bass player’s revenge / application of above: if you’re tired of a happy C - F - G - C song, play a third below and make it Am7 - Dm7 - Em7 - Am7.

Yes.

i v6 iv6 V where the second chord is the minor dominant in 1st inversion.

Harmonizing a descending bass in that way would be very normal.

The important point to realize is that the proper dominant V is used at the end of that example phrase to create a half cadence and in that place the raised leading tone is required to make a proper cadence.

If the music isn't forming a cadence then the treatment of the ^6 ^7 scale degrees become flexible in minor key music.

That sort of flips your question around.

Rather than a reason for using the minor dominant, the reason for using the raised leading tone is what matters.

You don't need reasons and rule for using any chord as the music unfolds.

But, when you get to a phrase ending and form a cadence, you must follow the formula.

At least in classical style.

On the other hand, if you aren't dealing with classical music, then such supposed rules and theories are simply being mis-applied.

Though I'm probably just restating Tim's comment - getting the leading tone in isn't necessarily a good thing.

There's a proud tradition of music oriented around the leading tone - a tradition that came about ultimately because people thought it sounded good!

People still do of course, but they also want variety, and often want to get away from that insistent leading tone.

Sometimes this is done by avoiding playing thirds altogether, including when playing a chord on the dominant (by playing 'power chords'), or even by avoiding the dominant (a characteristic of 'grunge' music).

Almost any time you find a guideline in music, You'll find a bunch of people who prefer the sound you get when you don't follow that guideline....

Even in the most tonal harmonic minor pieces, the leading tone is often avoided unless the melody is specifically moving upward toward the tonic note.

That means there is a lot of opportunity for a minor v chord that involves the un-raised 7th scale degree.

Feel free to use the minor v wherever you want unless you want to create a strong cadence.

In Common Practice Period theory, the minor dominant (AKA minor chord on scale step 5) is rather common.

It's used when harmony based on step 5 is wanted but without the cadential implications of the V chord.

Note that in a minor key, the V has a stronger cadential tendency as it contains the raised form of step 7 and this note has a strong melodic tendency to move to step 8 (at least in that style.)

There are two common uses; one is the one already mentioned: a descending bass i-v6-iv6-V or i-v6-iv6-v, etc.

Another is in sequences like the minor form of the "Rule of the Octave" (AKA the Pachelbel Canon harmony):

I-V6-vi-iii6-IV-I6-V6-I (and many variants).

In minor one gets i-v6-VI-III6-iv-i6 or (I6)

etc.

The other is in the cycle of fifths, i-iv-VII-III-VI-ii0-v-i -i-iv-VII-III-VI-ii0-V-i.

The first time through, the v chord does not have a strong cadential effect (more like a secondary dominant) thus contrasting with the V in the last time through to achieve strong cadential effect.

I'm sure there are more insightful answers than "it sounds good" Not really.

You can have a functional V with the leading note included, or a less functional v with the b7 of the key.

Because it sounds good.

Popular music lives in a sort of modified Common Practice harmonic world, where even in a major key the b7 almost counts as diatonic, probably because the Blues is constantly in the background.

Question: I've learnt that in a minor key, the non-diatonic major dominant is basically always used instead of the diatonic minor dominant in order to get the leading tone in. Of course this is a trend but not a rule. What could be reasons for using the minor dominant?  The question was spurred by Amy McDonald's This is the Life, which goes i-VI-III-v in C#m. (I'm sure there are more insightful answers than "it sounds good".)

What are reasons to use the minor dominant in a minor progression, in particular i-VI-III-v?

If you want to make a harmonic variation or arrangement of a melody that was written for a major key, and use the relative minor key instead, the melody might clash with a major dominant’s third.  The important point to realize is that the proper dominant  V  is used at the end of that example phrase to create a half cadence and in that place the raised leading tone is  required  to make a proper cadence. Even in the most tonal harmonic minor pieces, the leading tone is often avoided unless the melody is specifically moving upward toward the tonic note. That means there is a lot of opportunity for a minor v chord that involves the un-raised 7th scale degree. The minor v can be used wherever you want unless you want to create a strong cadence.

Harmony in the minor key can clash with a major dominant's third in a major key melody. A proper dominant  V is used at the end of that example phrase to create a half cadence. Feel free to use the minor v wherever you want unless you want a strong cadence, but avoid the un-raised 7th scale degree.


If this feels like 4/4 time with an extra beat tagged on at the end, then I would count each measure as: 1-ee-and-uh-2-ee-and-uh-3-ee-and-uh-4-ee-and-uh-5` If you want the pattern to count up and don't need to worry about accenting a particular beat, I would recommend this: 1-ee-and-uh-IS-ee-and-uh-SEV-ee-and-uh-EN-ee-and-uh-TEEN`2-ee-and-uh-IS-ee-and-uh-SEV-ee-and-uh-EN-ee-and-uh-TEEN`3-ee-and-uh-IS-ee-and-uh-SEV-ee-and-uh-EN-ee-and-uh-TEEN

` Then, internalize the "ee-and-uh"s so that you don't have to count them out loud.

This leaves you with: 1

/ / / IS / / / SEV / / / EN / / /

TEEN`2 / / / IS

/ / / SEV / / / EN / / /

TEEN`3 / / / IS / / / SEV / / / EN / / / TEEN` If you were to learn this method, it would be easier because you'll only have to count 5 beats, and the rest you will be able to simply feel intuitively.

Another value of this pattern is that, if you are learning to count/feel lots of different odd meters, then you can easily remember which one is 17/8 versus, e.g., 15/8.

If you want the 17 beats in groupings of 3 (so that every third beat is a strong beat), then you could use: 1-and

-uh-THIS-and-uh-IS-and-uh-SEV-and-uh-EN-and-uh-TEEN

-uh-THIS-and-uh-IS-and-uh-SEV-and-uh-EN-and-uh-TEEN-OH3-and

-uh-THIS-and-uh-IS-and-uh-SEV-and-uh-EN-and-uh-TEEN-

OH

Once you internalize the weak beats (the "and-uh"s), you can count it more easily like this: 1

/ / THIS / / IS / / SEV / / EN / / TEEN

/ / THIS / / IS / / SEV / / EN / / TEEN

OH3 /

/ THIS

/ / IS / / SEV / / EN / / TEEN OH

Take a look at poetry written in a 17-syllable meter, for instance: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17Thís is the | fórest pri | méval, the | múrmuring | píne and the | hémlocks (Introduction to Evangeline: A Tale of Acadie Henry WadsworthLongfellow, 1807 - 1882) Then for a 1,2,3 pattern, craft your 5 Dactyls (triplets) and the final Trochee (duplet).

1 pretty kitty eats meat in the morning along with some salmon.2 pretty kitties

eat meat in the morning along with some salmon.3 pretty kitties

eat meat in the morning along with some salmon.

What is some-thing sim-il-ar that would fit for three groups of sev-en-teen.

Assuming captial 'Da' is the stress.

It's duple and 16+1.

But, a meter like 17/8 seems to obscure the very regular stress given except for the last group.

It seems a mix of 2/4 and 5/8 meters makes the clearest break down of beats and stresses.

2/4 1 + 2 +

| 1 + 2 + | 1 + 2 + | 5/8 1 + 2 + a

I'm seeing this as a subdivision of 2 rather than 4.

So instead of treating 'Da-da-Da-da' as 1 e & a I reduce that to just Da-da twice which counts as 1 + 2

If you had written something like Da-da-ti-da or otherwise differentiated the 1st and 3rd events, then a subdivision of 4 would have been appropriate.

I don't see how the various mnemonics suggested in other answers are supposed to help.

If it's put into meters that reflect your stress pattern, it's not overly complicated, and a mnemonic becomes necessary.

Personally, I feel the mnemonic seems to obscure the pattern.

If a mnemonic is really desired, wouldn't it make sense to pick parts of speech to reflect the beat divisions?... up and down andleft and right andin and out andthere and back a-gain ...

that a pattern of 4 + 4 + 4 + 5 = 17 eighth notes.

Sheet music and notes would make the question more clear Using 4 times Da-ba-da-ra with a final Da and counting with the fingers of the left hand instead of 1 234 - 2 234 - 3 234 4 234 5 !)

and the right hand counts the lines would make it easy to get along : 4 + 4 + 4 + 4 + 1=17 1) Da -ba-da-ra + Da -ba-da-ra + Da -ba-da-ra + Da -ba-da-ra + Da 2) Da -ba-da-ra + Da -ba-da-ra + Da -ba-da-ra + Da -ba-da-ra + Da 3) Da -ba-da-ra + Da -ba-da-ra + Da -ba-da-ra + Da -ba-da-ra + Da

In jazz counting 8th notes goes Da-ba-Da-ba (where the -ba is creating a swing as the da is longer than the ba.)

Thus you might also use this by counting 4 times Da-ba-Da-ba with a final Da !

for each line.

Not sure if I understand where you want to put the accents.

If it does not matter then I think that I would break down 17 into a nine plus an eight and then further break down the nine to three sets of three and the eight to four sets of two.

So my result would be Da da da Da da da Da

da da Da da Da da Da da Da da or if counting 1

2 3 |2 2 3 |3 2 3 |1 2

|2 2 |3 2 |4 2

For me this is easier to count in my head or to say out loud.

Using konnakol (you can find many videos on it): || ta ka ta ki

ṭa

ta ka ta ki ṭa |

ta ka ta ki

ṭa | taam .

ta ka ta ki

ṭa

ta ka ta ki ṭa |

ta ka ta ki ṭa | tohm .

ta ka ta ki

ṭa

ta ka ta ki ṭa |

ta ka ta ki ṭa | dheem .

|| Quick note: The 't' is dental (close enough to the Spanish/French denti-alveolar 't') and 'ṭ' is retroflex (but can be approximated by alveolar 't' of English).

The period (.) indicates a rest (of unit duration) Here the difference in the three phrases is at the end , but it could easily be moved to the start.

Question: I'm trying to learn to count 3 groups of 17.  For example, for 2 groups of 11, I came up with:  1-ap-ple-a-day-keeps-the-doc-tor-a-way  2-ap-ple(s)-a-day-keep-the-doc-tor-a-way  What's something similar that I can use for 3 groups of 17? Like:  1-da-Da-da-Da-da-Da-da-Da-da-Da-da-Da-da-Da-da-Da2-da-Da-da-Da-da-Da-da-Da-da-Da-da-Da-da-Da-da-Da3-da-Da-da-Da-da-Da-da-Da-da-Da-da-Da-da-Da-da-Da  Thanks.

Phrase to help count 3 groups of 17?

Sheet music and notes would make the question more clear  Using 4 times  Da-ba-da-ra  with a final  Da  and counting with the fingers of the left hand instead of  1 234 -  2 234 -  3 234   4 234   5 !). In jazz counting 8th notes goes Da-ba-Da-ba (where the -ba is creating a swing as the da is longer than the ba.)

Using sheet music and notes would make the question more clear. In jazz counting 8th notes goes Da-ba-Da-ba (where the -ba is creating a swing as the da is longer than the ba.) In jazz you might also use this by counting 4 times   with a final  Da ! For each line, count with the fingers of the left hand instead of  1 234 -  2 234 -  3 234   4 234   4 234    5 !)  Using the right hand counts the lines would make it easy to get along.


No, secondary dominants aren't required to be seventh chords.

They can be plain triads (e.g. V/vi).

They also aren't required to be major or have a major triad--I've heard plenty of vii°7/V chords, and those are diminished 7th chords.

The fact that a secondary dominant, when a major triad, has a M3 in it, which usually moves to the root of the next chord (V) is sufficient.

With that b7, there's the tritone which convincingly moves things on, but not needed.

And as @piiperi says, that secondary dominant doesn't even need to be major or minor - diminished chords

have the propensity to act as pivotal chords in their own right, and take the music into other modulations.

Even when the v/V is minor, there's still enough scope for it to work, as it sometimes does when something in a minor key only uses natural minor notes.

Not as convincing, but still feasible.

It's good that we are now moving away from the concept of rigid rules, which don't exist these days!

I nearly said never, but a few centuries ago, adherence was expected!

A secondary dominant "tonicizes" the chord that follows it, temporarily making it sound like a I chord.

So, the secondary dominant needs to lead into that chord.

A V chord can do this with the third of the chord, which acts as a leading tone into the root of the following chord.

It does not need the 7th of the chord, but that will increase the pull with the existence of the tritone between the 3rd and 7th of the chord.

A diminished vii chord can also be used because it contains the leading tone going into the next chord (the root of the vii chord), in addition to the existing tritone in the diminished chord.

It is basically the upper portion of a V7 chord, without the root.

A V chord or a diminished vii triad really only point towards one tonic.

However, if a fully diminished vii7 is used, there are more possibilities.

There are four different tritones in a fully diminished seventh chord, which could point towards four different tonics.

For example, D F Ab Cb could "tonicize" Eb, F#, A, or C (and their enharmonic equivalents) depending on how it is interpreted.

If more flexibility is desired with a diminished chord, the 7th needs to be used.

The answer is: NO while the (V7) is almost always used: in jazz (

IIm7 - V7)the proper V is rarely found (as in folk tunes in a choir setting or in church choral settings *)

I just went through some Bach-preludes and didn't find a proper V. They V will appear in a SATB voicing like: Oh du fröhliche Weihnachtszeit

Most people have stated here that you don't need the seventh to create a secondary dominant sound.

That's true, as listening to D, G, C makes sense and sounds arguably just as good as D7, G7, C.

But, there's one exception!

V7/IV must contain the seventh degree.

In A major, one must use A7 to resolve to D, otherwise it's not a secondary dominant at all.

Any other secondary dominant doesn't matter, because without the seventh they aren't diatonic, but V/IV is I7, and I is diatonic and so won't be heard as a secondary dominant unless the minor seventh is added over it.

Dekkadeci recently made me aware (thank you)

that in minor keys, V/iv would not need the seventh (In A minor, A major to D minor doesn't need the seventh).

"Required" by what?

Are you referring to some cultural convention or a law of nature or what?

Wikipedia's example shows a D major without a seventh: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secondary_chord

In this example, I think the F# note alone works in some kind of a secondary dominant'ish function, even though it's not even a chord.

On the next line I added more simultaneous notes, leaving less room for imagination.

Do these sound secondary-dominantish enough to you?

Some more: To my ear, the one with the C-F# tritone gives the strongest secondary dominant vibes, followed by the D-F# version.

There are at least two ways to think about it.

What is the implied "true" chord there - is it D7, or

In the Barry Harris way of thinking, the dim7 is the "real" dominant.

Question: I noticed that secondary dominants are usually dominant seventh chords. Can you just make a secondary dominant a triad, or is it "required" to make it a seventh chord? (also I think this chord is always major).

Is a secondary dominant always a seventh chord?

S0: The fact that a secondary dominant, when a major triad, has a M3 in it, which usually moves to the root of the next chord (V) is sufficient. Even when the v/V is minor, there's still enough scope for it to work, as it sometimes does when something in a minor key only uses natural minor notes.  But, there's one exception! V7/IV must contain the seventh degree.

A secondary dominant "tonicizes" the chord that follows it, temporarily making it sound like a I chord. V7/IV must contain the seventh degree. Even when the v/V is minor, there's still enough scope for it to work, as it sometimes does in a minor key.


You could ask the same about the A note.

All three are just passing notes, passing from one 'good' note to another 'good' note.

I call them stepping stone notes.

They come on unstressed parts of the bar.

The stressed points usually being beats 1 and 3.

Here the A is & of 1, Gb & of 3 and E & of 4, all weak points where almost any note will not sound too bad.

Gb>

F>

E is a chromatic run, possibly ending on a chord tone on the important 1 in the next bar,

Eb perhaps, part of Cm chord?

All this presumes it's in key C, with the C key sig - no # or b.

The 'Gm7' dictates nothing.

Except that's the chord appropriate in that bar.

There's no 'rules' (as we keep saying!); there's only 'theory'.

Often in a bar of Gm7 there will be some chord tones - G, Bb, D, F, but that certainly does not preclude use of any of the remaining eight notes, whatever key the piece happens to be in.

That concept you (and so many others) adhere to is wrong!

In general, not every note needs to be considered part of the harmony.

You can have notes outside of a chord or key be utilized.

Both of these notes are examples of non harmonic tones.

The G♭ is a chromatic passing tone.

It is sandwiched between the G and F which are both chord tones.

The E is also most likely another non harmonic tone, what it is exactly depends on what comes next.

It could be another chromatic passing tone if the next note is an E♭, it could just as easily be an anticipation of what is next especially if you are in the key of A minor or C major which the lack of accidentals in the key signature.

Although for this particular phrase the easiest explanation is "they're simply passing notes

" it's worth noting

these particular passing notes are a bit like a magic ingredient in the sound of jazz as they are part of jazz minor scale, almost a classic sound in jazz.

So if you start digging more and analyzing jazz recordings you will come across phrases where the sixth and major seventh over minor chords function as a static tension or a harmonic "color" that doesn't really get resolved.

Context is important when trying to understand what the chords are doing, but the Gm7 could be a ii chord, perhaps part of a ii-V7-I progression.

The Dorian scale is often used to create phrases over ii chords, and G Dorian includes an E, not an Eb.

In fact, the natural sixth degree (the E) is the note that gives Dorian its character.

In this interpretation, the only other note that needs explaining is the Gb.

It is, of course, just a chromatic passing note.

But more can be said.

Bebop players used to add certain chromatic passing notes to smooth out their phrases; this phrase can be seen as constructed from the G Bebop Dorian scale , with a Gb written in place of F#.

In other words, this phrase is typical of what might be played over a ii chord in the Bebop idiom.

The technical term is non-chord tones .

The other answers already explain these particular NCT's are unaccented passing tones, but there is a complete nomenclature of NCT from classical music that you should review to see the wide range of possibilities.

In homophonic (chord based) music a huge amount of melody can be explain as the interplay of chord tones following the harmony and non-chord tones.

In jazz there is a special type of NCT called an enclosure which you should also review.

https://www.jazzadvice.com/how-to-effectively-use-enclosure/ The chord/scale system in jazz is an alternate approach from the classical non-chord tones theory.

But some other questions/answers here at StackExchange explain that historically - prior to the chord/scale system - jazz improv was largely arpeggiated chords embellished with non-chord tones.

The two systems shouldn't be considered mutually exclusive.

You might want to expand this single question to a general review of the whole topic of non-chord tones.

It will deepen your understanding of melody.

Question: Hello! Could someone please give me an explanation about why in the above lick they use G flat (yellow square) instead of G and an E (red circle) instead of E flat, as the Gm dictates?  Thank you in advance!

Notes in a lick that don't fit in the scale associated with the chord

In general, not every note needs to be considered part of the harmony.  You can have notes outside of a chord or key be utilized. In homophonic (chord based) music a huge amount of melody can be explain as the interplay of chord tones following the harmony and non-chord tones.

Not every note needs to be considered part of the harmony. Context is important when trying to understand what the chords are doing. In homophonic music a huge amount of melody can be explain as the interplay of chord tones.


As Jomiddnz points out, there's pizzicato.

You could also bow one string and pluck another at the same time.

But if you want both notes played with the bow, and don't want the bow to catch the strings in between, the only way is by playing on the top and bottom strings with the bow under the strings.

Here's an example (OK, the only example I've found): the last few bars of Flausino Vale's variations on Franz Lehár's Paganini .

(Note also the combination of an arco note and pizzicato open strings.)

If you don't want to use that extraordinary technique, then, no.

Just to be pedantic, you could pretty easily bow the open G and A strings together by holding the D string depressed just above the bridge.

Just to add to the other answers, there's this unusual technique where you loosen the hair of the bow and play with the stick of the bow under the violin, but the hair wrapping over it.

This allows you to play three or four strings simultaneously.

To play only two non-adjacent strings, I guess you'd need to somehow mute the string(s) in between.

I never played violin

so I don't know how feasible that would be.

Absolutely, but it's harder on a modern instrument

As RedLitYogi says, the convex bridge (not the fingerboard!) affects your ability to play more than two adjacent strings.

A tight bow means you can only normally hit two notes at once.

Historically this was not the case though.

Baroque instruments had a shallower curve to the bridge, and they also used lower tension on the bow.

As a result, they were perfectly capable of treble-stopping as an advanced technique.

Its still possible with a modern instrument and bow.

You need to apply extreme pressure to the bow though, which makes it impossible for anything other than forte or fortissimo.

More normally, you'd simply pivot over the D string to hit the A in a single move, resulting in an arpeggiated chord.

It's worth noting that even on instruments which can play true chords (e.g guitar or piano), arpeggiated chords are often used for expression, so this does not sound in any way unusual.

These techniques all assume playing three notes at once, of course.

To avoid playing the "middle" string and only sound the outer two, damp the unwanted string by touching it lightly with the fleshy part of a finger.

No.

It is physically impossible unless you play it pizzicato.

You most likely know this, but just in case: the instruments of the string choir (violin, viola, cello, bass violin) all have convex fingerboards.

This makes it much easier to bow a single string than it would be if the strings were all on one plane as they are in guitars and lutes, etc.

That is why the answer given in 13 seems to be the best.

(Paganini must really have been

a show-off - this is akin to Hendrix playing behind his back, etc...)

If you used two bows you could achieve the result.

It would be rather tricky to hold them both, and only short strokes would be viable without some extremely dexterous right-hand work (or perhaps a bowing action which moves the bow along the strings more than across them - which wouldn't sound great), but would be more versatile than the under-the-strings solution, more musical than the high-pressure solution.

A specialised bowing device (perhaps like a couple of EBows ) might be an option too, depending on how determined you are.

I just realized there is a way (and it works quite well

, I tried it) to play double stops on the G and A strings, while still being able to finger them normally: unscrew the the bow completely, pass the frog (carefully!)

down between the E and A strings and under the A, D, and G strings.

Screw it back on.

Play with the bow lifted, not pressed.

You will get a lovely double stop of just the G and A strings.

Probably of limited practical use.

Question: Suppose I wanted to play a double stop on the violin. The double stop played the G string and the A string simultaneously. Is this possible? Can you play a double stop on two non-adjacent strings?

Violin - Can double stops be played when the strings are not next to each other?

The instruments of the string choir (violin, viola, cello, bass violin) all have convex fingerboards.  This makes it much easier to bow a single string than it would be if the strings were all on one plane as they are in guitars and lutes, etc. These notes can be played under the strings or by applying great pressure to the bow. The same effect can be achieved using two bows. It would be rather tricky to hold them both, and only short strokes would be viable without some extremely dexterous right-hand work (or perhaps a bowing action which moves the bow along the strings more than across them - which wouldn't sound great), but would be more versatile than the under-the-strings solution, more musical than the high-pressure solution.

String choir instruments all have convex fingerboards, making it easier to bow a single string. You could also bow one string and pluck another at the same time. To play only two non-adjacent strings, I guess you'd need to mute the string(s) in between. You need to apply extreme pressure to the bow though, which makes it impossible for anything other than forte or fortissimo. It's worth noting that even on instruments which can play true chords, arpeggiated chords are often used for expression, so this does not sound in any way unusual.


Bass amps have been used by guitarists for many decades.

In some instances, they work better for guitarists than other amps designed for guitars, especially the speakers.

If you are going to use effects pedals, they will do just fine, but if you're looking for something that will overdrive and distort, bass amps generally aren't designed with that in mind.

If your bass amp is a valve amp, it'll do the job really well.

If it is a transistor amp, it'll still work well enough, but you won't really be able to overdrive it as much as you would an amp designed for guitar.

The Fender Bassman has famously been many guitarists' amp of choice over the years.

A bass amp still needs to produce all the same higher frequencies as a guitar amp, because it's the higher frequencies which give you the "attack" of a note.

So there's no problems with the speaker itself.

As LaurencePayne said already, guitar and bass amps are not intended to have clean, flat responses like a PA amplifier and speaker.

Amplifiers are deliberately run into saturation or distortion of various kinds.

Speakers are not designed for flat responses.

And speaker cabs are pretty much without exception constructed in a shoddy way which would horrify a PA speaker designer, with insufficient bracing all round and no damping or box tuning.

But all this is why a guitar or bass amp has a distinct "sound" and a good PA speaker does not.

Where you are likely to have issues though might be with the EQ.

A good bass amp will have 5-band EQ, and you can generally make that work.

Others may only have 3-band EQ though, or perhaps even just a "tone" control.

On a bass amp, that'll be set up for the kind of frequency range which is most applicable for a bass, and it won't necessarily work so well for a guitar.

If there are other FX on the amp, they may also be tuned more for a bass.

The obvious solution in that case is to get yourself a pedalboard for the guitar.

This works best if your amp has an FX loop, because then you can make best use of the amp's preamp, but otherwise an FX unit or pedalboard which includes an overdrive on the way in will still work fine.

Yes.

But the whole point of a guitar amp is to NOT be 'accurate' but to distort in interesting ways.

This aspect may be missing.

The simple answer is of course you can.

You won't break the thing.

But whether you get a satisfying sound out of it - it really depends of what type of guitar sound you want to use.

It also depends on what type of bass amp you have.

I'd argue that since the Fender Bassman's times when guitar and bass amps design were quite similar we had a substantial evolution and divergence of the two.

And while Fender Bassman is definitely a guitar friendly animal, modern amps like Gallien Kruger, SWR or Markbass might be less so.

Guitar amps are designed for organic multistage distortion.

Some of the most iconic rock sounds involve compound effect of preamp distorition, power amp clipping, transformer saturation and the way a really thin almost paper like speaker membranes of guitar amps color the sound.

One practical solution would be to use the bass amp along with some sort of guitar modelling solution to get a variety of decent sounds.

Technically yes, playing electric guitar through a bass amp can be done, nothing will break, no one will get hurt.

I guess the thrust of the question is more, will I get a satisfying sound playing electric guitar through a bass amp?

This is a great question, and there are two distinct parts.

Firstly, the amplifier itself.

TBH (and I'm happy to get slammed for saying this)

the amp itself will sound fine as the amp isn't the most important part of the signal chain.

Controversial

I know but check Brian Wampler's vlog on amp Vs cab

But bass amps are designed to handle a fat load without distortion so the results are possibly a bit too clean for some people.

But if you play clean or use pedals for colour then this isn't an issue.

But secondly, and in the context of this question (and the video link above) I think more importantly, is the speaker(s) and cabinet.

Speakers are often overlooked when we talk about the characteristics of a guitar rig.

Go look at a shoot out video putting a pair of blues junior combo amps with contrasting speakers to the test.

Same amp, different speakers, the result can be night Vs day.

This is an even bigger consideration in the world of bass when you consider that bass cabs/combos commonly range from 10 to 15inch plus, and guitar speakers tend to be 12inch (not exclusively but very commonly).

So if you have a combo with one 15" speaker (a 1x15, or 115)

you are going to get a vastly different sound than two 10inch speakers.

Big speaker will have less high end, smaller speakers will be give less bass rumble but a tighter sound.

I have recently taken to playing my telecaster through an Orange Bass Terror 500w head in to a 2x10 neodymium bass cab and it sounds so good.

It doesn't really do dirty, but I tend to play clean jazzy or country stuff, and I've got pedals for dirt when needed and they sound great too.

I might sell my BJ.

Question: I am a bassist and I am looking for an electric guitar, but I don’t want to buy another amplifier. Can I play the guitar through the bass amplifier?

Can I play a electric guitar through a bass amplifier?

A bass amp still needs to produce all the same higher frequencies as a guitar amp, because it's the higher frequencies which give you the "attack" of a note. So there's no problems with the speaker itself.  The obvious solution in that case is to get yourself a pedalboard for the guitar. This works best if your amp has an FX loop, because then you can make best use of the amp's preamp, but otherwise an FX unit or pedalboard which includes an overdrive on the way in will still work fine.

A bass amp still needs to produce the same higher frequencies as a guitar amp. The higher frequencies give you the "attack" of a note. An FX unit or pedalboard with an overdrive on the way in will still work fine.