I would recommend getting a copy of Hindemith's book: Elementary Training for Musicians

In the early chapters he has masses of exercises in sight-reading rhythmic patterns, both as single-line rhythms, and also more complex ones where you have to tap one rhythm while playing another rhythm (very useful for pianists).

The book is also extremely useful for lots of other aspects of musicianship.

I have been delving into the book for years - and still not mastered all it contains (maybe I am just a slow learner!)

For jazz guitar there is a standard book by William G. Leavitt called Melodic Rhythms for Guitar .

It has lots of examples of so-called "rhythm groups" of increasing complexity.

Playing through this book greatly improves sight-reading of rhythms.

And this is also the clue: there's no shortcut.

You have to sight-read in order to learn it.

In my opinion you shouldn't waste time on looking for some magic tools, just sit down with a piece of music and play.

Of course, it's important to use material that is not beyond your level, but that should be easy to find.

It will depend a little on the instrument.

For example, rhythm guitar with lots of strumming will be slightly different from picking out a melody on, say, a clarinet.

Yes, the rhythmic pattern will be the same, but its execution is different, as is reading chord symbols as opposed to dots.

Tapping a foot is always good, as is internalizing the basic beat with a part of your body.

My violin teacher used to sniff in place of rests, to keep them in time and place.

(Christine Perfect's (McVee) dad, namedropping!)

It worked well, but didn't sound too good.

Metronome will get a mention - sometimes it can be set for twice or thrice the speed to keep more accurate time.

And of course, counting out loud.

1e&a 2e&a et al.

Put the radio etc on and tap along using different patterns, there are literally thousands to choose from, and visualise them as you tap. '

This is 4 quavers, a crotchet, 4 quavers and a crotchet' sort of approach.

The good thing about this is you don't need an instrument - it could even happen as you drive along.

Explaining to the law may be tricky!

A good idea is to start with the note that is the shortest and make that one beat and count the other notes in relation to the smallest notes.

So for instance if you are in 4/4 time and the shortest notes in the piece is quavers

you make

the quavers one beat, the crotchets 2, minims 4 and semi breves 8.

It is not a perfect method.

You run the risk of either having to count to 8 really fast if the tempo of the piece is brisk or playing the piece much too slow but for a means to teach the basics of rhythm to new players it has merit.

When you get the rhythm down you can much easier learn to play the piece in time and faster later.

Just a different sort of flashcard.

Get some blank postcards and a black marker pen and in your best musical handwriting, notate a rhythmic pattern lasting one crotchet on each card.

Each single card could contain for instance (a non-exhaustive list):

crotchet quaver quaver crotchet rest dotted quaver semiquaver semiquaver semiquaver quaver rest Triplet quavers etc.

Create duplicates of each card.

Then shuffle and deal four cards in a row.

Set your metronome and try to read the rhythm, looping around

so you're playing the same bar over and over again.

Pick up the left-hand card and move it to the right hand end, or exchange two cards.

Or replace a card with one from the pack.

You get the idea.

Question: So, there are a number of tools and strategies to learn to sight-read  pitch .  I mean, you just make flashcards and in a while you should be able to read comfortably all notes on all staves, right?  But rhythm is a different beast, isn't it?  If you make flashcards of rhythms, I suppose, you'll memorize those specific rhythms you have made flashcards for.   What is your strategy?  Thank you!

Tools to improve sight-reading of rhythms

music.stackexchange.com/users/19097/Some Dude On The Interwebs

Tools to improve sight-reading of rhythms include Hindemith's book:  Elementary Training for Musicians, Melodic Rhythms for Guitar by William G. Leavitt. Alternatively make flashcards by getting some blank postcards and a black marker pen and in your best musical handwriting, notate a rhythmic pattern lasting one crotchet on each card.

The best suggestion will depend on what instrument you are playing, and you probably could still use flashcards to learn rhythms. However, there are also books available to help learn rhythms, such as Hindemith's 'Elementary Training for Musicians or William G. Leavitt's 'Melodic Rhythms'.

There are some books available to help learn rhythms such as Hindemith's 'Elementary Training for Musicians' or William G. Leavitt's 'Melodic Rhythms for Guitar'

The best suggestion will probably depend on the instrument in question.

You could just try using flashcards for rhythms too.


I play all 3 instruments.

Saxophone is simply an easier instrument than clarinet overall, and is more commonly used in rock music.

It's the natural choice.

That being said, oboists often find clarinet easier because the embouchure is a bit firmer, which they're used to.

Sax embouchure can feel awkwardly loose, especially on tenor and lower saxes.

I know a few excellent soprano/alto/tenor saxophonists who struggle on bari because of the looseness.

I come from brass instruments (which actually have a very similar embouchure to oboe), and I share the sentiment.

But I'd still recommend sax given your goals.

Disclaimer: former clarinet and sax player, never double reed.

As Edouard points out, the sax goes in octaves just as an oboe does.

However, it doesn't take long to get the "feel" of the octave+fifth that the clarinet uses.

The clarinet requires a somewhat tighter embouchure than the sax, so you may find it less of a jump from the extremely tight oboe embouchure.

Now, if you're looking to play jazz/rock, I'd recommend the sax because of its timbre and range.

The Bb clarinet is pretty soprano-ish compared with alto or tenor sax (tenor is the most often used in rock), and you might look kinda funny :-)

playing rock alto clarinet.

Then again, strap a pickup onto your oboe and you'll have a one-of-a-kind instrumentation in your rock group! :-)

Disclaimer: not an oboist, nor a clarinetist.

Wy guess would be that switching to sax would be the easiest.

A sax has an octave key: the second octave fingerings are, basically, the same as the first octave with an additional key pressed.

Clarinet’s register key, on the other hand, has a register key which goes to the 12th, not the octave.

A quick look at a fingering chart seems to indicate that sax and oboe fingerings are quite similar — the main differences are around the F/F♯ and the single register key on the sax — and the fingering seems actually easier on the sax.

Although that could be my habits talking.

Disclaimer:

I do not play saxophone.

I, personally, switched to oboe from clarinet, and it was not too bad nor difficult.

The firmness of the embouchure for oboe in comparison to the clarinet is somewhat similar, but the clarinet is slightly less firm of an embouchure than oboe.

The saxophone embouchure is a lot less firm than the oboe's, so there may be some difficulty there.

However, fingerings may be more difficult when transitioning to clarinet, as they are generally a lot less similar to oboe than saxophone fingerings.

Oboe and saxophone follows the general fingerings for instruments, when clarinet has a different fingering setup than many other instruments.

If you want to play jazz though, saxophone is generally more present than clarinet, except for pieces such as "One for the Clarinets".

In more of an ensemble environment though, you would receive more clarinet solos than saxophone, in my experience.

Overall, I would just go with the instrument you like the sound of most and go with that.

Given the octave change and the embouchure tightness, the obvious choice would be oboe - soprano saxophone.

That said, one of the coolest rock sounds I've seen, was Clarinet mic'd with a pickup, running through a phasor, octaver and a couple delays before hitting an amplifier pretty hard.

Sounded like a 70s Moog Synth.

My Take the Sax is would be easier choice you can work around the embouchure.

I play both the clarinet and saxophone (Alto and Tenor)

I struggled on the tenor for a few months due to the less firm embouchure needed on the Tenor Sax.

but today the tenor is my first choice instrument...

Fingering is also much easier on the sax compared to the clarinet

Question: I used to play the oboe. Being in a rock band (mainly as a guitarist) I'd like to switch to the clarinet or the saxophone, as they are more useful in rock / jazz music. My question is, which one would be the easiest choise (to learn and play a simple solo for example) ?

Switch to Clarinet or Saxophone, which one is easier for an oboist?

Saxophone is simply an easier instrument than clarinet overall, and is more commonly used in rock music.  Given the octave change and the embouchure tightness, the obvious choice would be oboe - soprano saxophone. The clarinet requires a somewhat tighter embouchure than the sax, so you may find it less of a jump from the extremely tight oboe embouchure. Overall, you should just go with the instrument you like the sound of most.

Some people would recommend picking the instrument whose sound you prefer the best. However, it is generally agreed that the saxophone would be most suitable, even if the clarinet might be marginally easier to switch to initially.

It is generally agreed that the saxophone would be the most suitable choice in this case.

The clarinet might be marginally easier to switch to than the saxophone due to the embouchure.

Some people would recommend picking the instrument whose sound you prefer best.


I think that in this (and most other) contexts the broad definition of the tritone makes sense, which says that a tritone is an interval spanned by six semi-tones.

So with this definition both augmented fourth and diminished fifth qualify as a tritone.

Whether that note in the blues scale is written as a #4 or

a b5 usually depends on the direction of the melody: #4 ascends, b5 descends.

I believe that the reason why in the blues scale this note is more frequently called b5 is that the #4 is a very common note in many genres, and in many contexts it doesn't sound bluesy at all, e.g. if used melodically over a V/V chord (i.e. in C major over a D7 resolving to G7).

Also take the lydian scale: it has a #4 but there's no blues character whatsoever.

Unlike the #4, the b5 (descending) does have that bluesy character.

So the blues character of that note is mainly perceived if it coexists with the unaltered 4, and then it would often descend to the 4 as a b5.

Coexistence with the 5 (without an unaltered 4) does usually not generate any bluesy character (e.g., lydian).

To be 100% exact to the name 'tritone', it would be #4.

Because, if we ascend 3 tones from the root, we have #4, and not b5.

The three tones would be C-D, D-E,

E-F#.

Although, from what I have understood, it depends on the progression.

Usually, the #4/b5 tritone would descend a semitone.

For instance, a common progression would be Gb7-F (maj7 or 7).

Since we are in F major, a cadence like F#7-Fmaj7 is really rare (not that it doesn't exist).

The most common use of the tritone is on the tritone substitution of the V7 chord, with the bII7 chord.

It wouldn't be nice to see #I 7.

But to sum up, I don't think any of the two names is wrong.

You can use whichever suits you better.

but why is b5 favoured?

I don't know if there can be a definitive answer, but I would say that probably it's because b5 is commonly used in chord names, while #4 is not.

Being used to always call that interval b5 in the context of chords, one will naturally tend to use the same name when talking about the note itself as well.

Matt L.'s answer is an excellent one.

If you are asking "what should I call it, and when should I call it that?

" here's my experience.

In heptatonic (7 note scales) each number gets used once, you always call it a #4 if its the fourth note in the scale, e.g. in Lydian, or for a minor example, in the 4th mode of harmonic minor (essentially Dorian with a #4).

If its the fifth note of a heptatonic scale you must call it a b5.

The Half Diminished scale (aka Locrian mode) is a good example.

As to what to call it in the Blues scale, I see it coming down to genre more than anything else.

In Rock, Blues, and Metal its always the b5.

I see Jazz players, websites, and theory books calling it the sharp four more and more.

If you are in doubt and at a jam session with Jazz players , just call the note the sharp 4 , with Rock or Blues guys/gals call it the flat five.

With Metalheads I might call it the devil's tone, or diabolus in musica, just because its more fun to.

Jazz is predominantly Major; the #4 (with no 4) gets used quite a bit because it is not dissonant against the 3 in a major chord (but the natural 4th is).

There are virtually no scales in rock where you have to call it a sharp four, the only exception that comes to mind is the Double Harmonic scale (typically used for Dick Dale inspired Surf rock).

The whole POINT of a tritone is its ambiguity!

But, in a system of harmonic analysis built on the "pile of thirds" model, I can see why a modified 5th is preferred to a modified 4th.

I find insistence that the indisputably aurally flattened b10 must be labelled #9 rather harder to take!

Question: Generally, in Blues and jazz, the oft-used tritone (C to F#/Gb) is referred to as a b5. Why is this a better term than #4? In the Blues scale, there will always be two notes of the same name, but why is b5 favoured? Possibly to match the b3 and b7?

The Tritone - is it a #4 or a b5?

the reason why in the blues scale this note is more frequently called b5 may be that the #4 is a very common note in many genres, and in many contexts it doesn't sound bluesy at all, e.g. if used melodically over a V/V chord (i.e. in C major over a D7 resolving to G7). It may be because b5 is commonly used in chord names, while #4 is not. In Rock, Blues, and Metal its always the b5.

The reason this is referred to as a b5 is probably more related to genre and convention than any particular rule.


Unless you were tuning the strings well above the normal pitches for standard tuning (which you say you were not trying to do), this was caused by a defect with the guitar.

Tuning a guitar up to standard pitch should not cause the bridge to come off.

The defect may have been caused by previous attempts to tune the guitar strings too high, which causes greater tension on both the strings and the saddle/bridge.

Or it may have been caused by extreme changes of heat of humidity, which would affect the glue which fixes the bridge to the body.

(I've usually seen this happen when my pupils' guitars have been left next to a radiator for a long period of time.)

It is possible, of course, that you were not tuning the strings to the correct pitches.

A common mistake is to either tune strings to the intended pitch of a different string, or trying to tune up to a note when already sharp, instead of tuning down (in other words tuning in the wrong direction).

If over-tightening the strings is the reason the bridge has come off your guitar, this can be avoided in future through regular tuning; this ensures that strings do not move far from their intended pitch, and so makes it easy to see whether they should be tuned up or down, and so avoids tuning them in the wrong direction or towards the wrong pitch.

A possible cause, apart from a faulty gluing of the bridge, is that you were an octave too high.

Seen it happen too often, using a tuner that tells you the target note, but for some reason, you've gone to an octave above.

Thus 4x the tension.

Also seen it happen after it's been left in a place too hot - rad.

, sun, conservatory, etc.

Or, you may have the strings' numbers mixed -

the thin end is E,B,G, the fatter ones are E,A,D, all from the outside.

Seen that before, too...

The solution, even if it's a cheapie, is 2 pack epoxy resin to re-fix the bridge.

It's worked every time for me.

I'm not sure if it's a manufacturing defect as much as a design flaw.

This should not even be possible for a steel string acoustic.

The ball ends should be held down by the bridge plate underneath the top, not the bridge itself.

See this image: Where did you go wrong?

I'm sorry to say it looks like you'll want to save up a little more for your next guitar to a get a proper design.

Perhaps I have missed this in the other replies but one obvious thing to check would be the gauge of strings you were using.

It's not clear from your question whether you were tuning your current set of strings or you had changed to a new set, but obviously if you were to tune to standard E with a set of strings that were too heavy for how your guitar is set up, the sheer amount of tension could cause the bridge to break like this or the neck to bow.

(WARNING: only do this if a guitar has had all the strings taken off for some reason.

For routine string changes, as Tim says below swapping one at a time will reduce flex on the soundboard, and anyway is quicker.)

One tip when stringing in the future is to tighten the strings together.

In other words don't, say, start with all slack strings and tighten the 6th string fully, then the 5th string fully, etc.

Instead bring all of the strings to half tension, then raise the tension in the the centre ones first and work to the outer strings.

The aim of this is to prevent the bridge being "pulled" too heavily from one side.

I've seen this advice for use with classical guitars, but it's probably a good precaution for steel-strung acoustics too.

I have owned many guitars in my life.

This has happened to me once before.

You did nothing wrong.

The glue joint in your bridge failed.

This is a manufacturing defect.

If your guitar is under warranty, appeal to the manufacturer and get warranty service.

See if they will pay for repairs, or replace the guitar with another one.

Otherwise you are going to have to pay a professional guitar repair technician to re-glue the bridge.

There can be two reasons for this failure.

One is that the bridge was not glued down correctly.

The other is that the neck of the guitar is set at the wrong angle to the body and top, resulting in the bridge having to bear more tension than it is designed to bear, leading to the failure.

Question: I was trying to tune(standard tuning) my acoustic guitar with a digital tuner that captures the playing through a microphone and shows the note/frequency played on its LED screen.   I was completely focused on getting the notes right that I forgot I was increasing the tension in the strings which eventually made the bridge come off.   Where did I go wrong?

Acoustic guitar's bridge had come off while tuning

Tuning a guitar up to standard pitch should not cause the bridge to come off. Unless you were tuning the strings well above the normal pitches for standard tuning (which you say you were not trying to do), The bridge coming off was caused by a defect with the guitar. The defect may have been caused by previous attempts to tune the guitar strings too high, which causes greater tension on both the strings and the saddle/bridge. A possible cause, apart from a faulty gluing of the bridge, is that you were an octave too high.

It is quite possible that you did nothing wrong in this case. This would seem to be the result of a design flaw or a manufacturing defect. However, it is possible that this was caused by changing the gauge of strings or previous attempts to tune the strings too high.

This would seem to indicate either a design flaw or a manufacturing defect.

This could have been caused by previous attempts to tune the strings too high.

This could have been caused by changing the gauge of the strings being used.

It is quite probably that you did nothing wrong in this case.


The pickup you'd emulate with a lowpass filter would be the neck pickup since it picks up fewer harmonics.

But it can't really be replaced by a low-pass filter since every string would need a different low-pass filter to show a similar composition of harmonics.

Also the neck pickup has quite higher gain than the low-pass-filtered bridge pickup and working with lower gain means a higher noise floor.

And while the neck position gives a different composition of harmonics for the sustained string operation, short-term action like pickup noise is still present und putting too much of a filter on those takes from the "presence" of the action.

Pickup position has most of its effect on the brightness of sustained notes but does not equally affect the onset.

If there was only one pup position, it wouldn't be as simple to blend.

With two or three, there are options - admittedly on most Strats all combinations are not available, but they can be, giving a wider sonic choice.

Also, more guitars these days have different pups at different positions, giving even more sound choice, and that's before we start on about single coil/ humbuckers, and coil taps.

I've never really experimented with particularly expensive guitars, but the sound of a bridge humbucker (a pickup with two coils and two sets of opposing magnets close together) is loaded with a lot more upper harmonics than the sound of a single-coil neck pickup, which adds sonic interest when playing a lead part, but makes strummed chords sound cluttered; low-pass filtering a humbucker won't help because anything that will take out the higher harmonics of lower strings will also take out the lower harmonics of upper strings; cranking down the tone control on a humbucker doesn't give a clear sound, but instead a sound which is simultaneously muddled and muffled.

At least on the guitars I've played with, the big advantage of having a second single-coil pickup doesn't come from the fact that it picks up sound differently, but rather from the fact that the neck and middle pickups together have anti-phase wiring and magnets so they have the noise-cancelling properties of a humbucker, but the wider space between the associated magnets means that the combination of neck and middle pickups will otherwise sound much like a single-coil pickup.

As to whether it is better to have neck and middle pickups with anti-phase wiring and magnets, or whether one could omit the magnets from the middle pickup and simply use a coil with no magnets for noise cancellation, I don't know.

By my understanding of the physics, the noise-cancelling properties of a humbucker stem from the use of coils wound anti-phase, and the harmonically denser sound stems from fact that using two sets of magnets greatly reduces the open-air portion of the magnetic flux path, increasing the sensitivity to variations in string distance.

I would think it would be useful for someone to make a pickup that had two coils just like a humbucker but with only a single set of magnets.

I would think such a thing should be cheaper than a humbucker, but I've never heard of anyone making one.

Voltage comes from the pickups and the strings.

The metal interacts with the magnetic field and disrupts

it INDUCING voltage at frequencies the strings vibrate at.

Where the string is placed over the pickup (or vice versa), determines what fundamentlas and harmonics reach full volume or small/no volume.

Imagine a pickup directly under the second harmonic's center node.

You now have full voltage for the fundamental frequency and as close to zero voltage as makes no difference for the second harmonic.

The fourth and sixth will also be similarly of low/no voltage, and 3rd, 5th, would be full voltage.

Knowing this, you'd want the pickup to be offset slightly from center to try to 'capture' all the frequencies at some relatively equal voltages, for a 'full' sound.

On the other hand, say you want a pickup which loses some harmonics, you place it in the spot to lose those harmonics, and place a second one in a position to get/lose the opposite harmonics.

Now you have both pickups producing opposite values, and this allows you to select either the former or latter for different tonal qualities, or blend them together to get all of it.

In addition to what others have said, one major difference between the bridge position and neck position is that on the neck position the pickup sees a wider string amplitude.

This is an important detail for genres such as heavy metal, where a tight, well defined rhythm is often the goal, and it's much easier to get this type of sound from the bridge position that sees short amplitudes that are easy to mute when necessary.

When you try to achieve the same tight, well defined rhythm on the neck position, you'll find out that: The wider string amplitude feels muddy and floppy (compared to bridge position).

It's harder to get a well defined, stecatto effect when you mute the string using standard palm muting technique that involves resting your hand on/near the bridge.

Instead of a quick termination of the vibration, there's a noticeable low end "halo" that lingers on for a moment after you apply your palm to the string.

This will force you to compensate by finding a new spot for palm muting, a bit further away from the bridge position.

Question: The reason seems obvious at a first glance: To produce different sounds. But really, bridge pickups can be emulated with a low-pass filter.  If so, additional pickups just increase the price of a guitar without affording any advantage.  Is there any significant reason for the additional pickups?

Why do electric guitars have so many pickups?

On many guitar, the big advantage of having a second single-coil pickup doesn't come from the fact that it picks up sound differently, but rather from the fact that the neck and middle pickups together have anti-phase wiring and magnets so they have the noise-cancelling properties of a humbucker, but the wider space between the associated magnets means that the combination of neck and middle pickups will otherwise sound much like a single-coil pickup.

There are a number of reasons for having multiple pickups. Firstly, each pickup will produce a sound with its own harmonic make-up. Secondly, each pickup with produce a signal at a different amplitude. And finally, using pickups in combination can provide noise-cancelling effects.

The different pickups have different harmonic make-ups.

The different harmonics have different amplitudes in the signal.

Using pickups in combination can also have noise-cancelling effects.


The main reason for writing a unison like this has little to do with fingering and everything to do with the music's structure.

Unisons in keyboard music quite obviously use the same key, so their point is to show how the voice leading works.

In the example above, they show that two lines in contrary motion meet at the tonic.

As I've mentioned in my comments, a rest could be substituted for one of the notes in a unison, but your understanding of that line's phrasing would change, and hence your presentation of the phrasing might very well change as well (for example, by shortening the last note before the rest so that it doesn't give the impression of meeting the other line in a unison).

It is no means unusual that one of the notes in a unison may have a shorter note value than the other.

This may be dictated by motivic or thematic requirements.

I'll give an example from J. J. Froberger's Ricercar I (FbWV 401).

In this excerpt, the first bar-and-a-half conclude the previous section, and a new one starts at the end of m.87 with a statement of the ricercar's subject (in blue) matched with a short second subject/motif (in green).

Momentary unisons are marked red.

The first one is a bit unusual in that the entries of the unison are staggered.

You would normally play this unison as a crochet before the bar line, followed by a dotted minim after the bar line.

(On an organ, it would be hypothetically possible to play both voices separately on different manuals, although I doubt a performer would - the inner voices shift between hands, and there isn't really any tidy spot to bring both hands back together on the same manual.)

The second unison is pretty straightforward: you would hold the F for the complete measure.

But you should be able to see why Froberger wrote it this way: the individual voices make sense as written, and you want to try to give an impression of those lines as written, even though you will need to fake it a bit.

Just play them with one hand.

The reason for writing this is so you can clearly see where both lines go.

Another reason for notating the same note on both hands is that while both notes would represent the same key on a piano keyboard, it's possible the piece of music might be performed on something other than a solo piano.

Some keyboard instruments such as organs and harpsichords are constructed with more than one manual (keyboard), and some musicians stack synthesizer keyboards so as to allow two keyboards to be played simultaneously (using one hand for each).

Additionally, one or more of the parts on a piano score may sometimes be played by other instruments in addition to or instead of the piano.

Even if a piano would not be able to play the B3 in the right hand and left hand as separate notes, writing the note in both parts lets those who play instruments that could perform both notes simultaneously know that they should do so.

Actually, I think the main reason for this is simply due to proper notation of the voices, rather than having to do with which hand plays the note.

To elaborate, both notes rest on the same physical key on the keyboard, however it is meant to convey to the performer that the lower voice and upper voice both cadence on B.

I really don't believe this was done to a)

encourage either hand to play it or b) easier to read.

My answer is obviously in agreement with Patrx2's comments.

There are probably a couple reasons.

Continuity in the score.

The music looks better and is easier to read when concurrent notes are listed on both staves.

Flexibility.

Some people will prefer playing the notes with the right hand, others will prefer playing them with the left, and some might even like trying to play them with both hands.

This leaves the performer with options.

Also, this heightens the importance of playing with the correct hand in scores which do require a certain hand to play a note.

If all scores arbitrarily assigned a hand to play the notes, then ones which had concrete reasons for choosing a hand would be hold less significance.

I'm accustomed to re-instrumenting pieces, and that unison would behave differently from the rest under the obvious re-instrumenting.

Start thinking two horns rather than two hands

and it suddenly becomes clear.

(When playing this piece as horns, we'd have to deduce the bass clef melody line and drop the other notes from chords.)

This question becomes very interesting when you start looking at articulation.

It is very nice to articulate a fugue subject so that it is more recognizable every time it occurs.

The subject of the first fugue of the Toccatta in D Minor (BWV 913) begs to have the first note a tiny bit stacatto.

"Deet Dah--- Dah -dah- dah- dah- dah ..."

But some entries of the subject overlap the first note in unison, making it impossible to shorten the note, as the same note is already playing in another voice.

The unison overlaps in this fugue are all over the place, I hadn't really seen this many before, which may be because it was composed on the organ.

This made me think that it was meant to be played on two manuals.

But it's not!Christine Schornsheim

plays it in a Youtube video, and she plays everything on the lower manual.

The overlaps have nothing to do with playing on different manuals.

I would bet that people who play this on the organ play everything on one manual as well.

Since seemingly all of Bach's music is didactic, then I would say as keyboard players we need to master this technique of unison playing or quickly repeating a note with a different finger so that we can bring out the phrasing as it was intended.

Question: Why some notes in the piano are written the same for the left and right hand ?   What is the purpose of  this ? And how do we play them ?  Do we just choose one hand to play them or do we play them really in both hands which is pretty hard and not comfortable ?Here is an example of what I'm talking about See the last two notes Si Si are both wrote in the left and right hand .

Same note to be played with both hands?

The main reason for writing a unison like this has little to do with fingering and everything to do with the music's structure. This is simply due to proper notation of the voices, rather than having to do with which hand plays the note. To elaborate, both notes rest on the same physical key on the keyboard, however it is meant to convey to the performer that the lower voice and upper voice both cadence on B. Additionally, one or more of the parts on a piano score may sometimes be played by other instruments in addition to or instead of the piano. Some keyboard instruments such as organs and harpsichords are constructed with more than one manual (keyboard), and some musicians stack synthesizer keyboards so as to allow two keyboards to be played simultaneously (using one hand for each).

This is most likely to be done in order to clearly illustrate the structure and voicing of the piece. It provides the performer with options and it is perfectly acceptable to play the note with one hand. This may also have been written in this way because the piece was not originally or subsequently intended for the piano.

This is most likely to be done in order to clearly illustrate the structure and voicing of the piece of music.

You can simply play these notes with one hand.

This leaves the performer with options on how to play the piece.

The piece may not be originally or subsequently played on the piano.


Here is a link to the Steve Vai song where he plays alongside one of his sisters' conversations.

2nd Question: I'm no linguist, but I would say that singing is merely speaking in a rhythm using elements of music, like harmony, rhyming, and counterpoint.

I'm a bit of a stickler for language, so I would say that it is plainly impossible to play what someone says, though it is possible to imitate how they say it.

Given today's fancy electronics, it should be a straightforward exercise to analyse and transcribe the various pitches, durations, and dynamics (etc) employed in speech.

Composers were imitating the spoken word long before today's electronics.

Consider the call and response style of writing.

When we hear such a style being played our mind immediately says : Those instruments are talking to each other.

Our formal theory of music and our subjective experience of listening to music both identify music as a language .

For example, a composer writes phrases, etc..

According to the contemporary philosopher of music, Jerrold Levinson : Intelligible music stands to literal thinking in precisely the same relation as does intelligible verbal discourse.

In other words, music is a language we interpret.

There have been musical compositions that transcribe the pitches in the patterns of human speech made in samples and recordings.

Steve Reich's "Different Trains" is a well-known classical composition that has the members of a string quartet (the Kronos Quartet) playing the pitches transcribed from brief samples of recorded speech triggered by a sequencer.

Sometimes, I do this with pupils.

We have a sort of conversation, where one asks a question, and the other answers.

we start with a simple question, which then gets played in a particular key.

the answer is said, then played, using the rhythm of the words.

Eventually, if it's going well, the conversation continues with question and answer just in musical phrases.

Good fun, which translates words and their rhythm into music.

As far as transcribing is concerned, we don't go that far.

Although it wouldn't be difficult.

Look up "vocoder" , where a Bell Labs engineer developed a special type of keyboard musical instrument (with foot pedals) that could play recognizable human speech.

It's less possible with typical Western musical instruments and scores because they don't play suitable timbres or notate the right set of (non-equally tempered, etc.)

"notes" or sound elements.

Question: Why it is so hard maybe impossible to play what people speak ?   Is what people say transcribable ?If no then,What prevents us from transcribing what people speak ?  What is the difference between people singing and people speaking ?

Why can't we play what people speak?

There have been musical compositions that transcribe the pitches in the patterns of human speech made in samples and recordings. Given today's fancy electronics, it should be a straightforward exercise to analyse and transcribe the various pitches, durations, and dynamics (etc) employed in speech.

It is generally considered impossible to play what someone says but it is certainly possible to imitate it. That said, modern technology is capable of transcribing human speech and there have been attempts to use this in music compositions.

It is generally considered impossible to play what someone says but possible to imitate it.

Transcribing speech is certainly possible using modern technology and there have been attempts at this in musical compositions previously.


Most pieces have the melody played by R.H. and accompaniment by L.H.

So we piano players get used to this concept.

This is the other way round, and the L.H. is playing the tune.

Our left hand is not au fait with this, so it's tricky.

You could try, for a bit of fun, swapping hands (and either octaves, or crossing)

so it's more of a 'normal' situation.

However, once you realise the change of use of hands, and practise slowly, with dynamics, it should come together.

Try to make the R.H. do the boring chug, chug, chug, chug in, well, quite a boring way.

Slow down until you can play it (even if it means playing extremely slowly).

Then gradually increase your speed.

Play the two hands separately slowly, noticing whether you're playing the melody or the accompaniment.

Before you do ANY dynamics, you must be able to play the piece with both hands almost flawlessly.

Dynamics are there to be added after the technique has gotten perfected.

Play like a robot a few times, then once you've mastered that, you must accent the left hand melody more than the right.

Again, no dynamics other than that.

Once you've gotten that down, then you can start adding p/f and whatever crescendos/diminuendos you need.

You have to understand why playing dynamics make you fail both hands.

My guess is that it makes you anticipate the next notes and because you are probably too shaky in both hands, you fail in putting them together.

Try combinations of the following:

continue practicing hands separately with dynamics play slowly both hands without dynamics, and with play one measure at a time, then 2, then 4.

End on the last note of each measure, or on the first note of the next

(this will develop your ability to not race ahead and control what you are playing at a given time) play only the G of the right hand with the left hand (this will make it easier for your right hand and allow you to work out the other challenges (rhythm and dynamics)

take a break and do it again!!!

Make sure you are practicing the dynamics when practicing separately too.

Generally, just play slowly.

Don't play the subsequent notes until your RH has relaxed and is ready for it.

Question: What's the best way to practice dynamics in the music sheet below? I can play this part with both hands but as soon as I try to add dynamics it falls apart - I either stop playing one hand, or one hand does the same thing as the other hand instead of doing its part.  Any suggestion?

How to practice dynamics in this piano song?

Before you do ANY dynamics, you must be able to play the piece with both hands almost flawlessly. To practice the dynamics, play the two hands separately slowly, noticing whether you're playing the melody or the accompaniment. A general tip is to play slowly to practice. Play like a robot a few times, then once you've mastered that, you must accent the left hand melody more than the right.

To practise dynamics, you should practise the piece as slowly as necessary to play it flawlessly. Make sure you practise dynamics when practising the separate hands too.


From the Wikipedia article on Time Signature : 4/4: Widely used, rock, country, blues, funk, pop 2/2: Marches and musical theater

Polkas and marches 3/4: Waltzes, minuets, scherzi, country and western ballads, R&B, pop 3/8:

Same as above 6/8:

Double jigs, polkas, sega, salegy, tarantella, marches, barcarolles, Irish jigs, loures, and some rock music (half of all Chevelle songs, seemingly)

Triple jigs, rare (famously used in The Ride of the Valkyries )

Slower blues (shuffle), Do-wop, example: Dazed and Confused by Led Zeppelin

Do you think specifically about 3/4, or time signatures in general?

Pop, rock and metal are almost always 4/4, and rarely change meter, though there can be exceptions (e.g. Iron Maiden - Number of the beast alternates between 4/4 and 6/4, Oingo Boingo little girls - alternates between 4/4 and 2/4).

Great exceptions are postrock and avant-garde metal, where there are no specific rules regarding meter, and changes of meters can be common.

Dubstep (both old school and brostep) are mostly 4/4 (as far as I know), except maybe some post-dubstep, though I can't think of an example right now.

And modern electronic dance music is commonly 4/4 (e.g. Trance, EBM, IDM).

Though, nothing of this is strictly rule, look for example at chapter about meters in EDM in this book.

Derivatives of drum'n'bass music such as breakcore use variety of different time signatures, and it mostly depends upon the producer.

Venetian snares writes his music in 7/4.

Igorrr uses in some songs duple meter, while in others triple (e.g. Igorrr & Ruby My Dear - Barbecue), and also their combinations.

Lauren Bousfield from Nero's Day

At Disneyland alternates between duple and triple meters in many of his songs.

In the Baroque style period (roughly 1600–1750) the rhythms of a number of folk dances from all across Europe were incorporated into instrumental compositions -- at the same time, what we now know as ballet was being developed in France.

There are numerous Baroque dances and rhythms.

Many great composers wrote famous instrumental pieces called suites which have numerous short movements one after the other, each in a different rhythm and meter associated with a particular dance style.

These pieces are still performed today.

This list is from the Wikipedia article on Baroque dance .

Click on the link and you can go to individual articles on each of the dance forms in this list to read about the rhythm associated with each.

Allemande Bourrée Canarie (canary)

Chaconne Courante Entrée grave Forlane (forlana) Gavotte Gigue Loure Menuet (minuet) Musette Passacaglia Passepied Rigaudon Sarabande Tambourin Further details of a more musical nature can be found at this Wikipedia article on the Baroque suite .

There is a long list of styles of music with particular distinct rhythms and time signatures at the Wikipedia article on Ballroom Dance .

That is to say that these are competition styles of dance , but each dance has its own style of music that goes along with it.

Here is a partial list from that link

Waltz:

3/4 time Tango:

4/4 time Viennese Waltz: 3/4 time Foxtrot: 4/4 time Quickstep: 4/4 time Samba: 2/4 time Cha-cha-cha: 4/4 time Rumba: 4/4 time Paso Doble: 2/4 time Jive: 4/4 time Boogie-Woogie: 8/8 time ( "eight to the bar" ) Bolero Mambo

Here is a long and detailed list of many Bulgarian folk dances and styles of music (going back centuries) which make use of various odd-time signatures like 7/8, 11/16, 5/8, and many others.

If you are talking about stylistic appropriate time signatures you can also add that Irregular Time Signatures are a distinct characteristic of modern music.

They where extremely rare before the Modern scene was invented.

Question: A waltz is always played in 3/4 time, but are there any other types of music that are associated with specific time signatures?

Which time signatures are associated with particular types of music?

Pop, rock and metal and dubstep are almost always 4/4, and rarely change meter, though there can be exceptions (e.g. Iron Maiden - Number of the beast alternates between 4/4 and 6/4, Oingo Boingo little girls - alternates between 4/4 and 2/4).  From the Wikipedia article on  Time Signature :   4/4: Widely used, rock, country, blues, funk, pop  2/2: Marches and musical theater.

A wide variety of genres, such as rock, pop, metal and dubstep, all use 4/4 time signatures regularly.


Can't use feet well, but if you could move a knee to one side, it would be a simple lever attachment to the pedal, maybe from your wheelchair.

Look at knee levers that pedal steel players use.

You only really need the damper pedal -

the 'soft' pedal could be added later, but it's not as vital as the sustain.

This may not be as "simple" as it first appears, because (apart from the most basic playing technique) the piano pedal action is not just an "on-off switch".

You need to control the speed of movement, and not necessarily depress the pedal fully.

Also the pedals need quite a lot of force to operate them, which is no problem for normal human feet, but would require some "serious engineering" to do accurately (and safely, reliably, and silently) with an electric motor Unless you really can't bear to part with the actual gifted piano, you might consider a Yamaha Disklavier, which is a conventional piano plus the mechanics for full MIDI control (of everything, not just the pedals).

They aren't cheap, but presumably your existing piano would offset some of the cost.

You could then use almost any sort of MIDI controller to operate the pedals - possibly even a set of "digital piano pedals", perhaps mechanically modified to work with the foot movement that you have.

There are plenty of companies who sell kits for the opposite purpose - i.e. to convert an acoustic piano into a source of MIDI data, to record a live performance - but that is not what you want.

I don't know of anybody (apart from the Disklavier) selling something that would convert an acoustic piano to be played by MIDI.

Incidentally, even the Disklavier mechanism is quite "wimpy" compared with the old-style pneumatically operated "player pianos" controlled by piano rolls.

This http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/aug00/articles/ballet.htm is the saga of some of the problems recreating an avant-garde piece written for 16 synchronized player pianos (!!!)

using a stage full of Disklaviers.

I'm not sure if this is any help, but I would probably approach the problem first by suggesting you swap out an acoustic piano for an electronic keyboard.

This allows for other controllers to be used in non-standard ways (usually using the MIDI control standard).

You might find that this is quite technical to start on, I'm not sure where you stand with music technology.

You could try a MIDI breath controller (for instance http://www.tecontrol.se/products/usb-midi-breath-controller ), to see if you can map blowing into a tube to the sustain control.

With less technical jiggery-pokery you could also use a standard sustain pedal (such as this http://www.guitarguitar.co.uk/keyboards/detail.asp?stock=12052310152332&gclid=CM_038GxtccCFa-WtAoduwkGug ).

With electronic instruments, the pedal can be a lot more easily re-located, so you could try pressing the pedal with another part of your body (putting it under your arm, or rigging up some way to press it with head movement, perhaps).

I don't know of any way you could achieve either of these solutions with a standard acoustic piano.

There are instruments like harpsichord or clavichord that seldom (or even never) had pedals similar to the pedals of the modern piano.

And the music for these instruments is often played on a piano now.

I suggest to practice without pedals and perfect your skill to replace them by manual action where needed.

Pedals just help to control the duration and volume.

Both can be achieved through the manual keyboard as well, while maybe more difficult.

You may think about your repertoire but not all even really good pieces absolutely require pedals for playing.

Depending on the repertoire you want to play you might consider playing Mozart's fortepiano .

It is not always built with pedals; sometimes hand stops or knee levers were used instead - Wikipedia The music written for these instruments tends to differ in the way that the 'pedals' are used, they might be held on for longer passages.

If music of this period did intrest you, then the fortepiano would be the authentic way to play it.

Look at:

And you see a solution that I have developed with good results.

Question: I have a piano, I am disabled, wheelchair kinda disabled, I can move my feet but not use the pedals, that task is kinda complicated.   Considered buying some kind of a car hand control, like  this , not sure if it works, and besides say I want to use the first pedal, to hold notes, means i have to keep holding it, and only 1 hand to play music.  Is there tools or ways to solve that problem?

How to use Piano pedals without using the foot?

There are a number of options for disabled piano players who cannot use the foot pedals. They include standard sustain pedal, swapping the acoustic piano for an electric keyboard, knee levers, or using Mozart's fortepiano.

There are a few different ways of solving this problem. You could consider buying an electronic piano and then using more manageable pedals that could be operated by other parts of the body. Similarly, you could look into a knee-lever to operate the pedals with. As a last resort, you might want to take up playing a Mozart Fortepiano.

You could consider buying an electronic piano and looking at more convenient pedal types that could even be operated by other parts of your body.

You might want to take up playing a Mozart Fortepiano.

You could look into the possibility of using a knee-lever to control the pedals.


I leave all ten of my acoustic guitars tuned all the time.

In most cases it is not a problem to leave your guitar under the full tension of standard tuning for days or even weeks at a time.

However, if you know you will be storing a guitar for an extended period of time (months) without playing it or changing the strings, it is probably a good idea to de-tune or reduce the tension on the strings.

Even with the truss rod compensating, constant tension over an extended period of time can in fact warp the neck, particularly if atmospheric conditions (temperature and humidity) are not ideal.

I have

a Yamaha FG-110 that I left stored in it's case in a closet for years without loosening the strings and the neck warped beyond the truss rod's adjustment range and the guitar became unplayable.

Keep in mind that the truss rod exerts tension on the neck as well

so if you remove much tension from the strings you should also loosen the truss rod to remove that tension - thereby leaving the guitar in a neutral state with zero tension.

This is for long term storage only.

Temperature and humidity levels must also be optimized and monitored for long term storage of guitars.

But tuning and detuning daily could potentially exert excess wear on the tuning gears and all the moving of the neck back and forth

could weaken the neck like bending a stick back and forth until it breaks.

Tightening and loosening the strings daily might also exert extra stress on the strings and damage them or reduce their life.

So to your friend, it's possible that detuning the guitar and re-tuning every day could do more damage to the guitar and strings than simply leaving them in a constant state of tension.

I don't know any guitarist who make a habit of detuning their everyday guitar's every night.

I'm not going to do it.

And I don't think you should either.

Imagine what chaos there would be in a guitar shop close to closing time every day!

And even worse at opening time!

Just smile sweetly at your friend, and let him carry on wrecking his guitar and wasting his time, but realise that actually you know far better and leave your guitar in tune for the next day.

I've done it with about 20+ guitars for 50+ years, no problems.

It wasn't April 1st that he mentioned it, was it?

Leave it tuned, not only will the strings thank you for allowing them to 'settle in' to their proper tension (think of repeatedly bending a coat-hanger to break it) but the machine head gears will also not suffer as much slippage in the long run.

The wood and glue is also better off staying under tension.

The only time where all the strings should be removed or totally loosened is during major repairs.

When replacing all the strings, do it one at a time

It is advisable to loosen all the strings by no more than a half a turn or so (enough so that when picked they still barely carry a note but still are tight.)

when you will be changing altitude quickly.

Think flying; in an airplane and the instrument is not carried in the cabin, this is due to rapid atmospheric pressure changes.

If you have to store your guitar for any length of time (months or more) loosen the strings as above and make sure that it is in a climate controlled environment.

When tuning your guitar use an electronic tuner, a tuning fork, or some other reference tone until you have some practice.

It's very easy to gradually allow the guitar itself to rise in pitch, therefore over tightening all the strings and stressing out the entire guitar.

hope this helps!

Yes you can leave your guitar tuned over night and it is what most if not all guitarist do.

The neck of your guitar should be able to take being in tune for a period of time and the tension put on it and if not, there are more serious issues with your guitar.

Your friend has heard something about old-fashioned longbows which must be unstrung after use.

A yew bow will deform if it is left for a long time under full tension.

Thus it becomes less useful as a bow.

When it comes to guitars, they are designed to be under tension.

In fact (depending on the type of instrument) the neck may form a reverse curve when the strings are removed.

Unless you intend using your guitar to shoot arrows, I recommend keeping the strings under tension.

Longbow -

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

music.stackexchange.com/users/21436/chasly - reinstate Monica

Yes you can.

Actually periodically (day by day) tune and detune the guitar hundred times a year and thousand times by its lifecycle may harm your neck way with much greater possibility than leaving it alone.

Tuning and detuning is always a kind of stress for the neck you do not want to do this unnecessary thousand times.

Question: I have an acoustic guitar and I always leave it tuned over night until someone told me that it ruins the strings and the neck of the guitar. Is that true and should I leave it tuned overnight?

Is it a good idea to leave my guitar tuned over night?

In most cases it is not a problem to leave your guitar under the full tension of standard tuning for days or even weeks at a time. However, if you know you will be storing a guitar for an extended period of time (months) without playing it or changing the strings, it is probably a good idea to de-tune or reduce the tension on the strings.

It is generally agreed that it is perfectly fine to leave your guitar tuned overnight and for long periods of time. However, if you are going to leave your guitar in storage for many months, there may be merit to reducing the string tension.

If your guitar is going to be in storage for many months, you may want to consider reducing the string tension.


You are right.

Guitar method books don't teach much traditional music theory.

This is because the guitar is not an ideal instrument upon which to learn music theory.

Traditional Western music theory, as it is taught in colleges, is based around choral music .

You learn to read and analyze choral music, and later to arrange and write your own chord progressions to be sung by soprano, alto, tenor and bass, in the "common-practice period" style.

Put simply, this is studying the way that choral music composers from the time of J. S. Bach (roughly circa 1700) and later wrote church hymns.

The reason for this is that if you learn this period and style of music, it encapsulates all the basics of Western music theory, and lays the foundation for all the music theory used in every style of music that came afterward, instrumental or vocal.

Once you learn the fundamentals of choral music, you can go on to study areas of music theory that relate to all the other kinds of Western music.

Traditional music theory is taught by working examples out on sheet music paper and also working out all the intervals and chords by playing them on the piano keyboard .

It's a given that music theory is much easier to visualize and learn on the piano than on other instruments, including the guitar.

You don't need to become a piano player to achieve this; you just need to be able to find your way around the keyboard.

Any four-octave MIDI controller or keyboard synth will do.

If you don't want to go into traditional choral music theory (which is a two-year college curriculum), you could suppliment your guitar studies by taking piano lessons with a teacher, while using a piano method book which incorporates music theory lessons from the piano perspective.

Find a piano teacher who understands that you already know how to read music on guitar, and that you want to learn music theory more than to learn how to become a pianist.

It may be hard to find a teacher who is flexible enough to teach you what you want to learn, rather than insisting that you follow a beginning piano method book page-by-page.

There are method books for jazz guitar music theory, but jazz theory is an advanced form of music theory that is built upon basic traditional music theory.

So you might find that going straight into jazz guitar music theory without knowing the basics might be confusing and not very productive.

Get a teacher.

Nice and simple.

One with a college degree where he or she did at least four years of theory studies.

Ask him or her what kind of melody and harmony work

he or she did.

If he or she can write fugues and has a good knowledge on counter point then he or she would get you far.

Just remember that for every 10 practical teachers there may be one theory teacher worth his salt.

The general feeling of theory among teachers is apathy.

So getting one that sees the worth and also has proper training is hard.

You are not talking about your average teachers here.

If you can find one though I can assure you that your musical endeavors will be greatly enriched with them.

You can go to a music shop that is well stocked with sheet music, method books, etc., and ask them to point you to the music theory workbooks section.

Pick out Volume 1 of each series (all the major publishing houses have such a series), take them over to a comfortable chair, and choose one that appeals to you.

Please don't be put off by the small amount of material that is covered per volume in most of them.

Just enjoy breezing through Book One and look forward to Book Two.

Each volume typically costs no more than $10.

Traditional music theory is basically diatonic harmony .

I disagree with previous poster saying that the guitar is not an ideal instrument to learn theory on.

Of course it's ideal, because it's a harmonic instrument (you can play chords on it).

It and the piano are both ideal to learn theory on.

Plenty of music teachers can instruct you in theory.

And there are plenty of jazz books that start with the basics.

So pick one of those and have at it.

A lot of folks here are talking about theory as it's taught in the college curriculum, in other words, common practice era voice leading and analysis.

If you're having trouble with Filiberto's book you probably need to work more on what is sometimes called "music fundamentals" rather than more advanced "theory" (although "theory" is often used in a way that covers both terms).

These "fundamentals" would include minor and major scale formation, the function of each note in the scales, how the scales relate to key signatures, the triads (chords) that are built from each scale degree, and the usual diatonic function of each of those chords.

This knowledge is often assumed by a college course in theory.

Personally, I learned some of this by reading online, some by playing trumpet in high school, some in learning (and especially improvising on) the piano.

Taking college courses definitely led to mastery of the fundamentals, but I would never have survived them if I didn't already have a deep understanding of the concepts I listed above.

One book I can recommend that has a decent overview is Ralph Denyer's Guitar Handbook .

It's more pop/rock focused and won't help you play classical, but it does go over music fundamentals pretty comprehensively and relates them to the fretboard.

Unfortunately, it has a lot of other stuff that, as a classical player, you may not find interesting, but if you can find a cheap or loaner copy (your local library perhaps?), it's definitely worth checking out.

The theory "method" books mentioned by other folks are also worth checking out, though, for my learning style, they were not very helpful.

Question: I am taking 1/2 hour lessons in classical guitar and progressing well. I guess I am at the high end of beginner level, just finishing Aaron Shearer's first book. But I don't know how to gain an understanding of musical theory and don't know how to go about acquiring it. My teacher is starting me on R. Filiberto's Guitar Position Studies, but I look at page 1 and I don't understand the terminology. Any suggestions?

How to learn musical theory?

Guitar players wishing to learn music theory could find a piano teacher who understands that you already know how to read music on guitar, and that you want to learn music theory more than to learn how to become a pianist. Alternatively, they can go to a music shop that is well stocked with sheet music, method books, etc., and ask them to point out the music theory workbooks section. Then pick out Volume 1 of each series (all the major publishing houses have such a series), take them over to a comfortable chair, and choose one that appeals.

The two most effective ways to learn music theory are probably to either find a professional teacher or to find a good method book. There are also some effective online resources available.

You may want to consider getting a teacher to teach you the basics of music theory.

There are lots of method books and online resources available that will teach you music theory in an effective way.


Using your thumb isn't "bad technique" per se.

It's either appropriate or it isn't, given the context in which you do it.

For example, if this chord is sandwiched between two others which require the first finger barre, maybe it would be better to leave the finger down through those chords.

Bad technique is what I did when I started playing years ago, saw Jimi Hendrix using his thumb, and decided I didn't need to learn how to barre properly!

Who has the power to decide?

Any technique that works for an individual cannot be a bad one.

Yes, purists may disagree, but it's not them playing, it's you!

As stated already, an extra digit is always an asset, particularly on extended guitar chords.

I'm only jealous, having small hands...

The traditional arguments against wrapping the thumb around to fret the sixth string are that it slows the hand down when you need to change fingerings, and that it brings the other fingers closer to the strings so they are more likely to mute other strings unintentionally.

This matches my experience; but if you can play quickly and cleanly with your thumb wrapped around, those reasons needn't bother you.

I find that when I try to fret with my thumb, or even just have my palm on the back of the neck, my wrist and fingers are flexed more, and there's more tension in my hand.

Even when playing a barre, my hand feels much more relaxed if I have only my thumb on the back of the neck.

This make it easier to play for a long time without getting sore.

It is unorthodox, but it's not bad per se.

I'd definitely recommend learning to barré properly/use your first finger too, and then use whichever is appropriate based on the specific chord and its context.

A classical guitarist (or at least, a classically-trained guitarist) wouldn't really use their thumb like that at all, but plenty of top guitarists still do:

Metheny, (Jeff) Beck, Emmanuel, Hendrix, SRV, Bonamassa, etc... Loads.

I find it does produce a slightly different sound - somewhat warmer and fluffier than using your first finger.

This is because your thumb is going to be quite flat against the neck, whereas your first finger would be more pointed (i.e. you would be using your fingertip more).

There are no downsides to this technique if applied appropriately.

However, if used as an excuse to not learn other fingerings, you might find it limiting when playing chords that demand a full barré or similar.

So yes, it's fine, but learn to play it both ways and then use whichever you feel.

I wouldn't say this is a bad technique.

There are many guitarists that use this one, for the very same reason you mentioned.

You have one extra finger, thus you can play one more note.

Also, when I play a chord like this, it is more relaxing for my hand.

Not at all, it's a great technique!

There are chords that you can only play by using your thumb, e.g. the following voicing of A13(b9)

(from low E to high e):

5 X 5 6 7 6 where you play the E string with your thumb.

If you used your first finger to play a barre chord it would be very difficult to mute the A string.

Some of the tricks used in country music where the guitar was for show more than anything else, the would wrap their thumb around the three base strings and the index fingers around the 123 in same fret to form a chord.

Then moving it up and down the neck the singer could play along with the band.

Some of those country singers playing was worse than their singing.

I use my thumb watch some of Johny Cash videos

he uses the thumb

Try playing F#dim with your thumb on the bass string to get the correct inversion, and then it’s obvious that this one’s a no-brainer.

Yes, it does slow you down so it should be avoided, but in certain circumstances it really opens up the instrument’s full potential by getting the correct inversion and using all 6 strings.

I play steel string acoustic guitar

and I find that in many instances using the thumb to barre is actually more ergonomic than using the index finger.

Typical use case for using the thumb is when I want to play or mute the low EA strings while simultaneously playing or chording on the GBE strings on a steel string acoustic guitar.

In this case if I barre with the thumb, then I can keep my wrist straight much easier and with less finger pressure than if I use my index finger.

YMMV, of course.

Question: When I play barre chords using jazz voicings such as in the following chord chart:   I often wrap my thumb around the neck to fret the E string. I prefer this, rather than using my first finger, as it makes it easier to play more complex chords since it frees up an extra finger. I want to know whether this is considered 'bad technique' and whether this has any negative long term effects on playing.

Is using your thumb for jazz barre chords 'bad technique'?

Using your thumb on guitar to get the chords is unorthodox, but it's not  bad  per se. In fact, this technique is used by many guitarists and there are no disadvantages to it.

It's generally agreed that using your thumb to fret to bottom string is unorthodox but certainly not 'bad technique'.


If you can learn to play without fret markers, you will have a tremendous advantage over those who have learned to rely on the fret markers.

When I first began learning to play guitar

I relied on the fret markers to help me find my place on the fretboard.

But when I started playing for audiences on dark stages, I recognized the limitations of not being able to just instinctively know where the frets are.

So I found it prudent to start practicing playing without looking at the fret markers to learn to play without having to look down at the fretboard and find the fret markers.

I actually would practice in dark rooms so I couldn't cheat and glance at the fret markers.

Eventually I got to a point where I rarely if ever look at the fret markers.

This allows me to sing into the microphone without turning my head down to check my fret markers from time to time and also allows me to make maintain eye contact with (or at least look at) the audience.

Playing instinctively will also contribute to smoother playing since you will never have to momentarily hesitate to check the fret markers.

And even if you don't plan to sing into a microphone while playing or perform on a dark stage, it would be difficult to read music or tablature while playing, if you had to look away from the music to see where the frets are.

On the other hand, if it is easier for you to learn with the fret markers, you can always try to learn to play without them as you progress.

But once you learn by relying on the fret markers, you might become psychologically dependant on them and it might be more difficult to learn to play without them.

And I have seen some very talented and experienced guitarist, who not only rely on the fret markers, but enlarge them on their guitars to help see them on dark stages.

So it's really up to you.

But I would encourage you to try learning without fret markers and see how far you get.

If it proves too difficult in the beginning, perhaps you can use round stick on labels and add one or two fret markers on the edge of the fretboard - maybe at the 7th fret.

Good luck -

whichever way you choose to go.

With a classical guitar with no fret markings, the join of the shoulders with the neck will be precisely at the 12th fret.

So you can identify the 5th fret as 1 hand-width past the nut and the 7th fret as 1 hand-with from the 12th-fret join.

Practice not even looking at the fret-board while you play.

Instead, look at the music, the conductor, the other musicians, the needle on the metronome, whatever.

Your fingers will learn where everything is.

I was just reading one of the 19th century Method books in which the author insisted that you hold the guitar vertically, and learn to place the left hand without looking.

If you do that fret markers won't do you any good.

Admittedly, many (most?)

modern classical performers do watch their left hand fingerings closely.

A compromise is small fret markers at the 5 and 7 on the edge of the neck.

They are visible to the player, but not to the audience.

As a beginner I appreciate them on my Yamaha.

I started playing the guitar by reversing the strings of a right-handed guitar to left-handed.

There were no fret markings on the guitar and the white dots for 3rd, 5th and 7th frets in the side facing to the player were invisible to me.

It provides frustration for some time but after that you see the benefits of your muscles memorizing the fret positions instead of your eyes.

For certain long, fast slides I still look down, but my visibility on stage is very limited

(I wear a mask in my current band)

so practicing knowing where you are by feel has been very helpful for me.

I'd recommend trying it without fret markers.

Question: I recently picked up a classical guitar and am considering buy fret markings for it. But I before I do so I would like to know what advantages are there to learning on a guitar with no fret markings. If they are significant I won't bother with the markings.  I am in the process of learning all the notes on the fret board.

What advantages are there to learning on a guitar with no fret markings?

Playing the guitar without fret markers teaches you to play instinctively and playing instinctively will also contribute to smoother playing since you will never have to momentarily hesitate to check the fret markers.

Learning to play without fretmarkers will likely help you to play smoother because you won't have to check your positioning whilst playing.


ask their music teacher.

that's the music teacher's job - to make sure you practice effectively.

you need to find a music teacher you click with, then you should be all set.

Good warm up routine will give great dividends.

I would go as far as to say the more time you put into the warm up routine the better the quality of the practicing will be.

This should include some metronome work and the usual suspects of scales arpeggio and the like.

There should also be some sort of finger exercises as well.

Maybe someone who actually plays the violin can tell you more about those but definitely put time into the warm up.

That is rather universal among musicians.

I play the violin and have always practiced for at least 3 hours a week.

The thing is, I don't think I need that much practice.

It really depends on what you're trying to accomplish.

For example, if you enjoy playing in a college or community orchestra that rehearses once or twice a week, unless the conductor chooses something really difficult like Richard Strauss or the last movement of Tchaikovsky's Fourth, I can certainly imagine you having a good experience practicing less than three hours a week.

However, let's imagine that you are preparing for something more intense, such as a quartet recital, an audition, or a concerto competition.

In such a case, three hours a week would probably not be enough for you to feel satisfied with your efforts.

What are some ways I can identify if I'm practicing in the Most effective and correct way?

What are common practicing issues that students have while playing the violin that I can start identifying when I do them?

I have seen my children (violists) waste inordinate amounts of time doing mindless run-throughs.

I think that's the most common way to send time ineffectively in the practice room.

In terms of warm-up -- an effective warm-up can be done in ten minutes.

Here's one good warm-up routine: do a trill in slow motion, speeding up by steps (feeling the weight of the arm in the lower note)

do some slow position changes (up and then down), in a variety of intervals, including some octave shifts warm up the bow arm by playing some long notes on open strings, looking for an even tone throughout; expand this to some string crossings (feeling good posture, relaxed shoulder, perhaps checking for straight bow and posture with a mirror) a couple of scales, starting slowly, then increasing the number of notes per bow, for fluency Now that you're warmed up, depending on how much time you have

, you can work on an étude perhaps play some double stop scales work on a sonata or concerto

prepare some spots for some chamber music you'll be playing with some people

soon play some Bach put in some fingerings in your orchestra music

memorize a section of something review one or two pieces from your repertoire

I want to suggest that you read from the bulletproof musician online.

I subscribe to emails from them and they often have helpful things to say about practicing effectively.

However, if you want to be a big soloist one day you need to practice more.

Three hours a week really doesn't do it.

Some people practice up to 8 hours a day.

I read once that after 2 hours you're not very effective but it really depends on the person.

I personally practice 1-2 hours a day and I am at college as a violin performance major

and I have a CD on iTunes

but I am not good enough to become a soloist.

So at this point I'm thinking about trying to go to grad school and become a violin teacher and a writer on the side.

This article should be very helpful to you on how to practice: http://www.bulletproofmusician.com/how-many-hours-a-day-should-you-practice/

The "most effective and correct way" is the way that brings out the music.

It's a bit different for everyone.

Don't ever get the idea that you will first learn the notes and then breathe the music into it.

The worst thing that you can do is to get so involved in the technical details of a passage that you lose sight of the music it's intended to convey.

You will practice that colorlessness into the passage, and it will be very hard to put the color back in.

It's very important to keep in the front of your mind, while practicing, that any technique is a means to express a musical idea.

Of course, you need to practice scales and arpeggios, but only because they occur frequently in music.

If you can't practice a scale as if it were a piece of music (which of course it is), then you need to go meditate, or take a walk, or whatever, until you can.

So, always improve your ability to express your understanding of the music you're learning.

Always.

If that is always the focus of your practice (even when doing exercises), then you will be practicing in the most effective and correct way.

For to express your understanding of the music is your ultimate goal.

If you find that you are losing sight of the music, go do something else until you are ready to bring your mind back to the task.

Anyway, that's my two cents.

I know Liszt was said to practice finger exercises while reading a book, and he was a much greater pianist than I will ever be.

But I suspect that he never lost sight of the music in the exercises, no matter what else he was doing at the time.

A guy who could take an orchestral score that he had never seen, and arrange it flawlessly on the piano on the fly, probably had a sense of the music in whatever he was playing that was so innate that the music would come out of him even if he were paying attention to something else.

Question: I play the violin and have always practiced for at least 3 hours a week. The thing is, I don't think I  need  that much practice. What are some ways I can identify if I'm practicing in the  Most  effective and correct way? What are common practicing issues that students have while playing the violin that I can start identifying when I do them?

Practicing Correctly for a Musician

To practice the violin correctly, a music teacher is recommended.

The best way to know whether you are practising effectively will be to find a music teacher to help you.


Practice it by playing it as slowly as needed to attain as close to 100% accuracy as possible (no perceivable mistakes).

Use a metronome.

Once you master it at a given slower tempo, speed it up until it becomes a challenge again and practice at the faster tempo until you master it at that tempo.

Repeat this process until you can actually achieve 100% accuracy at a slightly faster than normal tempo

, then you will have it down.

If you practice at a tempo where you are consistently making mistakes, you will not be developing the correct muscle memory.

Instead you will be ingraining your tendency to make mistakes.

Be patient.

Some passages or pieces are more difficult and take time to master.

Good luck.

Think more about what can happen over the course of days rather than one day.

Work on something else musical or (perhaps better) go do something completely different like go for a jog or a walk.

Something happens when you work hard on something, then go away from it (or sleep) and come back to it.

(Maybe work on it a bit before you go to bed, then again in the morning.)

Whatever you do don't force it.

You can only learn at your own pace.

If you're otherwise having difficulty with the figure, try breaking it into smaller pieces and getting the portions right before putting them together.

You may be trying to get to performance level before you're ready.

You don't want that "forcing it and my hand hurts" quality to be in the playing, whatever the style is.

IMO the best way to learn a repetitive part is to play it every day, starting from low bpm.

When you feel comfortable then increment the bpm.

But, after all, it's only a matter of time, and patience.

You're going to need mnemonics.

You need to have a mental picture of some sort that you can hang the notes on.

It could be a story, it could be some symbols representing formal structure -- etc.

I read somewhere that one needs to put something into short-term memory repeatedly so that the item can be recalled comfortably, at the person's speed.

The point of the slow practice is to eliminate tension while you build fluency.

I'll address the issue of pain from a repetitive piece since the other answers didn't, although I agree with them about slowing down to gain accuracy.

You have muscles in your fingers and arms that need strengthening just like for any physical activity.

Pain is your body's way of telling you to back off a bit.

It helps to go back to basics.

Make sure you have a bench at the proper height, that you aren't bending your wrists, and you're holding your fingers loosely cupped, not tightly flexed or cramped.

Pay extra close attention to getting the fingering right.

If it's not written for you, write it down yourself with a pencil in key places.

When you feel pain, stop.

Stretch your fingers gently.

Wait until the pain subsides, plus a little longer, then try again.

As you build up your muscles, and build up your speed, and focus on proper positioning and fingering, you'll see your endurance increase.

People in good shape can play all day, with short breaks, but it took them a while to get to that point.

Question: I tried to just bang it out and keep playing over and over to get the muscle memory but it feels like its not coming along and its just hurting my hand to spam it out. I've only been playing for 5 min but still. Is it just a matter of time? Should I perhaps play it multiple times per day instead of one 20-30 min session spent on learning?

What is the best way to learn a repetitive part in a piece?

Practice it by playing it as slowly as needed to attain as close to 100% accuracy as possible (no perceivable mistakes). Use a metronome.  Once you master it at a given slower tempo, speed it up until it becomes a challenge again and practice at the faster tempo until you master it at that tempo.  Repeat this process until you can actually achieve 100% accuracy at a slightly faster than normal tempo , then you will have it down. If you practice at a tempo where you are consistently making mistakes, you will not be developing the correct muscle memory. If you practice at a tempo where you are consistently making mistakes, you will not be developing the correct muscle memory.  IMO the best way to learn a repetitive part is to play it every day, starting from low bpm. When you feel comfortable then increment the bpm. The point of the slow practice is to eliminate tension while you build fluency.    Be patient.  Some passages or pieces are more difficult and take time to master.  Think more about what can happen over the course of days rather than one day. Work on something else musical or (perhaps better) go do something completely different like go for a jog or a walk.  Something happens when you work hard on something, then go away from it (or sleep) and come back to it. (Maybe work on it a bit before you go to bed, then again in the morning.) Whatever you do don't force it.  You can only learn at your own pace. But, after all, it's only a matter of time, and patience.

Gradually increase the pace until you feel more comfortable. It's more effective to practice regularly at a pace where you still make mistakes. It is up to you to learn things at your own pace and in your own way.

Practice at a slow tempo until you feel relaxed, then raise the beat per minute. With slow practice, you are able to gain better control while you are also reducing the burden of stress. It's much easier to develop accurate muscle memory if you practice regularly at a pace where you're still making mistakes. Every time you practice,You develop the muscle memory to be able to play the notes faster. It is necessary to work steadily at this pace because you can eventually achieve your goal of full expansion.

Patience is a virtue. In terms of a difficulty level of learning, passages or pieces, there are some that are harder and more demanding. You have to discover things on your own time and in your own way. Once that is overcome, it is just a matter of time and patience.

If you are having trouble with the figure, break it down the proportions. Performance is usually for a goal, not readiness. If I don't like it, I don't have to do it.

You need to have a mental picture of some sort that you can hang the notes on. It could be a story, it could be some symbols representing formal structure -- etc.

Pain is your body's way of telling you to back off a bit. It helps to go back to basics. Make sure you have a bench at the proper height, that you aren't bending your wrists, and you're holding your fingers loosely cupped, not tightly flexed or cramped. As you build up your muscles, and build up. your speed, and focus on proper positioning and fingering, you'll see your endurance increase.


Pretty much every string instrument can be strummed.

The Blink 182 example you provided shows an electric bass guitar being strummed.

Here is an example where Charlie Haden strums on double bass: (the strumming part starts at 3:26)

1) Lemmy of the band

Motorhead strums power chords all the time.

Here is Lemmy demonstrating his technique 2)

There is a more elaborate technique for strumming on bass guitar which involves several fingers of the right hand, rather than a pick.

The technique is called rasgueado , which is a technique taken from flamenco guitar.

The technique has been utilized by master jazz bass guitarists including Victor Wooten and Anthony Jackson.

Chris Wolstenholme of Muse uses a similar technique in “Panic Station,” visible here:

If it has more than one string it can be strummed.

Keith Emerson has even strummed the harp inside his piano.

I have to say that full strumming a five string may sound a bit funky with that low B, but rock bassists have been strumming for over 40 years.

And as far as "Playing lead lines is not usually in a bassist's remit.

Neither is usually playing runs.

", all I can say is Tim has obviously never listened to Jack Bruce, Tim Bogert, Busta Cherry Jones, or the host of other rock and jazz bassists that made the bass more than just an accompanist.

This is not a standalone answer, Todd & Shev have covered strumming - but as for lead lines, they too are possible.

The idea that a bassist must simply play along to what the rest of the band are doing I think is neatly put aside by this band.

Before Royal Blood came along, if anyone had told me that you could make a 'proper' rock band with just a drummer & bassist, I'd have been mildly amused but unlikely to take them seriously.

If you go to the YouTube page, there's a track list with clickable links to listen to bits of each track, for a quick precis of what they do.

Yes you can.

As I mentioned in my comment, one member of Ned's Atomic Dustbin pretty much strums the bass through all of every song.

He is in the foreground playing in this video:

For another example If you don't mind Nu-Metal and growling vocals then check out Mudvaynes LD 50 album.

Ryan Martinie uses slap, strumming, picking almost any bass playing technique you can think of.

Les Claypool is another great bassist with a nice strum technique that he uses often...

Checkout Groundhog Day by Primus:

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

Question: I always had the idea that you can strum a bass guitar. An idea I got from watching Mark Hoppus play. Recently the bass teacher I know told me that you mostly play lead lines with a bass. I'm not sure what to believe.  The bass intro from the song 'carousel' always gave me the idea you could strum a bass.

Can you strum a bass guitar?

There is a more elaborate technique for strumming on bass guitar which involves several fingers of the right hand, rather than a pick. The technique is called  rasgueado , which is a technique taken from flamenco guitar. The technique has been utilized by master jazz bass guitarists including Victor Wooten and Anthony Jackson. Motorhead and Lemmy of the band also strum the bass.

Rasgueado is a technique taken from flamenco guitar. It involves several fingers of the right hand, rather than a pick. It has been utilized by master jazz bass guitarists including Victor Wooten and Anthony Jackson.


There is LilyPond which does what you are looking for.

It was first released on 1996, but it still gets updates.

LilyPond is a computer program and file format for music engraving.

One of LilyPond's major goals is to produce scores that are engravedwith traditional layout rules, reflecting the era when scores wereengraved by hand.

LilyPond is cross-platform, and is available for several commonoperating systems; released under the terms of the GNU General PublicLicense, LilyPond is free software.

Wikipedia On the Wiki page

, there is a nice example with some code and the outcome, but it's too big to post here.

We have had many questions tagged lilypond in this site, so you can look through these to get a general idea.

There is also ABC Notation , which is text-based notation (not exactly coding), like: X:1T:Speed the PloughM:4/4C:

Trad.

K:

G|:GABc dedB|dedB dedB|c2ec B2dB|c2A2 A2BA| GABc dedB|dedB dedB|c2ec B2dB|A2F2 G4:||:g2gf gdBd|g2f2 e2d2|c2ec

B2dB|c2A2 A2df| g2gf g2Bd|g2f2 e2d2|c2ec B2dB|A2F2 G4:| and gets you the result:

I have not personally used any of them yet, but there are multiple packages for typesetting music with LaTeX .

As mentioned previously, LilyPond might meet your specifications.

For one thing, its input is text form, something which some people equate with "programming"

(for example, the answer proposing MusicXML does not make any sense without that assumption).

For another, one of its implementation languages is Scheme (more exactly, Guile), and Scheme is immediately accessible in its source files as an extension language useful for algorithmic programming.

One example of mixing music and programming is in this unrelated answer to a StackExchange question.

Sorry for not linking to LilyPond and Guile, but my reputation allows only for 2 links, so I had to be selective.

An older option is MUP , which has been kicking around since 1995 and is now open-source freeware.

It takes in an input file that looks like this and outputs a PostScript file that looks like this .

Note, however, that PostScript is something of an older file format, and you may need to download an extra piece of software to view the files and/or convert them to a different format.

On Mac OS, the built-in "Preview" application will do it, but I'm not sure what the equivalent software would be on a Windows or Linux system.

MusicXML, in any text editor, is my favorite way to "code" music.

A tutorial can be found here .

When your code is complete, you can import it into almost any music editing software such as MuseScore, Sibelius, or Noteflight.

Trinket allows you to write music with code.

It's rather small at the moment

but it works well for smaller projects.

I haven't noticed any development though in the last few months

so I'm not sure if they mean to continue it.

Question: I saw a recent notation software product that seemed to offer a novel and concise way to code your music notation. I can't find it so I'm reaching out for your help.

What music notation software allows you to code the notation?

Notation software that allows you to code the notation includes LilyPond.  LilyPond is cross-platform, and is available for several commonoperating systems; released under the terms of the GNU General PublicLicense, LilyPond is free software.  Others are MUP, MusicXML and Trinket.

There are maycomputer program and file format for music engraving.

LilyPond is a computer program and file format for music engraving. One of LilyPond's major goals is to produce scores that are engraved with traditional layout rules. Trinket  allows you to write music with code. MusicXML, in any text editor, is my favorite way to "code" music and an older option is  MUP