If you know what sound you require, and it is from one pickup (ie if you always keep your pickup selector in the same place) then there is really no need to have other pickups.

Every pickup can be a source of interference and noise, so removing them reduces the potential for noise.

Some also do it for the look, and in the past some have definitely done it because a pickup broke

and they didn't get around to fixing it :-)

If you want the flexibility a multi-pickup configuration gives you, don't do this.

Electric guitars have a long sustain (and can be used for acoustic feedback for that reason) because the string does not lose significant amounts of acoustic energy.

If you have good bridge and nut, the main loss of energy might be through the magnetic fields of the pickups, through magnetization losses of the string even if the pickup is switched off (if it's on, losses might be more complex).

So it's conceivable that reducing the number of pickups will lead to longer sustain and easier acoustic feedback if that's part of your playing style.

"conceivable" means that if people do quantifiable experiments which show a noticeable difference, I won't cross this off as fantasy.

But without such experiments, I remain rather skeptical.

Of course what may very well be the case that with heavy play some of the pickups might be a problem mechanically, being hit by the string.

Even pickups that are not wired in to the circuit at all can have an influence on the vibration of metal strings due to the magnets used in the pickups.

However, this is only likely to be noticeable when the pickup's height is such that it is very close to the strings.

This video (start at about 1 minute) suggests that the 'warble' that this creates is much more noticeable when it's the pickup being listened to that is too close to the strings, but if you had two pickups in close proximity (with one of them being disconnected but too high) it's also likely that the effect could be heard easily.

(It should be noted that just because the effect is easily audible, it doesn't necessarily mean that it's all due to the effect on the string's vibration - it is also likely also because the added proximity alters the relative balance between the modes of vibration picked up by the pickup.)

Since electric guitar strings are made of metal and magnets inside the pickups are attracted to metal strings, they will have an effect on each other.

The more pickups you have in a guitar, the more the magnets in the pickups are affecting the free vibration of the strings.

When pickups are properly height-adjusted this "pull" is minuscule, though I'm sure measurable in some way

(it is hard to find tests out there in the real-world of this, though, like Tubes, it just "sounds" difference to "trained ears" -

there's a perceived sustain increase).

The only real evidence (something you can test yourself) is when pickups get too close to the strings.

Amplified

you'll notice the sustain is cut off a bit, and there's a "warble" (as mentioned in other answers) to the sound where the magnetic pull is greatest on the string and weird science takes over.

So generally, the fewer pickups in the guitar, the less magnetic pull and more free-string vibration you have .

Also, the closer the pickups are to the strings, the more magnetic pull they have (since they're stronger and closer ).

The more magnetic pull, the harder it is for the string to vibrate freely without restriction.

There are other small factors with more or less pickups; the most relative probably being that the less-routed guitar body has more mass to affect the sustain of said strings.

This is really only apparent though in top-mounted guitars.

Generally, modern Strat-style guitars come with H-S-H routes (or even boat routes!)

under the pickups for universal fits regardless of whether the guitar only has a single humbucker or is truely H-S-H.

Another relative factor has more to do with the tone-circuit.

Most people who use just one humbucker generally have no tone pot in the circuit.

They often just have a volume pot going straight to the output jack.

This simplification of the circuit leads to a no-load configuration that will increase the output a bit, as well as preserve some high-end otherwise not perceivable in a traditional volume-tone circuit. ...

Judging by how common this particular configuration is to single-humbucker guitars (and you asking specifically about people who remove all but one humbucker)

, I thought I'd include this as well.

EDIT

: Check out this link on Music: Stack Exchange.

It goes more into the physics of this.

Since pickups have permanent magnets, it doesn't matter if there switched out of the circuit, they still have the same influence on the vibrating properties of the string unless you physically remove then from the guitar.

The input load into the guitar amp is very high, so it probably won't make much difference if it's in or out of the circuit.

If you want to know if the magnetic field from a disconnected pickup alters or dampens the string vibration - try this test, take a pickup unit that has been removed from a guitar, and move it close to the strings just like a normal PU except from the top.

Play an open string slowly with the pickup close to the strings, and then move it away, and see if there is a difference in the sound.

Question: There are many artists performing with single pickup guitars, playing various genres. Some even remove two pickups from HSS guitar and leave only bridge one. When it beneficial to do this?  Update:This might be worth checking

Do disconnected pickups alter sound in noticeable way?

Since pickups have permanent magnets, it doesn't matter if there switched out of the circuit, they still have the same influence on the vibrating properties of the string unless you physically remove then from the guitar. If you want to know if the magnetic field from a disconnected pickup alters or dampens the string vibration - try this test, take a pickup unit that has been removed from a guitar, and move it close to the strings just like a normal PU except from the top. Play an open string slowly with the pickup close to the strings, and then move it away, and see if there is a difference in the sound.

Pickups have permanent magnets so don't matter if they're in or out of the circuit. They still have the same influence on the vibrating properties of the string. Play an open string slowly with the pickup close to the strings, and then move it away. See if there is a difference in the sound to see if the magnetic field from a disconnected pickup alters the string vibration.


Use a freeze pedal or freeze function in any slow-downer application or digital recording application to stretch out any note into a continuous tone, the higher the better.

Then take your tuner and look at the pitch of the frozen note.

The frozen note will be 50 cents or less away from concert pitch.

Then recalibrate your tuner to the pitch of the frozen note.

If your tuner doesn't have a recalibration function then note how many cents sharp or flat your frozen tone is from concert pitch.

Then tune with your tuner.

Just to offer an alternative that has yet to be mentioned, You caught this recording/echo with some friends, right?

Maybe one of your buddies has their instrument still in tune with the recording, and you could "keep the candle lit" so-to-speak by tuning to another instrument that was used in the "making of."

Try to find on each string a sequence of notes that changes with the chords in such a way that on every chord you're playing either the root or the fifth .

Keep on the recording on, play that harmony voice to it and correct the intonation as necessary.

It tends to be easiest if you deliberately start out with all strings a bit too low, and then tune upwards until you don't need to significantly bend up any string to make it sound in tune.

I would not recommend focusing on a single spot in the recording, because guitars tend to be overall a bit higher or lower in tune for different chords depending on position and voicing, especially if they were tuned by ear.

That's probably not a big deal for single chort in context, but if you tune to such a chord in the recording, you may end up with systematically off strings and it will everywhere sound uneasy.

Ear solution: Assumption:

You know what was played on the recording, the notes, the key, the chords, the scale etc.

preparation:

To help, start with your guitar tuned to standard pitch (a tuner).

Procedure:

Pick form that set of notes and chords, one that best defines thekey

(Select the root in the best case.) With guitar in hand, play the recording until that note/chord comes up.

Immediately stop the recording when the note chord is finished, so that the continued playback does not distract you from the memory of that note orchord.

Tune to your memory of the note or that chord's root note

last heard from the recording.

Repeat this process a few times to hone your precision,confidence, and or accuracy.

If you are unsuccessful after a few tries, repeat steps with a different note.

If you feel you have been successful with that one note, you could calibrate your tuner to match it, or simply tune the rest of the guitar to that note or string.

A persons ability to tune by ear usually will diminish over time within a single attempt.

If you do not get it within say a half hour take a rest and perhaps try again another day.

Technological solution: Enter the music into a digital recording program, of which there are many products to select from.

Loop over the longest of the choppy notes and tune to that loop.

Disparate Snarky solution:

Hire a guitar teacher to figure it out for you.

Second Ear Solution: (with thanks to Brian Tung)

preparation:

To help, start with your guitar tuned to standard pitch (a tuner).

Select a note that is central to the key (such as the root).

This is unlikely to work with a note that does not match with the key (root or the fifth would match well).

While the recording is playing, slowly adjust that note against all others to get it to sound good for the duration of the key or the recording.

Notes: *

Note:

Using a note/chord that is root is not required but it will improve your success rate.

General note:

Consider that the tuning is likely to be slightly lower than standard, as you attempt these ideas.

Sounds like you captured some magic that would be easier to expand upon than replicate or re-create.

You made a recording.

Transfer that recording to another device (your computer maybe)

so you can use the same recorder to make a new recording.

Play back the recording you made while listening with headphones.

Find a spot on the recording where you can play along for a few notes on the same string (even if you played it on different strings during your out of tune session).

You don't have to match the timing to the millisecond, just be as close to unison as you can but most importantly try to play the same notes (even though they may be slightly off).

If you can hear as you play that you are flat or sharp, adjust your tuning accordingly.

Once you get so close

it's hard to tell while playing along, record your attempt to play along with the original recording.

Now you have two recordings that you can convert to a digital file that you can loop and compare side by side to see if you are still flat or sharp.

Make the fine tuning adjustments as indicated and repeat the process until you have one string playing the notes at the same pitch as on the original recording.

You might be able to do this by ear without needing to make a new recording if you just make a loop of the part that can be played on a single string.

Once you have one string in tune with the original recording , tune the other strings on your guitar to that string using the 5th/4th fret tuning method (out of order maybe but you can start on any string and make it work).

If you are not familiar with this tuning method click the link below where it is explained several different ways.

Fifth Fret Guitar Tuning Method Explained Good luck!

Question: I made a recording of some playing with friends. I now want to overdub some guitar. At the time we tuned to each other, but not concert pitch. The music is quite choppy and staccato, and I really cant find a long enough reference note to tune to. I can tell I'm out of tune but isn't obvious whether I'm flat or sharp as I would be able to against a single note. Any tips on how to resolve this?

Tune to a recording

To tune to a recording,  use a freeze pedal or freeze function in any slow-downer application or digital recording application to stretch out any note into a continuous tone, the higher the better. Then take your tuner and look at the pitch of the frozen note. The frozen note will be 50 cents or less away from concert pitch. Then recalibrate your tuner to the pitch of the frozen note.  If your tuner doesn't have a recalibration function then note how many cents sharp or flat your frozen tone is from concert pitch. Then tune with your tuner.

Use a freeze pedal or freeze function to stretch out any note into a continuous tone. The higher the higher the better, the better. Then take your tuner and look at the pitch of the frozen note. The frozen note will be 50 cents or less away from concert pitch.


Ordinarily, I'd say this is simply a "laissez vibrer" instruction (playing a chord, releasing your fingers but sustaining it with the pedal).

But the unconnected quaver head in the 10th bar is definitely a misprint, so that lowers my confidence in the entire score - the slurs might also be misprints (maybe an entire chord is missing?).

I'd interpret it as a printing error!.

Five (poss.)

bars later, there's a note head with no tail.

Also it looks like it's in 6/8, but with unusual joining of the 'triplets'.

The three 'slurs' are actually referring to only one note there, whereas bar 9 at least has 3 'slurs' for 3 notes.

Who's it by and what is it?

EDIT : the quaver rest doesn't help much, either.

Which line is it supposed to belong to?

If it's there, it would effectively cancel 'laissez vibrer', as once the note/s been cut off to play a rest, it cannot be left to ring.

AND - in the bass clef, it looks like 5/8!

Those are "laissez-vibrer" ties: you just let the notes ring on.

Comparing the top occurence of this construct with the following one makes it likely that the excess ties without proper reference may be a printing error and should instead be attached to the last three notes of the top voice.

The next occurences show a second voice with explicitly prolonged on-beat notes which the top system does not exhibit, but it would appear like the ties all belong to the first voice.

Of course, the execution of this second voice will not differ in the last, laissez-vibrer notes of the phrases.

You've tagged this "piano", so as opposed to a cembalo, organ or free bass accordion, there is no other key to bring this across, so you have to rely on phrasing and the listeners' imagination.

At any rate, you were asking about the first line: here I consider the most likely interpretation a printing error with the intent of letting all three top voice notes ring into the next measure.

This looks to me like the score was rendered in some piece of software that, due to some layout conflict, has failed to render some of the notes of the piece at all.

It also looks like the score is off by an eighth note from proper alignment...

this happens sometimes when writing a score in music layout software that treats music as a list of notes.

It's something that often occurs when I'm writing a score in the program I use, as it's easy to get a dotted rhythm wrong, accidentally leave out a note, or incorrectly fill the remaining time in a measure with rests when typing up a score, and it causes numerous layout issues...

so I'm not shocked that there are missing stems and noteheads, given that the start of each measure is off by an eighth note.

It doesn't quite look like the usual errors I see in the software I use, but I'm not surprised that other programs have similar issues.

I'd contact whoever provided this piece and notify them of the issue

ASAP; if it is this sort of off-by-one error that has caused the piece to render incorrectly, whoever did the layout for the piece may be able to correct the incorrect rhythm or add the missing note, and render a corrected version of the music.

I'm quite certain

it's a type of laissez vibrer.

I would interpret it to mean that I should leave the whole current chord in the pedal.

The placement of the ties is a little odd but comparing to the following lines you see that the same idea repeats.

It also explains the missing rests: there should be no silence.

The first rest is probably there to make it clear that the measure is 6/8.

As for the other suggested misprints, I don't think they are such.

The note with a missing tail is something I haven't seen often

but I would just play it as some kind of bell; the exact length of the note is unimportant and writing it this way makes it look like it should be in another layer of sound (i.e. not accompaniment nor melody nor bass).

The displacement of the 8th notes is also probably intentional: the accompaniment is just one 8th note ahead of melody (note that the melody notes actually fall on the strong beats).

For example Scriabin uses this kind of writing a lot.

All in all, I would say this is actually good piano writing.

The score contains enough information about what the piece should sound like while still being easy to read.

Question: The top right bar has 3 slurs/ties but they are not connected to anything. How is this interpreted?

Is this a tie or a slur or something else?

The items indicated on the piano notation are "laissez-vibrer" ties: you just let the notes ring on.

Those are "laissez-vibrer" ties: you just let the notes ring on. "You've tagged this "piano", so as opposed to a cembalo, organ or free bass accordion, there is no other key to bring this across, so you have to rely on phrasing and the listeners' imagination. Here I consider the most likely interpretation a printing error with the intent of letting all three top voice notes ring into the next measure. The top system does not exhibit prolonged on-beat notes which the second voice does not, but it would appear like the ties all belong to the first voice.


Firstly, does your USB keyboard have MIDI out (DIN) sockets as well... ...or is it USB only?

If it is USB only, then it is possible to get a hardware converter (from USB to traditional 'DIN' MIDI) that should work as long as the USB Midi keyboard is 'class compliant'.

an example is http://www.kentonuk.com/products/items/utilities/usb-host.shtml .

Once you have a traditional (DIN) MIDI connection, you'll be able to use any midi sound module.

Many years ago, these boxes were the most usual thing to use with a midi keyboard - often with a computer-based midi sequencer in between.

These modules are also sometimes called 'expanders'.

You'll want to pay attention to the type you get.

Many modern hardware midi modules are analogue-style synthesizers that are marketed as benefitting from having physical controls, the assumption being that people will get their 'bread and butter' sounds (pianos, strings, etc.)

from their computers these days.

These analogue style sounds may be exactly what you want, but even so you may want to be careful that you don't choose something with polyphony that is too limited for what you want to play.

It may be that looking at the second hand market will give you something closer to what you need.

Some examples (purely examples, not recommendations) of older 'Sample + Synthesis' modules that should have a selection of sounds for jamming are...

The Roland JV-1080: The Korg X5DR: Of course when buying something that may be 20 or more years old, you'll want to consider that reliability may be an issue before laying your money down.

If you want to go really cheap, I found this little sound module on Amazon that costs only £50.

Haven't tried it, but it should get the job done.

Accepts both USB and MIDI as an input and in the product description states that it can power up a MIDI keyboard.

Ammoon Midiplus MiniEngine , and Ammoon MIDIPLUS MiniEngine Pro

If you're willing to do it DIY, single board computers like a Raspberry Pi have enough processing oomph to act as (simple) synthesizers.

They come with a USB and sound ports, it's just a matter of piecing together the midi driver and a synthesis engine software.

Some examples of Pi based synthesizers can be found here .

I did something just like this recently.

I have an AKAI MPK Mini and an iPhone 6s and wanted to connect them.

I bought this lightning to USB adapter and it works just fine with a variety of keyboard apps on my phone.

With the headphone jack you can output the sound however you like.

The only caveat is you can't charge the phone while the MIDI controller is plugged in, so the phone's battery might get drained pretty quick.

If your MIDI controller is USB and you have a smartphone, you can likely get something similar to connect them.

what a false legend.

since early 2016 you can get the "Lightning USB 3 Camera-Adapter" for less than 50$. With that you can charge while having connected your iPAD to any USB keyboard , USB hub or whatever USB/MIDI device you want.

If the device needs more power than a few tolerated milli amperes, put an additional, powered USB hub (~ 20$) in between.

But with or without such a hub, you can power/charge your iPad through the "Lightning USB 3 Camera-Adapter" while communicating with USB device(s).

The only real complaint I have with IOS is, they don't offer a firewall, so every freaking APP involved in your MIDI/AUDIO chain can telephone your musical ideas (just a few kB) home and offer them as "chord/melody assistents" to the world, before you have copyrighted your own ideas.

So use Apple/IOS/itunes products with a grain of salt.

(MacOS has firewall though, just the IOS hasn't).

Have fun.

If you have an iPhone, you can run it through GarageBand using a USB-Lightning adapter.

But it will de-charge a phone pretty quickly.

If you have an iOS device (iPhone, iPad, iPod), you can connect your keyboard to it via Lightning to USB Camera Adapter (the new MK0W2AM/

A model can charge device at the same time) and download some apps listed on this website: iOS Keyboards Apps

You can use these apps with DAW (Digital Audio Workstation) or standalone (check app description).

Some of these apps is free: iOS Free Keyboards Apps

Question: I have a USB MIDI keyboard which is totally useless when not plugged in into a PC and playing a digital instrument. Is there a cheap way, for example some type of box which has predefined sounds, synthesizers, pianos etc on it and a box integrated or 3.5mm out?  Sometimes I would just like to jam a bit like I used to with my old Yamaha keyboard without powering up the PC.

Cheap way to make sound from a MIDI keyboard, without PC

A MIDI keyboard can be plugged into a single board computer like a Raspberry Pi, an iOS device and it can be used with iOS Apps.

Single board computers like a Raspberry Pi have enough processing to act as (simple) synthesizers and iOS devices could help too

Single board computers like a Raspberry Pi have enough processing oomph to act as (simple) synthesizers. Some examples of Pi based synthesizers can be found  here

If you have an iOS device (iPhone, iPad, iPod), you can connect your keyboard to it via Lightning to USB Camera Adapter. You can use these apps with DAW (Digital Audio Workstation) or standalone. Some of these apps is free.


These chords are essentially 9sus4 chords.

E.g., an F/G has the notes G F A C which are with respect to the root G 1 b7 9 4

The only note missing from a complete G9sus4 chord is the fifth (D).

Leaving out the fifth does not change the quality or basic sound of the chord.

You can get the fifth of the G9sus4 chord if you use Dm7

/G instead of

F/G. However, the function of these two chords is the same and they are interchangeable.

You find both versions frequently in jazz lead sheets.

Another frequently used option is to add the major seventh to the top triad, i.e., Fmaj7/G, which would give you a G13sus4 chord.

These chords are used extensively in modern jazz and advanced pop music.

Read more about this type of chord in this blog post .

The vanilla example for the application of this type of chord is the piece Maiden Voyage by Herbie Hancock.

In a jazz context, Dom's answer is perfect.

However, I also want to say that this chord has become extremely common in pop/rock piano-driven music, for example Elton John, Billy Joel, and Stevie Wonder.

And especially in musical theater of this style, for example Jason Robert Brown, Stephen Schwartz, and the "straight to off-off-Broadway" duos like Kerrigan-Lowdermilk and Salzman-Cunningham.

In this context, when you have a chord like F/G resolving to C, I think the simplest explanation is that it's primarily an F chord (and thus you have a plagal cadence), with a 5->1 in the bass that strengthens it a bit by adding a bit of dissonance to be resolved, plus outlining an authentic cadence.

If you think of it this way, then F/G is really the end of the story.

It's an F chord, with a G in the bass.

They are called "Slash chords".

Often they exploit the fact that just about ANYTHING can act as a dominant if rooted strongly by the dominant note.

You could analyze all the chords here as some flavour of G chord.

But slash notation is much more helpful.

You could also describe this sort of thing as various chords over a "dominant pedal".

It does get called an 11th.

As in, for example, E,G#,B over an F# bass is F#11.

Not an E based chord as expected, but F# (root), E (b7),

G# (9), B (4 or 11)

A nice example of several of these is David Nichtern's 'Midnight at the Oasis'.

Another way to look at it is an 'E add 2' chord.

In this case, in first inversion, putting the F# at the bottom.

Not a sus 2 which takes the 3 out and puts 2 in instead.

There isn't really a name for these chords, but there is a reason they are used and that may allude to what someone can call them.

These chords are way more quartal/quintal in nature.

Let's look at the F/G and look at how the notes compare to G as looking from the bass note of each and since the 5th of the bass note is typically implied we'll include the D also.

Notice how we get a quartal stack of G - C - F and a quintal stack of G - (D) -

A looking at G as the bass.

We also can add both together

so it looks like the quartal stack of F - C - G - (D) - A or the quintal stack of A

- (D)

- G - C - F .

This shows that the chord is completely quartal or quintal in nature

In general quartal and quintal chords don't really have names besides the 6/9 chord which is very quintal in nature.

Since the full quartal stack root is also the root note of the chord in the slash chord, I'd call it a second inversion quartal quintad .

It's a mouthful, but accurate.

I agree - as a genre they are often called slash chords.

Though if you want to instruct someone to play e.g.

F/G - you could say play "an F over G".

I've heard a few people use this.

Question: Chords like F/G and C/D are really quite common in jazz, blues and soul music yet I have never heard or been able to find a concise name for them.   To be clear, I am referring to any major (or indeed minor) triad with the chord's supertonic in the bass.  I hope someone has heard of a term for these even if it is not an official term.

Is there a term for chords like F/G and C/D?

Chords like F/G and C/D are known as Slash chords. Often they exploit the fact that just about ANYTHING can act as a dominant if rooted strongly by the dominant note.  You could also describe this sort of thing as various chords over a "dominant pedal".

Chords exploit the fact that anything can act as a dominant if rooted strongly by the dominant note. They are called "Slash chords" Chords are often played over a "dominant pedal"


See this Wikipedia article on instrument classification .

There are many instrument classification systems that have been used at different times and in different situations, so there is not one answer to your question.

Here are probably the three most common classifications for the piano: Percussion due to the fact that the strings are struck by hammers.

Other percussion instruments would include drums, tubular bells, and glockenspiels (the latter being a firmly pitched instrument).

Organs and harpsichords would not be considered percussion in this system.

Keyboard due to the fact that many keyboard instruments do not fit into other categories well

, so some systems have a separate keyboard category.

Other keyboard instruments in this system would include organs and harpsichords.

Xylophones and glockenspiels would not be considered keyboard instruments in this system.

Chordophone due to the fact that the sound is created by a vibrating string.

Other chordophones include guitar and all members of the violin and viol families.

A glockenspiel would be considered an idiophone since the sound is created by a vibrating piece of metal.

An organ would be considered an aerophone since the sound is created by a vibrating column of air.

The "tuning" argument is irrelevant.

Tuned drums are used in many different world musical traditions, as well as in western classical and popular music.

Instrument classification is to some extent arbitrary, and many different "systems" have been used in different cultures at different periods of history.

In western music, "keyboard instruments" are often grouped as a separate category, independent of how the sound is produced - plucking the strings (harpsichord), striking the strings (piano, clavichord), striking tuned percussion resonators (celesta), controlling a wind instrument (pipe organ, harmonium), or purely electronic sound generation.

It's both, and it's neither.

Use such classifications only so far as they're useful to you.

For instance, a piano strikes its strings, a harpsicord plucks them.

So do we classify the harpsicord as closer to a violin, the piano as closer to a drum?

And both as very different to each other?

Only if it's useful to do so.

Is it?

Since the strings inside a piano have to be hit by hammers, activated by pressing the keys, it is supposed to be in the percussion family.

Other, earlier keyboards also had strings, but some were plucked somewhat like playing guitar, albeit the quills or equivqlent were activated by pressing the keys.

So, although it has tunable strings, it's the method used to sound them that has the last word.

Basically, anything that has to be hit - with anything!- is percussion.

The piano is a string based instrument that produces sound by pressing a key that is attached to a hammer.

This hammer hits the string associated with the key.

From this point of view the piano is more like a percussion instrument with the capability of tuning.

The predecessor of piano is the clavichord which is similar but more simple to the piano.

It has no legs, it is placed on a table or any flat surfaces.

Mostly has a rectangle shape.

It was a very common instrument in the 15th century.

The other similar instrument is the harpsichord, but the main difference between them is that the strings are pulled or twanged instead of hit by hammers.

Question: Online, I have researched what a piano is, and it says it is a percussion instrument. But when you look inside a piano, there are many strings, which are hit to give the piano its noise. Also, you can tune a piano - like any string instrument.  Is a piano a percussion instrument or a string instrument?  Piano - Danny Holt http://dannyholt.net/wp-content/uploads/cia_20090408_9164.jpg

String vs Percussion - What is a Piano?

There are many instrument classification systems that have been used at different times and in different situations, so there is not one answer to your question. Here are probably the three most common classifications for the piano:   Percussion  due to the fact that the strings are struck by hammers.

There are many instrument classification systems that have been used at different times and in different situations. Organs and harpsichords would not be considered percussion in this system. An organ would be considered an aerophone since the sound is created by a vibrating column of air. A glockenspiel would be. considered an  idiophone  since it sounds like a piece of metal. Some systems have a separate keyboard category for keyboard instruments.   Percussion is due to the fact that the strings are struck by hammers, and other percussion instruments include drums and tubular bells.


When we bought the first flute for our daughter, her teacher recommended open keys and the difference was even hearable for us as uninformed listeners, even if their main purpose is microtonal adjustments in pitch by partial covering.

There are two further reasons, which I consider as striking: You are enforced, to set your fingers carefully and correct from the beginning (otherwise the hole will not be closed properly and intonation will clearly indicate this).

Closed keys allow a more sloppy approach.

There are sets of small plugs available (and sometimes even supplied with the flute), which convert open keys into closed ones.

(According to my knowledge, their use is only reasonable for children.)

The other direction is much more difficult and means exchanging the keys.

Having only experience with open holes, I can't comment on closed.

But it seems that the latter are geared towards child beginners.

I have pretty small hands (well, not that pretty...) and covering holes has never been a problem.

As a fully grown adult, you might as well start as you mean to go on - get an open hole one, and just take care.

You'll soon get the message if you're not closing properly.

If you're like me, you'll have more trouble with the embouchure than fingering!

Good luck.

It's one of the more difficult instruments to learn, I think.

Carl's price quote seems quite steep.

There are lots of pre-owned ones up for grabs, and not a lot to go wrong, unless they've been dropped - but that's the same for most musical instruments.

A quick look at a couple retail online shops indicates you'll pay (for Yamaha, a good line of starter flutes) around $900 -$1000 for a closed-hole, and maybe $500 more for an open-hole flute.

If the money doesn't bother you, then go with open-hole for the reasons given in other answers and comments.

If you're not sure you are going to play the flute "forever," then you may want to go cheap.

I would go with the closed hole flute for two particular reasons.

First of all, it is cheaper than the open hole flute.

This is easier for you if you decide that you would not like to keep the instrument.

Secondly, open hole flutes require a more precise hand position than the closed hole, making it more difficult fingering wise no matter the hand size.

However, the open holed flutes do allow a much more mature tone.

And if you feel your fingering is not precise, there are plugs you can buy to close up the holes until your positioning has improved.

If you are dedicated to playing the flute then the open hole is a better choice.

Most beginners will get a closed hole because they are not sure they will continue playing the instrument.

The basic answer for you can be determined by

which of these qualities is more important to you.

I hope you enjoy playing the flute as much as I do!

With a French Horn, a beginners starts on a Single horn and progresses to a Double horn.

The single is cheaper and simpler.

A general rule for beginners - especially children - who may very well decide the flute is not for them and take up some other instrument, is to start cheap and simple.

As Dr Klee says "most professionals use an open hole Flute".

There is your answer.

You start simple and progress to the more complex, more expensive instrument with the bigger range and tone as the learner becomes more proficient and can attempt more complex pieces.

A few more things I want to add are: With open holes, a flutist can produce a wider range of special effects, which is common in modern music.

Like, he can cover only part of the hole and alter the pitch this way.

Closed holes flutes have a bit brighter sound and you can move your fingers around a bit without losing the note, whereas in the closed holes the tone is darker.

Question: By looking to various flutes online, I saw that there are two types of flutes:   Open Holes Flutes  Closed Holes Flutes   As an adult beginner, what should be taken into consideration before deciding  which category of flute to buy from?  I can understand that for children, it might be easier to buy a flute with closed holes, because their fingers might not be big enough to cover the holes, but this is not the case here.

Choosing a flute for an adult beginner: Open or closed holes?

Open hole flutes are considered better for beginners.  You are enforced, to set your fingers carefully and correct from the beginning (otherwise the hole will not be closed properly and intonation will clearly indicate this).  Closed keys allow a more sloppy approach. Moreover, with open holes, a flutist can produce a wider range of special effects, which is common in modern music. Closed holes flutes have a bit brighter sound and you can move your fingers around a bit without losing the note, whereas in the closed holes the tone is darker.

There are differentiations when selecting a flute with open or closed keys

There are two further reasons, which I consider as striking:  You are enforced to set your fingers carefully and correct from the beginning. Closed keys allow a more sloppy approach. There are sets of small plugs available (and sometimes even supplied with the flute), which convert open keys into closed ones.

With open holes, a flutist can produce a wider range of special effects. The other direction is much more difficult and means exchanging the keys. Closed holes flutes have a bit brighter sound and you can move your fingers around a bit without losing the note.


Try something like this: It separates out the main voice, and, by two means, shows that it is emphasised.

It's also relatively neat.

Use a smaller note head for the non-melody notes.

This would be easy to sight read.

Or you could write an additional ossia-type line showing just the melody notes.

In either case, an explanation won't hurt.

If you only need it for this one measure, you can just write it out: "

highlight notes such and such".

Without knowing for how long this layout continues, I would split into two treble clefs, with probably the melody in the lower clef to be played by the left hand.

Doing it this way makes it easier to read and to play.

As it's currently written, the left hand has nothing to play, while the right hand is asked to do some very unnatural things.

If this pattern continues for a while, and the left hand will be otherwise occupied, then I would write the melodic notes with down stems, and the rest up, assuming that most of the melodic notes are lower than the rest of the chords.

However, I would really reconsider writing for piano this way.

First, it's not very pianistic, and reads and feels like it's a literal transcription of a work written for other instrumentation, perhaps an ensemble.

One solution is to move either the accompaniment or the melody to the bass clef an octave lower.

Another is to invert the chords so that the melodic line is on top.

As is, I'm not sure what effect you're trying to achieve.

As a comparison, look at the first movement of the Beethoven Waldstein sonata, in the chorale-like chordal section where be employs a similar technique with inner voices as the melodic line.

The way that's written, it's very clear what the effect is that he's looking for.

I think the neatest way to do this is almost what you did in your example: use a different style of notehead for the emphasized notes.

Of course this breaks "the rules" about note lengths, but it should be obvious to most players what it means.

You could add a note explaining that the "white" noteheads in the chords should be emphasized.

Incidentally, this is quite easy to do in Lilypond (if you first read and memorize the entire manual, of course!):

\relative c' {<< { \stemUp <d g

a> <a' c d> <d, a' b> <f a

> } { \stemUp b2*1/2 f g c, }>>}

If it won't cause any issues with printing the score, you could use solid colored noteheads for the emphasized notes.

I'm going to go against the grain here with some tough love.

If you're not the composer, then kindly disregard.

The primary issue in my opinion isn't how to notate this, it's how to avoid making decisions that leave you in this position.

This isn't laziness - it's good form.

The composed music itself should be clear enough on its own so that the performer (and listener) knows what's happening structurally without any special devices/techniques.

The suggestion by Patrx2 is quite neat, but here's another technique you can use to indicate this kind of voicing.

Obviously, if you are writing for (human) voices, you can simply split them onto separate staves, but if the notes are to be played by one hand on the keyboard, it is not very friendly to split them up.

On the other hand, if this can be played by two hands, it is much easier to split them onto two staves, and this is the simplest way to play, too.

My first thought would be to split the notes into treble and bass clefs.

This is traditionally thought of as the treble will be the 'tune' while the bass is the 'accompaniment'.

It will obviously involve a few leger lines, and possibly accentuation marks in the treble, but I can't think of a more apposite way to portray what you want played.

Or do similar with upward and downward stems.

With the possibilty of octaving (?) the highlighted notes.

Question: I have the following set of chords for piano. How can I tell the performer to either stress or underline specific notes in the chord (so as to show the melody), i.e. the notes on the heads of which I've marked their names?   Is there a notation technique that should do it? Should this be done by having two voices (as in Tchaikovsky's April)? In this case, the notation would become messy.

How to notate that a specific note be underlined in a piano chord?

To notate that a specific note be underlined in a piano chord, without knowing for how long this layout continues, it is recommended to split into two treble clefs, with probably the melody in the lower clef to be played by the left hand. If this pattern continues for a while, and the left hand will be otherwise occupied, then I would write the melodic notes with down stems, and the rest up, assuming that most of the melodic notes are lower than the rest of the chords.

Without knowing for how long this layout continues, I would split into two treble clefs. Doing it this way makes it easier to read and to play. As it's currently written, the left hand has nothing to play, while the right hand is asked to do some very unnatural things.


There are similar questions around, and this is sort of answered already.

The left hand contains two separate 'voices'.

The higher one keeps moving upwards, while the lower one stays on and holds the low A.

It just happens that both 'voices' start on that same A.

On a keyboard instrument, it means the same as the first example below.

If the long note was a half-note rather than a whole-note, it is often written as in the second example.

In an orchestral score where the parts for two instruments are written on one staff to save space, it means that one instrument plays the four 8th-notes, and the other instrument plays the whole note.

I would read this as (assuming bass clef) holding the A for 4 beats and the rest of the notes in the arpeggio are not held until you get to the C. this is all done in the left hand.

It shows a musical intention, not precise instructions for playing technique.

The low A is to be sustained throughout the bar, it is also the first note of the LH arpeggio.

Think of the piano emulating two instruments if you like - a cello and a harp!

Unless the player has very large hands, use of the sustain pedal is implied.

This implies playing two voices with the left hand, both starting on low A, but one continues and the other stays.

So basically you hold the A for the whole bar, but its character and relation to the next eighth note must be such that the listener also perceives it as the starting note of a phrase in eighths.

This implies that the eighth phrase cannot be phrased as staccato (as you could not play its first note staccato), it implies that the phrasing of the remaining three eighths in the first two beats does not suggest an anacrusis or upbeat (in which case it could start minisculely late with a tiny acceleration and its weight focused on the following beat rather than the previous one).

In short, even if your execution cannot actually play two notes at once on a single-manual keyboard, the rendition should be as consistent with the indicated presence of two voices with a common starting pitch as possible.

If you are a Midi robot, forget about all that phrasing mumbojumbo and just put the key release event for the starting note at the end of the bar.

Question: What is this and how do you play this?

What is this double-note and how do you play it?

This note implies that the eighth phrase cannot be phrased as staccato (as you could not play its first note staccato), it implies that the phrasing of the remaining three eighths in the first two beats does not suggest an anacrusis or upbeat (in which case it could start minisculely late with a tiny acceleration and its weight focused on the  following  beat rather than the previous one).  In short, even if your execution cannot actually play two notes at once on a single-manual keyboard, the rendition should be as consistent with the indicated presence of two voices with a common starting pitch as possible.

It implies that the eighth phrase cannot be phrased as staccato (as you could not play its first note staccato), it implies that the phrasing of the remaining three eighths in the first two beats does not suggest an anacrusis or upbeat (in which case it could start minisculely late with a tiny acceleration and its weight focused on the following beat rather than the previous one).

The A is the starting note of a phrase in eighths. It must be in relation to the next eighth note so that the listener also perceives it as a starting note. This implies that the eighth phrase cannot be phrased as staccato. It also implies the phrasing of the remaining three eighth in the first two beats does not suggest an anacrusis or upbeat. If you are a Midi robot, forget about all that phrasing mumbojumbo and just put the key release event at the end of the bar.


Typically a lead guitarist plays melody lines with a rhythm guitarist and other instruments such as bass, drums, keyboard etc.

A solo guitarist, however, is always the only guitar, and is sometimes the only instrument (you can have a single person singing and playing solo guitar, or you can have guitar and drums etc.)

So the definition is simply to distinguish between the only one, or the lead one.

Here is my 2 cents worth.

The answer probably depends on the situation and context.

It also probably depends on what whoever uses the respective terms mean.

"Lead Guitarist" is commonly understood to refer to the guitarist in a band who plays the "guitar solos" and fancier fills, runs, and licks along with a "rhythm guitarist" who maintains the rhythm by playing mostly chords.

Because a lead guitarist is the one who plays the guitar solo's -

it's possible that some folks could refer to a lead guitarist as a solo guitarists.

However in my opinion, that would be a misnomer.

The word solo means one.

A part of a song that features a single instrument while the other instruments maintain the rhythm but stay in the background, is often referred to as an "instrumental solo".

But if I used the term "solo guitarist", I would be describing a solo musician who is playing without any other musicians (by themselves) and who's instrument was a guitar.

I often play guitar to accompany my singing as a lone (solo) musician and I would refer to myself as a solo guitarist in that context.

A classical guitarist who plays solo (by themselves) would also qualify as a "solo guitarist" by my definition.

I hang around and talk with many musicians and have over 100 musician friends

and I am not aware of any who use the term solo guitarist to refer to the lead guitarist if there is more than one guitarist on stage at a time (even though the lead guitarist plays the guitar "solos").

However it is quite possible that in a band with only one guitarist - that one guitarist could be referred to as a "solo guitarist".

But I think it would be less confusing in that situation just to refer to that musician as " the guitarist" or "the guitar player" - not the "solo guitarist".

You are free to refer to any guitarist any way you like.

But if you say "lead guitarist", I am going to assume you mean the guitar player who plays "lead" or plays the parts of the song identified as "guitar solo" .

If you say "solo guitarist", I am going to assume there is only one guitarist and probably only one musician period (playing solo).

Unless of course you use that term in a context where there are clearly other musicians or other guitarist - in which case I will know that your definition of "solo guitarist" and mine - are not the same.

In terms of position or general role in a band I don't find much distinction between the term "lead" and "solo" guitarists.

When was the last time you heard a guitarist who ONLY played solos?

One useful distinction between the two is compositional focus.

If the part played by the lead guitarist becomes the focus of the song at that point, they becomes the "solo" guitarist for the duration of their part.

Guitar players like Satriani and Paul Gilbert who have entire albums written around their leads can be considered solo guitarists for the whole album.

The other distinction comes from the accompaniment.

If you're the "lead" guitarist, you lead the accompaniment.

If you're a "solo" guitarist, you have no accompaniment

and you play by yourself.

Outside of this I find that the terms get used rather interchangeably.

There are some guitar players who have played unaccompanied.

Some diverse examples: Joe Pass, John Fahey, Martin Taylor, Leo Kottke, Andres Segovia, Tommy Emmanuel,....

These players play what is broadly known as solo guitar music, and it makes sense to call such players solo guitarists .

In the larger musical world, players who play with bands or orchestras sometimes take over the focus of the music to play solos ; these solos may even be the central feature of the music in some cases.

These players are called soloists .

Think Itzhak Perlman, Louis Armstrong, Sonny Rollins, Jacqueline du Pré, Jaco Pastorius,.... Guitar soloists include players like Jim Hall, Steve Vai, Steve Morse, Pat Martino, Joe Satriani, Wes Montgomery, Pat Metheny, Paul Gilbert, Grant Green,.... A lead instrument is one that takes over the melody at some point in a piece of music, and this is what a lead guitar does when it plays a solo.

So, lead guitarist is just another term for guitar soloist .

"Lead Guitar" is a term used in 60s-style "groups" (like the Beatles) where Lead Guitar played the clever stuff, Rhythm Guitar strummed the chords.

A "Solo Guitarist" is a guitar who has a solo to play.

Maybe completely alone, maybe in a concerto situation, maybe as a featured member of a guitar ensemble.

Don't over-think it!

A lead guitarist plays with a band, playing melodies over the chord changes.

A solo guitarist just plays music on their own.

Lead guitarist usually plays in a Band and have interludes and solos parts to play also he plays along the riff or the riff itself in the song.

Eg Kirk Hamette from Metallica

But solo guitarist plays only solo and have its own band to play with.

Eg.

Joe Satriani.

Question: What is the difference between "a  lead  guitarist" and "a  solo  guitarist"?

What is the difference between "a lead guitarist" and "a solo guitarist"?

Typically a lead guitarist plays melody lines with a rhythm guitarist and other instruments such as bass, drums, keyboard etc. A solo guitarist, however, is always the only guitar, and is sometimes the only instrument (you can have a single person singing and playing solo guitar, or you can have guitar and drums etc.)

Typically a lead guitarist plays melody lines with a rhythm guitarist and other instruments. A solo guitarist, however, is always the only guitar. So the definition is simply to distinguish between the only one, or the lead one.


The simple answer is no.

Think of it this way:

Does a composer write pieces only for instruments he can play?

No, he does not.

He might compose pieces for instruments that he has never touched in his life.

You don't have to be a virtuoso pianist to compose fast music.

You have to learn how to imagine what you want to compose.

If you can imagine your piece at a fast tempo, you can write it down.

You should be able to hear it in your head, but if you cannot, nowadays you can easily download a DAW that can play the piece for you and see how it sounds (if this is your problem).

You can write the notes and the DAW will play it back for you

(The sound outcome won't be like a real pianist playing the song, but it'll help you understand some parts if you cannot figure out how they sound exactly).

I think it is a common misconception that playing fast makes you great at your instrument.

Playing slow music correctly and in time, with good interpretation is to me much more of a skill tester than playing fast.

Many times when there is music played a high tempo the speed takes center stage and a lot of the principles of good melody takes a back burner, but because it is played fast the somewhat boring melody gets masked by a million notes being played in a minute.

To the OP though.

I don't think you need a certain skill set in a instrument an instrument to compose for it.

You do need a good understanding of it.

This understanding can come from playing the instrument well, but not always.

I think it fair to say many of our great composers over the ages did not play every instrument in the orchestra, but they still understood how they worked.

They definitely used this knowledge in there compositions.

So no, don't get too hung up on how fast you can play the piano.

Compose good music and let the quality of the music speak for itself.

Shevliaskovic has it spot on :

You should be able to hear it in your head That, IMO, pretty much wraps up what composing is all about: imagining how something would sound.

Of course, one way to get this imagination is to actually listen to different possible options, by trying stuff on an instrument or a MIDI editor.

But that's totally not necessary!

In fact I'd go as far as saying it can be counterproductive to immediately play/listen to every detail as you write it: this often distracts from the grand concept.

So, if you have some melodic ideas and think they would sound good in a fast tempo – just write them down as such!

It doesn't matter if you can play any of it in the proper tempo.

OTOH, you shouldn't just write something unplayably fast either just for the sake of having a fast movement .

If the way it feels natural happens to be in a tempo you can also play yourself, then all the better.

Anyway, especially for a solo piece the choice of tempo is largely up to to the performer .

You should certainly have a rough idea of how fast the piece should be, but a good composition will usually sound good in quite a range of different tempi.

If you can yourself play it in a slow tempo and it sounds good, then chances are a virtuoso pianist will be able to play it faster and it'll sound even better – unless a fast tempo specifically contradicts the mood of the piece.

A bit of an edge case is if you can play everything slow and each individual movement sounds good this way, but the whole piece gets boring like that.

In this case it's possible that speeding up one movement will to the trick to make the whole thing a round entity, but I wouldn't rely on it: boring and fast can also be just boring and annoying.

Hence again the imagination bit: if you can imagine it in fast tempo and it feels exciting, then it probably is good.

If you can't imagine it, then it probabably needs some more thorough thinking.

No, you don't have to even play an instrument to write for it.

But you need to know how to write for that instrument, otherwise you can write things that are not playable, or that don't work well on the instrument.

Since you are asking the question, you don't know well how to write for piano, therefore I suggest you get advice from a good pianist who can play and try your ideas on the piano.

That should help you.

I would say no you may not be.

However you should have a very clear idea of what the music sounds like in your head.

Composers who composed symphonies and so on were not able to make play or replay a whole orchestra just to arrange their music.

Their minds were playing it.

No; you can compose music for an instrument or for vocals without you even knowing how to play that instrument or sing it for yourself.

However, you should have a feel of the piece before you finalize, so that it could perfectly fit into the whole composition.

To accomplish this without hiring a virtuoso pianist, try free phone apps and place the notes/pitch in the track staff lines of the apps and change the instrument as you wish and hear the real music on the phone app.

(Most MIDI with music notation apps support this feature on phone and tablets, for example Music Tool Kit from Google Play for Android phones.)

Question: I was about to compose my third movement of my first sonata, but the other movements are notated Andante and Adagio. I would want my final movement to be notated Allegro or something even faster than Allegro, but can't seem to compose fast music. Is there anyway I could compose faster music without being a virtuoso pianist? Or I have to become one to compose this kind of music?

Do I have to be a virtuoso pianist to compose faster music?

music.stackexchange.com/users/27995/Isaac Yang Hao Tung

It is not necessary to be a virtuoso pianist to write music for the piano. You don't have to even play an instrument to write for it. But you need to know how to write for that instrument, otherwise you can write things that are not playable, or that don't work well on the instrument.

No, you don't have to even play an instrument to write for it. But you need to know how to writing for that instrument. Maybe  you get advice from a good pianist who can play and try your ideas on the piano.


Assuming these are informal jams, you just don't have the authority to fire incompetents.

I think the only possibility is to endure the fact that the material will not be played correctly.

But do at least point out what "swing" means when they try to "correct" those who are playing it correctly.

Is it tactless to teach someone the truth?

The only way I am aware of improving (or practicing) swing feel is to play with a metronome but set it so the click is on the 2 and 4.

Emily Remler goes through it in her tutorial videos.

I have no idea how this would translate to a group jam though!

If you're playing straight and switch to playing swing, the 'and's move but the strong beats don't.

It might be that the players who are trying to play swung are pushing the strong beats around too, which would be disconcerting to the other players.

I'd suggest an exercise where everyone plays the same line (a fragment of a scale for instance)

first straight and then again swung.

You can also try clapping exercises like this, where you silently count the lower-case and then CLAP the upper case: one-and two-and three-and four-CLAP

The 'ands' and the CLAP move around depending on whether your quavers are swung or not.

The other thing I tell my beginner brass band when they're playing swung quavers is to make the first note in each pair long, and to make gaps between all notes as short as they can, whilst still articulating every note and not slurring it.

Without this reminder, the tendency is to play the first note of each pair too short - and the result is a very 'polite' performance.

Once you lengthen the first note in each pair the performance has far more attitude and sounds much jazzier.

Honestly you should bring in some tennis balls and make a game out of it.

I've taught this with eurhythmics before.

Basically have people walk to a beat and start bouncing the ball on the 8th note, and then after they do that comfortably have them do the same, only swing it.

You can work with whatever rhythms you need in this way

and it feels kind of silly at first but in general it's really fun and people tend to get into it once they're over the silliness.

You can also do it with 2 people where they alternate beats and then bounce the ball to each other for the swing.

A little unusual but it works and they use this stuff to teach really young kids about rhythm, so older people shouldn't have a problem with it.

The best way I've found is to have a solid rhythm section that knows what to do.

Primarily the drummer.

If he plays a swing rhythm, basically on hi-hat/cymbals, that sets the groove.

As a bass player will be playing on the beats more than the offbeats, he won't swing until he puts something like ghost notes on the offbeats as well.

But not constantly.

The guitarist will help, as his upstrums will either be in a straight 8 or swing feel.

Working together to produce this, the other players usually get pulled along into that swing (or any other) feel.

Interestingly, a lot of the late '50s, early '60s pop music had something like the feel your band has.

The older players preferred to swing, while the young upstart guitarists wanted to play straight.

It can be heard on some of the early Elvis tracks.

Question: In a couple of jams I've been in recently there are players who play swing and jazz music but who play it as straight-eighths.  Worse, they try to correct the other players who are swinging the beat because they hear it as unsteady.  What is a relatively tactful way of teaching these players how to swing in a group setting?

Teaching others how to swing

The best way to teach people how to swing is to have a solid rhythm section that knows what to do, especially the drummer. If he plays a swing rhythm, basically on hi-hat/cymbals, that sets the groove.  As a bass player will be playing on the beats more than the offbeats, he won't swing until he puts something like ghost notes on the offbeats as well. The guitarist will help, as his upstrums will either be in a straight 8 or swing feel. Working together to produce this, the other players usually get pulled along into that swing (or any other) feel.

Drummer, guitarist, bassist and guitarist need to work together to produce a swing rhythm. Older players preferred to swing, while young upstart guitarists wanted to play straight. A lot of late '50s, early '60s pop music had something like the feel your band has. It can be heard on some of the early Elvis tracks. The swing feel can also be found on some early Elvis songs, including "I Want You Back"


Oftentimes 11th chords are voiced without the chordal third.

This is because the chordal third can often conflict with the 11th to create an unwanted dissonance.

Imagine, for instance, we want a C11 chord.

Technically speaking, this chord would consist of C E G Bf D F .

However, the minor 9th between E and F can create a dissonance more harsh than is intended.

As such, composers will often just omit the chordal third.

This is actually why you've found so many more #11 chords: because here the chord will be C E G Bf D F# , and the dissonance from E to F# is now a major ninth, which is much more palatable.

Interestingly, now you have a major seventh between the G and the F# in the #11 chord.

For some reason, this dissonance of a major seventh (a half-step adjusted by an octave) is okay.

Meanwhile, the minor ninth from the original E to F ( also a half-step adjusted by an octave!) is less desirable...

funny how that works.

But typically these extended chords just function as dominants.

You can throw them in wherever you see a dominant and see how you like it; just make sure the melody isn't hanging out on the chordal third that you're omitting!

Of course, they don't have to be dominants; that was just an easy example to get you experimenting.

There's something called a "rock dominant" that is just a IV chord played above the fifth scale degree.

In C major, this would be F A C occurring over G , which creates a V 11 chord.

Believers in the "pile of thirds" get uncomfortable when you mention the 11th :-)

Yes, the #11 is far more common.

It doesn't fit into functional harmony nearly as well as the 9th or 13th, it's normally more of a colourful decoration (like an added 6th or 2nd).

A sus4 chord (whether or not it resolves) or a F/G is sometimes incorrectly labelled as an 11th.

The incorrectness wouldn't matter so much if it wasn't for the confusion whether "G11" is intended to mean G7sus4 or F/G.

In the sort of harmonic shorthand that uses chord symbols I think we could be confident it WOULDN'T mean G, B, D, F, A, C.

Here's something that could be a full 11th chord though, bar 3 of 'Hey Jude'.

I don't think there's more than one chord in that bar.

I'm not going to notate it as G11 though, or someone will play a G7sus4 or a F/G. Better to leave it as G7 with both C and B in the melody.

Yes, but not many of them.

See my response to https://music.stackexchange.com/questions/45965/what-is-the-mood-of-the-eleventh-chord/45967#45967 .

In truth, the min11 begins my favorite tritone substitution.

And those eleventh chords that are not dissonant have an uncommon feel about them.

(For further information, check out "avoid notes" and map out the elevenths that have them and those that do not.)

For the record, that tritone sub is iimin11 - bIIdom7#11 - Imaj7 (in A), all pedaling the high E voice (in the fifth position) with both the open string and the fretted note.

I think that a better question may be "Does anyone play 11th chords with a major third?".

"Muddy" isn't the same as "dissonant".

The simplest way to avoid mud in any chord voicing is to avoid intervals of a third at the low end of the chord.

The underlying reason for that voicing strategy is because equal-temperament thirds are horribly out of tune compared with "pure" just intonation intervals, though having listened to them from birth many people tend not to notice how out of tune they are.

An equal-tempered major third is almost 1/6 of a semitone wider than a pure third.

Below middle C, that creates out-of-tune beats that are almost slow enough to count, if you listen carefully.

A C11 chord can be built mostly from a stack of fourths :

C F Bb E G, F Bb E G C, or G C F

Bb E.

That will sound much less "muddy" than a stack of thirds , which may be the "obvious" way for a relative beginner to think about the chord.

With those voicings, a C minor 11 chord (with Eb) has every interval a perfect fourth, except for the third Eb to G.

The dominant 11th and minor 11th chords are used a lot in soul music.

If you want a super popular example, listen to Justin Timberlake's

Can't Stop the Feeling.

they are found in almost every song by Jamiroquai or Stevie Wonder, lots in Micheal Jackson, stuff like that.

The lack of usage reflects mostly the way that music theory is taught - JUST STACK THIRDS, THAT SOUNDS GOOD.

Stacking fourths gives a more open, ambiguous sound.

You can play any bass note under them.

Yes, a lot of people do!

So what chords“ are 11th chords: http://www.thejazzpianosite.com/jazz-piano-lessons/jazz-chord-voicings/so-what-chord/ 11th and sus4: is this the same chord?

No: 11th contains the third: in major this will sound quite dissonant! https://www.reddit.com/r/musictheory/comments/221bid/whats_the_difference_between_sus4_and_11th_chords/

Question: When I try to construct 11th chords, they always sound horrible and muddy. I also rarely come across them in chord charts unless it's a #11. The only extensions that sound good are 9ths and 13ths. Is there any use for 11th chords? Does anyone use them, or know of any examples of their usage?

Does anyone play 11th chords?

Oftentimes 11th chords are voiced without the chordal third. This is because the chordal third can often conflict with the 11th to create an unwanted dissonance.   Imagine, for instance, you want a C11 chord. Technically speaking, this chord would consist of  C E G Bf D F . However, the minor 9th between  E  and  F  can create a dissonance more harsh than is intended. As such, composers will often just omit the chordal third.

Oftentimes 11th chords are voiced without the chordal third. This is because it can conflict with the 11th to create an unwanted dissonance. As such, composers will often just omit the chordial third. The chordal Third is the third most important chord in every 11th chord.


Do you wish to shorten the duration of the whole piece (take the time from the entire composition) or just shorten that syllable (leaving something of a short rest after that note)?

I'd notate the first case with a changed time signature and a shortened note.

For the second case, I'd probably just go for a staccato mark on the note; a shortened note followed by a rest is also possible.

What you're looking for is actually the opposite of an agogic accent .

Specifically, some agogic accents slightly lengthen the measure they're in (this is the third type currently listed on Wikipedia, which states that the accent has "the effect of temporarily slowing down the tempo").

However, there is no such thing in standard (modern) musical notation.

The only way to shorten a single measure is to temporarily change the time-signature and/or the tempo.

But, as a composer living in the 21st century, feel free to introduce your own ad-hoc notation.

Just be sure to add a note in your score explaining what the notation means.

Alternatively, as noted in another answer, you could use the archaic form of notation that was traditionally used when notating Gregorian chants, since it appears that that's what you're notating.

I guess, the nearest match is a staccato , marked by a dot.

Typically it is assumed, however, that only half of the notated value is played, and the other half is left as rest before the next note.

As I understand your problem, you don't want the rest.

In that case, I see two options: Rely on the intelligence of the singers or the conductor Change bar length for this single bar and change

it backin the next one

Mark the quickened note(s) with accel or accelerando then mark the downbeat of the subsequent bar with a tempo .

That being said I'm guessing you are micromanaging the performance.

As composer, maybe you could relax a bit; consider simply marking the section rubato and let the musicians apply their own interpretation.

A staccato dot would likely indicate too much of a shortening, so a tenuto bar might be appropriate.

However, if you say you are "notating musical chant" there might be some point in actually using square note chant notation for it since the comparatively free but substructured rhythmic/melodic flow of chant tends to be more aptly expressed in that manner than with "modern" notation with its more rigid timing based on subdivisions of 2.

Many choral composers use breath marks, but Daniel Pinkham (motto: "Make your scores conductor-proof!") would always write shorter note values when he wanted a breath, or an ending consonant placed before the next note.

He knew from experience that if you leave it ambiguous conductors might do any number of different things and thought it was better to specify the exact amount of shortening you want.

For music in free rhythm like composed chant, though, a breath mark might be better, since the rhythm is not precise to begin with.

I just stumbled upon this and honestly think the fermata followed by a breath mark might do 2 things:1.

Confuse people.

On the one hand you're telling them to play the absolute full value of the note (the fermata), but then you're telling them to breathe before a staccato note, which is kinda weird to do.

The two aren't intuitive to do together.

Probably not get the result you are looking for.

I was just thinking about how to write "Don't play the full value of the note and for classical notation

I'd lean towards an eighth note tied to a sixteenth note, followed by a rest.

For more simple notation, I decided to go with just a breath mark, as that is likely to achieve the desired result.

Hope that gives some insight or help.

Provided another note immediately follows, I would use a breath mark right after the note you want to shorten.

In order to breathe, the singers have to stop a tiny bit (not as much as with staccato ) and, since they need to still be in time to play the next note at the intended time, they need to shorten the previous one.

This has been in insightful interaction.

Thank you all very much.

Apparently there isn't an "opposite of a fermata" and numerous approaches have been suggested.

None of them simple.

I think this speaks to the idea that it's much more common in music to stretch than shorten a note.

Since I'm not writing for musicians or conductors, but for "yogis" and others who are into chanting, this needs to be simple, and easy on the eyes.

The way I have seen the chant written out previously is with a measure of 5 - nothing shortened.

What I'm liking today is a fermata over the previous note, followed by a breath mark.

It's supposed to be "half a breath".

Would love some more feedback as I consider "accepting" this "solution".

Question: I'm notating a musical chant and there is a part where there is a shortened syllable. I don't think changing the time signature and/or shortening the actual rhythmic value of the note makes sense. However, I  do  want the overall duration of the measure containing the note in question to be shortened.  Is there a way of writing something like a fermata, but meaning to shorten the length of the note a tiny bit?

Opposite of a Fermata?

To shorten a note a little bit, provided another note immediately follows, you should use a breath mark right after the note you want to shorten. In order to breathe, the singers have to stop a tiny bit (not as much as with  staccato ) and, since they need to still be in time to play the next note at the intended time, they need to shorten the previous one.

Use a breath mark right after the note you want to shorten. In order to breathe, the singers have to stop a tiny bit (not as much as with staccato)


Western classical and Indian classical violin are very, very different styles.

The main similarity is that they use the same instrument, so if you learned one style, you would have a head start learning the other.

Similarities :For either style, you will need to be familiar with your instrument and learn where to find notes, and how to control the bow.

Differences :There are a lot more differences than similarities.

How the instrument is held: In western music, the instrument is held at your neck, and is played either standing or seated in a chair.

In Indian classical, it is usually played seated on the floor, with the instrument upright and the bottom of the instrument's body supported by the ground.

It would be very, very difficult to switch between these for someone who hasn't extensively practiced both positions.

Musical Theory :

Both styles use rhythm and pitch as the core of making music, but the details are profoundly different.

There are differences in how the styles use scales, whether and how they use harmonies, what notes are considered notes, the use of improvisation, in how rhythm is used, and more.

These differences are at such a basic level that even a beginner's very first lessons will be very different between the styles.

Conclusion: I play western violin, but took a workshop in Indian Classical once.

The differences in the music were huge, and I struggled to frame even the basics in my musical understanding.

If you know you want to play western music, I'd start by learning that, rather than learning Indian, then changing styles.

If you can't find a teacher, I'd suggest using looking for a teacher who will teach over the internet, and in the mean time using internet video lessons.

ProfessorV on YouTube is a good place to start.

I learn Indian classical violin and here are basic differences in learning Indian and western style violin, apart from bowing and holding the violin Tuning : Western violin is tuned differently than Indian violin.

That means that if you play the same positions it sounds differently.

It would require a lot of practice to get a mental framework of how an instrument is tuned.

Emphasis : The system of Indian classical music gives much more emphasis on melody.

In some sense, there is no composition without melody.

Improvisation : 80% of Indian music is improvisation of melodic verses.

What this means, is there is no emphasis on sheet music.

Most instructor ask you sing and know the tonal qualities of a song before you play in a violin.

This leads to the next point Style : Violin follows another instrument or singer in Indian classical music.

This means, there is a lot of emphasis on hearing the voice and playing the corresponding note, instinctively, unlike sheet music Harmonies and Chords :There are hardly any harmonies or chords in Indian music, though modern musicians mix it up.

Western music gives a lot of emphasis on this.

I'm not well versed in this topic to elaborate.

Music scales: The scales have some similarities but, Indian music has scales which are more specific, because the music relies on melody.

There is a sense of rigor in improvisation that music feels structured and built on top of simple building blocks of melody and rhythm.

Finally, Indian music is in some sense still religious, with Hindu vocal compositions.

I feel western music has separated itself from its religious roots, though I'm not an authority on this subject.

Although you have no teacher, you can still learn from the best!

Checkout

Yehudi Menuhin's Violin Tutorial videos, designed for new learners of Western style violin: Ultimately playing the violin comes down to listening, to yourself, and to others performing on the violin.

Learning western music notation will allow you to pick up a book on violin technique (etudes) which will slowly guide you into the proper technique.

Although there are many resources to teach you various aspects of technique available on the internet, there will come a point (sooner than later)

when you really should have a teacher to guide you forward, and keep you from turning initial bad habits (like bad posture, incorrect bow hold, etc) into permanently flawed technique, limiting your playing possibilities.

You can start in Indian or Western classical music.

Once you gain proficiency in either you may switch to other with ease.

But, again, it depends from person to person.

In my opinion your choice will be governed more by the availability teachers, the time you can devote, and most important the place to practice.

So for example if you are living in an apartment, and want to practice your instrument, the others may get disturbed.

In my very own case, my learning has been very staggered, for many reasons, like teachers got transferred, I got transferred, or plain laziness on my part.

One thing is sure for whichever style you follow is that you need to develop a musical "ear".

For that listen to a lot of music, and youtube videos are a great source.

If you are interested in western classical try locating videos of Yehudi Menuhin, Itzhak Perlman (Vivaldi RV 356 is my personal favorite), Amadeus Electric (Habanera from Carmen).

I am not a violinist.

If you want to learn the theory part of Western Classical you may want to refer to " http://shop.trinitycollege.com/shop/powersearch/powersearch_results.asp?search=theory+of+music+workbooks ".

These book are available on flipkart too.

These are good for self learning, and you can write exams too.

Please have a look at www.earmaster.com also.

For Hindustani classical theory you may want to refer to "Rag Parichay", or alike.

I suggest you to find a violin teacher near by your town, or search some virtual teachers online.

Try the video tutorials from some you tube channels.

Question: Just a curious beginner with no music background and knowledge of music.I am fond of Western classical music, thus violin. I have a violin but don't know where to start. I couldn't find someone to teach me Western.  Although a music professional told me that Indian and Western  violin are mostly same in theory. Is it true? Can I play Western style if I learn with Indian theory?  Please suggest where to start from scratch to learn violin.

Violin - Western Classical vs indian classical. How different are they?

Western classical and Indian classical violin are very, very different styles. The only real similarity is that they use the same instrument. Almost everything else is different including the way the instrument is held. Right from the first lesson, the training would be different.

Western classical and Indian classical violin are very, very different styles. Both use the same instrument, the violin, but there are many differences between them. Western classical is played in a chair, Indian is played upright, standing or seated. There are also differences in how the styles use scales, improvisation and more. Even a beginner's very first lessons will be very different between the styles. The differences are at such a basic level that even a Beginner's first lessons could be difficult to learn. The violin is played at your neck, with the bottom of the instrument's body supported by the ground.


I don't have an answer for you with measurements in milliseconds, etc., but as a tuba player I can give you my experiences.

I'm not consciously thinking of anticipating anything in order to get my sound out because my instrument is bigger .

Instead, the training I've received over time just naturally tells me what I need to do in order for my sound to come out when I want it.

In other words, it just becomes second nature, and so for us it's not an issue of "anticipating," but rather just playing like we know how to.

It's a little like throwing or kicking a ball, I guess.

You don't stop and measure wind velocity and angles and things like that; instead, over time you just naturally know that when it feels like this when you throw/kick, the ball will be sent over here .

More problematic is the location within the orchestra; sometimes the tuba player can be a solid 50 feet from the conductor (and I've seen much greater distances than that!).

In this situation, if I and the concertmaster both begin a pitch at the same time, my sound will reach the conductor (and thus the audience) at a slightly different time.

As such, I do find myself occasionally anticipating the conductor in situations like this, especially when my lines match something being played with instruments right at the front of the stage.

But this is much more problematic for percussionists, who are even farther back on the stage.

Thus (in my opinion) it's less about size and low frequencies that take longer to travel, and more about simple placement within the orchestra.

It's not as much as a "perfectly synchronized start".

Low instruments have a slow attack both physically as well as taking longer to register in hearing.

At the same time, they are providing the fundamental anchors for the harmony.

If they swing into full attack way later than the higher-pitched instruments, the context for the higher-pitched instruments is missing.

While acoustic memory will help in reconstructing the "attack context" even with some systematic delay, it helps if you have a nice "overattack" with its peak more than its start being aligned to the beat.

Even for continuous-note instruments (like wind instruments) it usually is good for hearing and transparency to go for a plucked or detached bowed double bass sound with an organic accent on the beat (or off-beat, depending on the music in question).

It helps maintaining transparency together with more melodically played instruments.

Slightly off at a tangent, but this still can be thought of even in a rock band scenario.

As an occasional drummer & long-time bassist...

Have you ever worked with a bassist who thinks his note starts when his pick hits the string rather than leaves it.

It's like drumming in molasses.

It might only be milliseconds between the two but the difference in feel is colossal.

I play cello in two different ways: either acoustically like everybody else (orchestra etc.), or, with the band on louder stages, through a piëzo pickup and in-ear monitoring.

I play a fivestring cello with low F, and in the band I fulfill more of a bass role.

I was never really aware of playing before/after the beat, until we recorded a song that I normally play with pickup, and actually used it with my in-ear

like I do live.

Sounded quite well while playing, but when we switched to the microphone tracks it was totally not in time!

The pickup responds almost instantaneous and thus I don't anticipate when using it, but the body definitely takes some response time and the room yet more.

The problem vanished when we turned down the pickup in my headphones, as the acoustic feedback caused me to automatically play sufficiently early.

Vice versa, when we recorded an acoustic song but also added a bit of pickup signal for extra oomph, it sounded overhasted at first.

tl;dr :

orchestra bass instruments should definitely anticipate a bit, but not necessarily by conscious action – it should happen naturally.

Drummers also need to accelerate the sticks well before the actual hit, but they don't actually think of it as an action before the beat.

When I'm in an orchestra, and the double bass is playing a pulsing beat, it almost always is like a half a second behind to my ears.

It's annoying.

The bow moves with the rest of the lower-strings, but the sound is behind.

I don't really know.

I think that depending on the acoustics, and where in the room the musician is standing, it can be good to play a little ahead.

Keep in mind that in some rooms, sound can bounce off the back of the room and cause an echo which throws all kinds of people off.

All just random thoughts on the subject...

As a conductor, myself, it is not always possible to hear all instruments together at the same time.

Using arguments used above, I could, for example hear everything exactly together.

But by the time it reached the audience in a linear world the music would be less together, in regards to where the audience member is placed.

In my experience of concert halls and churches, however, sound 'mixes' in the acoustic

and it is one of the joys of a conductor to go to the rear of the building in rehearsal and hear exactly what is being produced.

My thoughts are that sound in general travels up not out and the ear hears back the rebound.

The ear is a clever organ and between it and the brain it can compute all it hears into one coherent sound and that is what we hear.

I'm not a scientist but if you are playing in a decent acoustic there is no need to play late at all.

Trust the beat, play on it

and I believe the acoustic does the rest for the audience.

Question: "The bigger the instrument, the heavier the strings, the bigger the bow, the bigger the mouthpiece, the more you should anticipate." This concept is expressed occasionally by double bass players, conductors etc. Is there any good reasoning behind this? Is this practical, as in can players actually consistently begin their notes a constant amount of milliseconds earlier than higher instruments? If that was possible, would the audience, far and near the stage, perceive a perfectly synchronized start of a chord?

Should low frequency players anticipate in orchestra?

If you are playing in a decent acoustic, there is no need for instruments to anticipate or start late. The audience hear the music bounced back off the acoustic.

Trust the beat, play on it and I believe the acoustic will do the rest' .

Concert hall conductor says it is not always possible to hear all instruments together at the same time. Sound travels up, not out, and the ear hears back the rebound, he says. He believes the acoustic does the rest for the audience. But he says if you are playing in a decent acoustic, there is no need to play late at all. 'Trust the beat, play on it,' he says, 'and I believe the acoustic will do the rest' .


You're definitely hearing a D4 along with this A, but are you sure about the F4?

I wonder if you're actually hearing a G3.

The reason is because of how string instruments are tuned.

Violins, for instance, are tuned in 5ths, so when they tune to an A4, they tune the D4 along with the A4 to create a perfect fifth.

Then they tune a G3 along with the D4 to create another perfect fifth.

I have heard accompanists use a D minor chord when a violinist (or violist or cellist for that matter) is tuning many times.

One accompanist I had even followed up the D minor with a D major chord!

The rationale my cello teacher gave me was that playing a triad puts the string pitches into 'context', and that a D minor chord 'sounds purer' than D major.

I'm not sure about the latter point but putting notes into the context of a triad makes sense.

With a violin it is common to tune the middle two strings first (A and D), to avoid messing up the other strings' tunings because of the variations in tension when turning the pegs, hence the use of a D triad initially.

Cellists also go for A and D first (top two strings) because the variation of tension when tuning is not so pronounced.

I've heard this done plenty of times, but never really thought about why before now.

It makes some sense to play the A and the D, because the piano will be (nominally) tuned to equal temperament and the piano's fifth will not be exactly pure.

Since pianos use with "stretched" tuning (the octaves are slightly bigger than a true octave), and the amount of stretching should be judged by ear depending on the design of the piano and the condition of the strings, the only way to tune the same sized fifth accurately is to hear both piano notes and copy what the piano tuner did.

Unless playing the F is just a tradition and the reason has been forgotten over the centuries, I would speculate that the F is simply to make the piano easier to hear.

The tone of a string instrument has more high-pitched harmonics than a piano, and the piano sound starts to die away as soon as the notes are played, but the string tone does not.

FWIW tuning a string instrument to a pipe organ, where the pipes that have the most stable pitches have very few harmonics, is surprisingly difficult - hence the speculation about "hearing the piano" in the previous paragraph.

Equal tempered major and minor thirds are both a long way "out of tune" compared with "pure" major and minor thirds.

A major third is sharp by about 1/7 of a semitone, and a minor third is flat by the approximately same amount.

That doesn't suggest any good reason for playing a minor chord compared with a major one.

Maybe string players just find it easier to play three white keys!

Pure speculation here, but these are the reasons that stick out for me: When using real instruments, a chord is often easier to tune to than a unison tone

, I guess the reason is a combination of us being used to playing in tune with chordal accompaniment, and that it compensates a bit for any irregularities in the harmonic spectrum of real world resonators, and gives our ear more information to pick out an exact "centre" from.

That, and it's louder of course.

Why a D chord?

It gives a strong tonic centre to pick out a d and an a from, for the fiddles that leaves the G and the E to tune in fifths from the a and d.

For the bass, the same but in fourths.

(incidentally, for a guitar too with a B in fifths from your E).

For the violas and cellos, a bit more of a stretch, the G from the D and the C from that G, but still nice and easy.

Why a D minor?

Better than an open fifth for the reasons a fifth is better than unison.

And why is D minor better than D major?

No semitone clashes or tritones.

The aforementioned G, E, C and Bs all happily mind their own business in major seconds and perfect fourths from a D minor's chord tones, (or fifths and major sixths) making it easy those notes to to your own strings using 5ths/4ths while a D minor is still being played.

An F# would be a bit of a cat among the pigeons.

Why not G major?

Convention

I guess.

Would be worse for guitarists, but i strongly doubt that's a consideration.

5 string basses too but likewise.

Why not A minor?

Tuning to the third of a chord is never good, you're always tempted to go towards a more just interval.

Playing an A minor might mess up the Cs of the violas.

And you know what they say about viola players...

They're valuable additions to orchestras and you wouldn't want the C string out of tune.

Cellos, Violas, and some Basses have C-strings.

The F in the D-minor chord gives them a fifth (or an octave and a fifth) to tune to.

An F# would be useless basically to every player in the orchestra.

Question: I've heard string players tune from a piano by playing A4, followed by D4 and F4 together. They said it makes it easier to tune. I've never gotten a good answer why this is. Is it just a strange tradition, or does something about a D minor chord on the piano make it easier to tune the violin family?

When tuning an orchestra, why do some people play A followed by D and F together?

S0: Cellos, Violas, and some Basses have C-strings. The F in the D-minor chord gives them a fifth (or an octave and a fifth) to tune to. An F# would be useless basically to every player in the orchestra.

Cellos, Violas, and some Basses have C-strings. The F in the D-minor chord gives them a fifth to tune. An F# is useless