Inversions...

[SteveCS]

absolutely true, but I wouldn’t put that into inversion territory, since that A you are playing is the root.

It's a slightly tricky one that covers all possibilities. Putting the A in the bass clearly changes the chord to Am7. Putting it in the first octave above the lowest C also makes Am7 in some inversion or other depending on what the lowest pitch actually is. But place the lowest A sufficiently distant above the lowest sounding C and it will eventually 'become' C6.

 

[Anthony Buckeridge]

Quote: “Who said the guitarist has to play roots to all chords?”


The answer is to be found amongst the preceding posts in response #68 answering my first post.


Quote: “The thing with guitar chords, particulary the basic shapes used for strumming, is that they almost invariably have the root as the lowest pitched note intentional note.“


It would appear that you agree with my assertions in this regard, and appreciate your reinforcement of my point in your illustration quoted below.


Quote: “if a C-7 chord is written, the guitar can play a range of chord shapes or voicings, and they do not necessarily have to include the root (C). The guitarist may choose to play an Eb Major triad, but a C-7 chord is still the functioning chord even though the guitar player is not playing a C.”


In musical fora, what a delight it is to enjoy harmony!


Quote: “In order to communicate effectively, the guitarist needs to understand what chord is actually functioning, in addition to the chord shape they are playing on the guitar...and my observation is this can involve a bit of mental acrobatics.

Technically, the guitarist could think of the F#dim7 as Adim7, Cdim7, or even Ebdim7.”

-Snipped for Shortness-

Quote:“It's not generally on the bass player to understand that the guitarist is playing a F# dim7 chord in 3rd inversion.”


I totally agree, things can get awfully complex and technical.

Although clearly incorrect from the concept of academic theory.

I think the point of the book which so many guitarists found actively helpful, and a few bassists here take exception to.

Is that it made a huge amount of highly complex, technical information, easy to visualise and readily comprehend. Enabling guitarists to have at their disposal the chords they need, in any key, throughout the fingerboard.


Now I’m going to make some points that represent my opinion and approach.

Therefore, there may necessarily be some self-reference involved which I apologise for.


My first point is that when I began, there were few tutors, very few books, no tutorial DVD’s, no Wikipedia, and no YouTube experts to help.

Today, I often meet people avidly interested in music, who with the benefit of all these advantages possess a great deal of academic technical information.

Far too often however, far too many lack depth in practical experience, have not grasped many fundamental aspects relating to their interest, and therefore are of little use in the real musical world.


I have this to be often true of many who view themselves as musicians, and perhaps even more so, those so view themselves as sound engineers and producers



I visited a large music store in a neighbouring city, and was stood looking at an instrument hung on the wall when a salesman came up to me.

He was quick to tell me about his years of study, his accomplishments in college, and the various instruments he played.

I asked him a basic question about the instrument on the wall, and he had no idea what I was talking about.

So, I explained it to him, which appeared to have a revolutionary and revolutionary effect upon him.


As a Musical Director I am interested in all musical instruments and all the various new innovations that come along.

The salesman spent the next hour walking alongside me around every dept. in in the store, and as we went along, I explained many aspects regarding the history, evolution and development of many of the instruments we viewed.

I talked with them about my friends who had helped, the inventors and designers of modern recording consoles, equalisers and preamplifiers, as well as instrument amplifiers and taught him fundamental truths regarding their conception.

When I left, purchasing nothing. He shook my hand profusely, and said he had learnt more important truths about musical instruments, music recording and its associated equipment in the last hour, that in years of learning to play and at college studying music technology.


Certainly, those who have helped me like the late Rupert Neve and Al Schmidt along with George Massenburg, all suffered a tremendous lack of academic, technical knowledge.

But seemed to have managed quite well none the less.


It’s can we learn?

Are we truly teachable?

Is there only one way in which we should think about things?

Or can we learn that way at first, but still be open to other ways of viewing matters, when it is exceedingly helpful to do so?


My second point, is that I am interested in all musical instruments.

This is part of the reason for working as a Musical Director, Arranger and Orchestrator.

So, if you placed a set of bagpipes in front of me, I would be able to take it all apart, tell you the name of every piece and how to maintain it. I take this approach to most instruments.

I find it helps tremendously to be able to approach musicians who work for me in such a way, that they know I see things from their perspective, understand their musical issues from their point of view.

Often, I have stories about composers, and particular instruments and can enlarge musician’s appreciation of their instrument, by sharing how they evolved historically.

Bernard Herman and John Williams would often extend a recording session with a major orchestra sharing similar stories, to the musician’s delight.

This forms an atmosphere of mutual respect that is an excellent basis for a good working relationship.

If I need to address a problem, I do so, as if I were them, solely concerned with their instrument.

It is a partnership, working towards a common goal.

A quality relationship.


So, you will understand my willingness to view and approach musicians who are often, predominately concerned with chords.

In a manner, that regardless of musical theory, is most applicable and genuinely helpful to them.

That gets the job done!


I appreciate that many musicians are not that interested in players and instruments other than their own.

I completely understand that, so comprehend that for many, the approach I take would not suit them and I wish them well.


However, one does not have to look very far, even in these fora, to truly observe the many and varied frustrations that musicians experience in their musical relationships with other players.

Personally, I have found an interest in the Piano, Guitar, Bass, Drums and so many other instruments, a tremendous asset in enabling me to successfully establish and augment a positive working relationship. Helpful to other musicians and in practise, facilitating the speedy implementation of the demands of the score.


I remember British musician Jim Sullivan being called to a film session.

He had established himself as an elite first call guitarist for recording sessions.

He was called to a session to play for Hollywood Film Composer Dimitri Tiomkin and required a Classical Guitar (which Jim had) along with the ability to read full six string notation.

Alas the fixer (who hired musicians for sessions in those days) had not understood the composers’ requirements.

Jim didn’t read music at that time at all and an extremely furious Dimitri Tiomkin, left him utterly humiliated and discombobulated.

A musician friend drove him home, and suggested he learnt to read music and furthermore helped him in that task, placing him at great advantage in sessions.

Later, working with session player Jimmy Page, (who still to this day does not read) he was able to divide the lead playing and the rhythm playing dependant upon whether reading was required.

Both of them excelled at different modern styles, so the type of music in each recording session also dictated who played lead and who played rhythm. They would regularly swop roles dependant on who was best at what.


But helping one another, and what is more, actually being able to help one another, where different instruments are involved is, I feel, a tremendously great asset.

An asset that makes human beings out of musicians, and I have seen and experienced the benefit of this time and time again.

The last Bassist that helped me, was a Bassist in the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra. I have never forgotten what I learnt from him, it changed the way I notate scores.


Quote: “his may not be the line of books that is being referred to”


With great respect, It’s not.

Glossy covered books attractive to the eye abound, but greatly disappoint.

And many chord names that player like Mickey Baker and George Harrison would have used, no longer seem to exist.

For each and every chord named. The book concerned portrayed the entire fretboard and revealed three different inversions of the same named chord.

It did this for every key, and regardless of whether one was playing and the bottom, middle or top of the fingerboard, there was an inversion that could readily be moved to.

As I’m sure you are aware, open string chords sound different to barred chords, and its important whatever one is playing to achieve a consistency in tonality moving from chord to chord.

Most especially if one is making a record.


You went to look up one chord, and immediately learnt three, throughout the fingerboard for your trouble.

Maximum information imparted, for minimum effort expended.


In the business world it would be regarded as efficient!

 

[SteveCS]

...
Maximum information imparted, for minimum effort expended.


In the business world it would be regarded as efficient!

Using too many words to say very little might be regarded as highly inefficient. I would also recommend using the Talkbass 'Quote' button when responding to specific comments, and not editing the tags surrounding the quotes. This will help to 1) ensure your comments remain in context; 2) that others can see the name of the person you have quoted and 3) that the person you are quoting is made aware that you have responded directly to something they have written.

On the subject of chord books, if you know the basics of how chords are constructed, how scales are harmonised and how an instrument is tuned the need for endless pages of chord symbols is eliminated. My experience of guitar players is that sadly a significant majority of them know very little of this, even though the instrument they play is for the most part concerned with providing chords/harmony to the music. I would also be willing to bet that a great deal of that ignorance could be directly attributable to such books and related approaches to tuition.

 

[Anthony Buckeridge]

Quote: “Using too many words to say very little might be regarded as highly inefficient.”


You were said by others to be incorrect and ostensibly proven wrong by Wasnex’s excellent post, along with my own. That appears to be your real bone of contention.

In serious Forums for debate, there are rules that apply and one of them is that if a debater indulges in an Ad Hominem attack, by default they are deemed to have lost the debate.

It is the sporting equivalent of a footballer, lacking the skill to properly and professionally tackle the ball in possession of the player they oppose. Tackling the player, attacking them, attempting to bring them down instead, hoping no one will notice their real intent.


With respect, in forums its best to stick to the point of the debate. Rather than making pointed personal remarks about others styles of writing and singular choices regarding its presentation.

I strong commend this approach, as it raises the quality of the debate for all involved, and ensures everyone is treated with the respect they deserve. Respect I showed to you by not using the quoting mechanism, and replying to your point, by not highlight or mentioning you at all.

Only when someone asked “Who said the guitarist has to play roots to all chords?” was I obliged to point him to where it occurred, but made no reference to you. Musicians require pretty thick skins in the music business.

I think this is an important thread with lots of good information shared by many different contributors.

Please try to keep the quality of this excellent forum as high as humanly possible.

Even though, bassists are mainly concerned, with lows.

 

[mambo4]

Is there only one way in which we should think about things? Or can we learn that way at first, but still be open to other ways of viewing matters, when it is exceedingly helpful to do so?

I'm simply pointing out that "inversion" is not the correct term for guitar chord voicings with roots on different strings.
If the root is the lowest voiced note, It cannot be an inversion. You enumerate many ideas that people exploring harmony ought to consider, but getting the terms wrong fights the useful sharing of knowledge.

 

[SteveCS]

You were said by others to be incorrect and ostensibly proven wrong by Wasnex’s excellent post, along with my own. That appears to be your real bone of contention.

With all due respect, I have made no mistake and have said nothing wrong or incorrect. I suggest you go back up the thread and re-read my posts. Make sure you associate the right user name with the content.

If I have any bone of contention it is that you seem to want to change the definition of 'Inversion' for us on the back of some misguided guitar chord-book.

Oh, and I suggest checking the definition of ad hominem. Last time I checked it meant saying something against the person as what they are, not what they did or said. Again, check my posts and you will see that nothing I said could be taken as in any way close to ad hominem.

 

[Anthony Buckeridge]

Quote: “I'm simply pointing out that "inversion" is not the correct term for guitar chord voicings with roots on different strings.”


Inverted chord

a chord that is not in 'root position' or normal form', in other words, a chord, the root of which, when expressed in its standard form, does not lie in the bass


Quoted from Dolmetsch Musical Theory and Dictionary, as listed in the reference sites recommended in your own PDF regarding Basic Musical Theory, placed at the bottom of your posts.

I trust you will not take offense at the utilisation of your own sources of information!

Dolmetsch Online - Music Dictionary Introduction

 

[mambo4]

Inverted chord

a chord that is not in 'root position' or normal form', in other words, a chord, the root of which, when expressed in its standard form, does not lie in the bass

That is a correct definition of an inversion.

They would call them 1st inversion chords (because the root name of the chord occurred on the 1st string and formed the most common F shape fingering).

2nd inversion chords (because the root name of the chord occurred on the 2nd string and formed the most common C shape fingering).

And 3rd inversion chords (because the root name of the chord occurred on the 3rd string and formed the most common A shape fingering).

That is an incorrect definition of an inversion. It is not because of which string the root note lies on.

--
The truth is depending which strings you include in say a C shaped chord, you might get an inversion
If you play a C chord and add the G (low E string 3rd fret) it will be a 2nd inversion.
But it won't be "because the root is on the second string"
It will because you played a G on the E string, putting the 5th in the bass
--
Now we don't have the book you referred to in that incorrect definition
so I don't know 100% exactly how the C shaped chord is diagramed and described in the source material.
The error could be in the book or it could be in your paraphrasing of the book.
So were all just guessing and talking past each other
So I'll just shut up now.

 

[SteveCS]

You said this:

Inverted chord

a chord that is not in 'root position' or normal form', in other words, a chord, the root of which, when expressed in its standard form, does not lie in the bass

In response to your first post, I said this:

As interesting as this is, inversions are not formed this way - it is all about which note is the lowest pitched in the arrangement, which might in reality be played by someone else. If the root is lowest pitch the chord is 'Root position; if the 3rd is in the bass then it is 1st inversion, 5th in the bass = 2nd inversion and 7th in the bass is 3rd inversion. That's it - the arrangement of notes above the bass is of no consequence.

Please explain where I deviate from your textbook (other than the fact I expressed it in my own words and went on to explain what the numbering of inversions actually means in practical terms and gave examples).

 

[SteveCS]

...
You were said by others to be incorrect
...

Please humour me with a quote where anyone says this. Hint - there isn't one.

 

[Anthony Buckeridge]

Forgive me for quoting my own post, I do so merely for sheer clarities sake.


Quote: “Inverted chord

a chord that is not in 'root position' or normal form', in other words, a chord, the root of which, when expressed in its standard form, does not lie in the bass


Quote: “That is a correct definition of an inversion.”


Then, with respect, you appear to have altered your stance in but a precious few hours, as earlier, you stated.


Quote: "inversion" is not the correct term for guitar chord voicings with roots on different strings.”


You can't really have this both ways.

For again, with respect, you appear to be utilising contradictory statements.

If you are stating that the word “inversion” is not applicable to some instruments. That musical theory is instrument specific.

You appear to have successfully undermined your own argument that you used to dispute the ideas utilised in the book referred to. Which to borrow SteveCS’s excellent phrase was a very “guitarconcentric” way to view matters.

I agree with him, it is indeed.

The salient thing is.

it works!


Quote: “That is an incorrect definition of an inversion. It is not because of which string the root note lies on.”


That is something happily, we all, have always, agreed upon.

I think, (and of course I don’t actually have access to the inner workings of the authors brain).

That his use of the word “inversion” is simply his term for attempting to organise the overwhelming multitude of available chords shapes for the guitar, into a rational, readily understandable form.

A comprehensive system of viewing the chords throughout fingerboard, that helps guitarists to learn the maximum number of chords possible, in the easiest, most effortless manner.

Of course, there are a multitude of different chords, and his first book was so successful he then wrote another similar book, portraying rare, more advanced and extended chords.

As the book, like most over 70 years old (apart from the Holy Bible) is out of publication. I am amazed to observe such concern, about a tome, no one today, can read.

Then... This is the internet!


Quote: “If you play a C chord and add the G (low E string 3rd fret) it will be a 2nd inversion.”


Of course.

Isn't it great that we agree on so much.

The problem with learning chords in that way, is that its fingering is only of use in the key of C.

If one learns to finger that chord without the G, utilising only the second, third and fourth fingers to stop notes, then using the first finger to Barre. That chord shape is suddenly playable in every key on the fingerboard.

Amazingly, it is possible for guitarists to play in any key whatever, utilising muscle memory they have already established, enabling them to deploy musically augmenting key changes mid song and modulate to completely different, none adjacent keys.

Performing without the need of a capo.

What a revolution!


At a tenderly young age, (I think he was seven at the time), with a mere two days notice. My son was given a complex piece to perform, written in Ab, stood in front of a very crowded church.

Because he learnt chords in the manner and with the fingering outlined above, using the system described, he was able to do so very competently indeed, without the aid of a capo.

With the greatest possible respect, it seems to me that some are dismissive of the system for theoretical and sematic reasons.

With no experience whatever or genuine appreciation of its impressive potential benefits.

I have which is purely why I mentioned it.

It certainly helped me!



Quote: “But it won't be "because the root is on the second string It will because you played a G on the E string, putting the 5th in the basse:“



None of these points are in dispute, at least not by me.

I hope you are appreciative of the fundamental harmony that being emanated here.

It simply appears that some are merely discounting a former method of imagining chords. Because it fails to conform with standard music theory.

Many years ago, my group was greatly helped by a wonderful man called Rupert Neve, the inventor of the Large Format Recording Console.

Everyone throughout the world sought his consoles as they were regarded as sounding far better and more musical than any other.

I recall him saying that there were many things that as a recording studio audio designer you couldn’t do.

But untrained theoretically as he was, he didn’t know that.

So went ahead and did them.


For sure, this was a problem for competitors.

In the same way that the massive success of the chord book was not that it had that much anyway.

I appreciate how difficult this must be for some. A gentleman that worked with my father, had the notion to put the engine into a car, sideways. Crazily, it sold well!

Sometimes things that just seem so wrong. Things that make solidly thinking folk who understand how things rightly should be, throw their hands up in horror.

Actually, work rather well in practise.

Must be very annoying!


Quote: “The error could be in the book or it could be in your paraphrasing of the book.”


Forgive me for writing this, but to be clear, I am a conductor and studied musical theory, musical form and performance, musical arranging and orchestration, in addition to studying conducting.

My description of the books use of terms, is precisely as it occurred. If you think about it, the idea of the root being on the 1st, 2nd and 3rd String is a very strong one, along with the use of the word inversion.

As I explained earlier, I approach and relate to musicians differently, according to their instrument.
My whole philosophy is to create a working environment and frame work where the musicians feel they are in an ideal opportunity, to perform at their very best.

Of course, I am really hoping they will reward my efforts on their behalf, by exceeding that and surprising even themselves.


Quote: ”So were all just guessing and talking past each other”


I don’t think so.

And am certainly not guessing, speaking for myself.

But some, in wanting to ensure a correct understating of musical theory which is good itself.

Have perhaps wandered into the field of arguing semantics, desiring perfection in the use of theoretical musical terminology.


In my minds eye, I can imagine them arguing with their lead guitarist, about the whammy arm on their instrument.

“Surely, it’s a vibrato arm?”

“Well…. Some call it a tremolo arm.”

“But tremolo is related to fluctuations in volume.

Vibrato is related to fluctuations in pitch, a different thing altogether.”

“Vibrato, tremolo, we all use different words, maybe incorrectly, the thing is, everyone really knows what we are actually talking about. That's the important thing”

“It’s really, a whammy bar!”


I’m beginning to understand why the Band Management Forum is always as it it is.

For myself and important as it is, I always saw the rudiments and theory of music as merely a means to a far greater end. Rather than a complete and utter end in itself which seem the bent of some.

The world is made up of differing people and we must accept the fact that those of a legalistic disposition, will want to ensure that everyone properly adheres to the basic understanding, we all grasped, in year one.

I am delighted they have such a good grounding, but live in the optimistic hope that as time goes on they might both visualise and reach beyond that basic starting point. Ideals are like the stars, we may never reach them, but O how we benefit from their presence!


I think the many positive contributions of a plethora excellent posters in this thread, could be helpfully enlightening to the original poster, and trust that is indeed so.


The problem with teaching music is that so many of its aspects are highly complex and technical in nature.

This is similar to the problem faced by ministers and preachers as Biblical theology involves tremendous depth and is equally complex, if not more so.

But great ministers, Bible teachers and preachers have the gift of making incredibly complex and hard to understand truths; readily comprehensible to the simplest minds. Ordinary people, completely lacking in theological training.


It’s just my opinion.

Discard it if you prefer to.

But I think that great music teachers.

Have the same gift as great ministers and preachers.

They make what is profoundly deep and complex, relevant and easy to understand.

 

[ProbablyTooLoud]

"If you think about it, the idea of the root being on the 1st, 2nd and 3rd String is a very strong one, along with the use of the word inversion."

Thought about it.
Unhelpful.
Thanks for trying.

 

[Richard Lindsey]

"If you think about it, the idea of the root being on the 1st, 2nd and 3rd String is a very strong one, along with the use of the word inversion."

Thought about it.
Unhelpful.
Thanks for trying.

Agreed. I don’t think it’s a particularly strong idea, and it has nothing to do with inversions. It’s not even using correct terminology for the strings of the guitar, to begin with. Those are numbered from 6 to 1 low to high, so a “cowboy” G major has its lowest root on the 6th string, not the 1st. Teaching nonstandard terminology doesn’t help the learner, especially if that learner ever has to talk to other musicians. And to go on with, once again, this is not what inversions are, and I can’t see what possible value could come from teaching guitars a wrong definition of “inversion.”

Mr Buckeridge clearly has a lot of experience working in the music world, and this is not a personal attack on him, but his proposed definition of inversion—or rather, proposal for teaching it—is just flat out wrong. When you’re wrong you’re wrong; we’ve all been there, me most certainly included.

If that’s the kind of pedagogy they used to offer in music books, I’m heartily glad it seems to be gone. If I’d had this kind of instruction as a young guitarist, and then had to unlearn it and learn the actually correct concepts when I got past the beginner level, I’d have been pretty upset with my first teacher for giving me wrong information.

EDIT: Hang on, though: it just occurred to me, perhaps Mr B actually is referring to little 3-note chords on the highest 3 strings of the guitar (G3, B2, and E1) after all? It would still be a completely wrong definition of inversions, but it would clarify something that seemed off in the initial post.

 

[Richard Lindsey]

Forgive me for quoting my own post, I do so merely for sheer clarities sake.


Quote: “Inverted chord

a chord that is not in 'root position' or normal form', in other words, a chord, the root of which, when expressed in its standard form, does not lie in the bass


Quote: “That is a correct definition of an inversion.”


Then, with respect, you appear to have altered your stance in but a precious few hours, as earlier, you stated.


Quote: "inversion" is not the correct term for guitar chord voicings with roots on different strings.”


You can't really have this both ways.

For again, with respect, you appear to be utilising contradictory statements.

If you are stating that the word “inversion” is not applicable to some instruments. That musical theory is instrument specific.

You appear to have successfully undermined your own argument that you used to dispute the ideas utilised in the book referred to. Which to borrow SteveCS’s excellent phrase was a very “guitarconcentric” way to view matters.

I agree with him, it is indeed.

The salient thing is.

it works!


Quote: “That is an incorrect definition of an inversion. It is not because of which string the root note lies on.”


That is something happily, we all, have always, agreed upon.

I think, (and of course I don’t actually have access to the inner workings of the authors brain).

That his use of the word “inversion” is simply his term for attempting to organise the overwhelming multitude of available chords shapes for the guitar, into a rational, readily understandable form.

A comprehensive system of viewing the chords throughout fingerboard, that helps guitarists to learn the maximum number of chords possible, in the easiest, most effortless manner.

Of course, there are a multitude of different chords, and his first book was so successful he then wrote another similar book, portraying rare, more advanced and extended chords.

As the book, like most over 70 years old (apart from the Holy Bible) is out of publication. I am amazed to observe such concern, about a tome, no one today, can read.

Then... This is the internet!


Quote: “If you play a C chord and add the G (low E string 3rd fret) it will be a 2nd inversion.”


Of course.

Isn't it great that we agree on so much.

The problem with learning chords in that way, is that its fingering is only of use in the key of C.

If one learns to finger that chord without the G, utilising only the second, third and fourth fingers to stop notes, then using the first finger to Barre. That chord shape is suddenly playable in every key on the fingerboard.

Amazingly, it is possible for guitarists to play in any key whatever, utilising muscle memory they have already established, enabling them to deploy musically augmenting key changes mid song and modulate to completely different, none adjacent keys.

Performing without the need of a capo.

What a revolution!


At a tenderly young age, (I think he was seven at the time), with a mere two days notice. My son was given a complex piece to perform, written in Ab, stood in front of a very crowded church.

Because he learnt chords in the manner and with the fingering outlined above, using the system described, he was able to do so very competently indeed, without the aid of a capo.

With the greatest possible respect, it seems to me that some are dismissive of the system for theoretical and sematic reasons.

With no experience whatever or genuine appreciation of its impressive potential benefits.

I have which is purely why I mentioned it.

It certainly helped me!



Quote: “But it won't be "because the root is on the second string It will because you played a G on the E string, putting the 5th in the basse:“



None of these points are in dispute, at least not by me.

I hope you are appreciative of the fundamental harmony that being emanated here.

It simply appears that some are merely discounting a former method of imagining chords. Because it fails to conform with standard music theory.

Many years ago, my group was greatly helped by a wonderful man called Rupert Neve, the inventor of the Large Format Recording Console.

Everyone throughout the world sought his consoles as they were regarded as sounding far better and more musical than any other.

I recall him saying that there were many things that as a recording studio audio designer you couldn’t do.

But untrained theoretically as he was, he didn’t know that.

So went ahead and did them.


For sure, this was a problem for competitors.

In the same way that the massive success of the chord book was not that it had that much anyway.

I appreciate how difficult this must be for some. A gentleman that worked with my father, had the notion to put the engine into a car, sideways. Crazily, it sold well!

Sometimes things that just seem so wrong. Things that make solidly thinking folk who understand how things rightly should be, throw their hands up in horror.

Actually, work rather well in practise.

Must be very annoying!


Quote: “The error could be in the book or it could be in your paraphrasing of the book.”


Forgive me for writing this, but to be clear, I am a conductor and studied musical theory, musical form and performance, musical arranging and orchestration, in addition to studying conducting.

My description of the books use of terms, is precisely as it occurred. If you think about it, the idea of the root being on the 1st, 2nd and 3rd String is a very strong one, along with the use of the word inversion.

As I explained earlier, I approach and relate to musicians differently, according to their instrument.
My whole philosophy is to create a working environment and frame work where the musicians feel they are in an ideal opportunity, to perform at their very best.

Of course, I am really hoping they will reward my efforts on their behalf, by exceeding that and surprising even themselves.


Quote: ”So were all just guessing and talking past each other”


I don’t think so.

And am certainly not guessing, speaking for myself.

But some, in wanting to ensure a correct understating of musical theory which is good itself.

Have perhaps wandered into the field of arguing semantics, desiring perfection in the use of theoretical musical terminology.


In my minds eye, I can imagine them arguing with their lead guitarist, about the whammy arm on their instrument.

“Surely, it’s a vibrato arm?”

“Well…. Some call it a tremolo arm.”

“But tremolo is related to fluctuations in volume.

Vibrato is related to fluctuations in pitch, a different thing altogether.”

“Vibrato, tremolo, we all use different words, maybe incorrectly, the thing is, everyone really knows what we are actually talking about. That's the important thing”

“It’s really, a whammy bar!”


I’m beginning to understand why the Band Management Forum is always as it it is.

For myself and important as it is, I always saw the rudiments and theory of music as merely a means to a far greater end. Rather than a complete and utter end in itself which seem the bent of some.

The world is made up of differing people and we must accept the fact that those of a legalistic disposition, will want to ensure that everyone properly adheres to the basic understanding, we all grasped, in year one.

I am delighted they have such a good grounding, but live in the optimistic hope that as time goes on they might both visualise and reach beyond that basic starting point. Ideals are like the stars, we may never reach them, but O how we benefit from their presence!


I think the many positive contributions of a plethora excellent posters in this thread, could be helpfully enlightening to the original poster, and trust that is indeed so.


The problem with teaching music is that so many of its aspects are highly complex and technical in nature.

This is similar to the problem faced by ministers and preachers as Biblical theology involves tremendous depth and is equally complex, if not more so.

But great ministers, Bible teachers and preachers have the gift of making incredibly complex and hard to understand truths; readily comprehensible to the simplest minds. Ordinary people, completely lacking in theological training.


It’s just my opinion.

Discard it if you prefer to.

But I think that great music teachers.

Have the same gift as great ministers and preachers.

They make what is profoundly deep and complex, relevant and easy to understand.

There’s no contradiction between those two statements mambo4 made. I respectfully submit that you may not have fully understood what he was saying.

And as a simple request (it’s no more than that): When you address a specific point, it would help the rest of us—and no doubt get more readers—if you could keep the posts shorter and more directly addressed to the point at issue. As I’m sure you know, TL;DR is really a thing on the internet.