-
Hey. As a jazz pianist beginning playing guitar I wonder if I should learn all the chords by shapes, or memorise all the notes on the fretboard, and then construct the chords from there. Im very good at constructing chords in my head. Will not the ability to construct all the chords using my knowledges of where the notes are, be better in the long term? Especially when I want to invert the chords, and add colour tones.
I do know many of you guitar players have learnt your chords by memorising the shapes required. But for me it would seem easier learning all the notes location (which would be good anyways) and then construct the chords from that.
My strategy of constructing chords will also force me to remember the shapes after constructing them times after times. Making me able to plat them quicker
-
09-12-2023 10:16 PM
-
If you go the note route, you'll have to reinvent the wheel, or so it would seem to somebody who went the grip route.
But, the question is whether that reinvention is a bug or a feature.
I think it's both.
Depends on what you're trying to do. The note route allows you to create on the fly. The grips allows you to read a chart with a lot of chord changes without having to stop and think. Of course, enough practice with the notes is going to get to grips eventually anyway.
-
My goal is really just to play jazz standards from fake books solo. With both melody and chords. So inverting chords to fit the melody seems like a must to me. And standard chord shapes wouldn't maybe work for that?
-
Inversions are commonly used and I'd consider them to be standard chord shapes.
Originally Posted by jazzpazz
You'd reinvent those wheels, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.
-
I look at it like this:
Mechanical aspect: shapes, fingering, location
Sonic aspect: knowing the sound when you hear it and before you play it
Descriptive aspect: names of notes, intervals, function, etc.
The more ways you know something, the better the chance something will kick in in real time playing.
Although guitar has a trickier layout than piano it shares a common feature. Notes that are structural close to each other are also physically close. So a root can be a reference for 7, b7, b9,9. The 5th can be a reference for #11, 11, b13,13, etc.
That said start with whatever gets you playing the music you are interested in the quickest.
Add on as you go.
-
It's really not the most practical way to think of notes on the guitar. It is much more fitting to the instrument to think of degrees, root, 3rd,5th,7th, all the tensions etc, and shapes. Then you just use note knowledge to connect them to the fretboard, and move them around for different keys. Of course in the process you do learn where the notes are, but it's not what you primarily use to play.
For example, play a Db minor scale, or Pentatonic. I have classical friends who actually think of Db Eb Fb Gb Ab Bbb Cb , but it's so easier to think of a simple shape and know where your degrees are (so five movable shapes altogether to cover the whole fretboard and every key). Try soloing over a blues going a minor third up each cycle, it would be theory hell if you go by notes..
-
Learn the shape of the scale over the fretboard. No need to split it into 5 segments, try 3 - easier for the mind.
Then learn the shape of the base degrees of the arp of desired chord inside that scale.
That way you can pick the notes you want the chord to have and you can get a bunch of them in one go.Last edited by emanresu; 09-13-2023 at 03:18 AM.
-
Originally Posted by jazzpazz
As a pianist, if someone says 'Play an A minor' what do you do? What goes on mentally? Do you construct the chord note by note or simply know where to put your fingers yet also knowing what those notes are at the same time?
Same with the guitar. It's not really either/or. Shapes are the easiest way to find a chord but you need to know what the notes are too. Inversions are also shapes, usually added to one's knowledge after the basic chords are understood.
As Alter said, if we tried to understand each chord note by note it wouldn't really work. Nor would it work if we saw only a shape without knowing what the notes were.
So both are necessary although finding a chord by its shape is undoubtedly easier at the beginning. Instantly knowing all the notes all over the neck comes a lot later, I'd say.
(It's actually harder on the guitar. On a piano there's only one key for each note but the patterns repeat going up or down. On a guitar the same note can be found in several different places. Harder at first but very useful later)
-
Shapes typically mean two things. One meaning is grips that are dot patterns on the fretboard. I think the worst thing you can do is to learn chords and scales just as dot patterns especially if you're interested in creating solo arrangements from fake books (or jazz improvisation). Another meaning of shapes is intervallic relationships with respect to the chord-of-the-moment.
For example let's take a common dominant 13 voicing:
x
5
4
4
3
x
This chord is a rootless (and fifthless), third inversion, drop 2, D13. There are three different ways to view a shape like this:
- A grip that goes two frets below where you would normally put a cowboy dominant (common view among guitarists outside of jazz).
- A grip that's a third inversion dominant. 7th in the base. Then 3rd, 6th and 9th. Secondarily, you can quickly figure out that these are the notes C, F#, B and E if you need to.
- The notes C, F#, B, and E. Then you'd also quickly figure out the intervals.
In jazz, most use the second or the third view as their default. But on guitar the second view is very natural because it's quickly applicable to all dominants. Moreover the ability to have instant access to these intervallic relationships is relevant to any scale or a chord in any area of the fretboard.
Of course that doesn't mean that you don't have access the these voicings as grips but the question is how transparent these shapes are.Last edited by Tal_175; 09-13-2023 at 10:10 AM.
-
It's a both/and principle.
When arranging stuff, you have to know the notes. Not really too much of a way around it. I suppose you could just do everything by ear, but...
When playing and improvising, shapes are useful. And knowing extensions and where they are in relationship to those shapes.
So like in the moment, knowing where a 6th is in relationship to the chord of the moment and how to add it is more important than knowing the exact name of that note. Does that make sense?
-
You want to talk to forum member Pauln, he was also proficient at piano then learned guitar. Originally Posted by jazzpazz
-
A few have said it above that thinking in degrees works really well on guitar. I think that blends nicely with shapes, and eventually the notes start to show themselves as well. So it's not a matter of shapes vs notes vs degrees, I think it's a matter of when you learn each. Guitar lends itself very nicely to shapes which make learning degrees (1st, 3rd, 5th...) easier within the shape, which leads to learning the names of the degrees within the shape (notes). If that makes any sense at all I would say shapes come first and for some that's all they need...let the instrument do what it naturally does very well.
-
simple first.. close voiced triads and their inversions on all string sets and positions..in all keys..do it system wise .. circle of fifths a good place to start
lots of stuff online for this kind of study
I would get some guitar grids and draw the chord shapes..it reinforces muscle memory and eye/ear connection
also if you can write/read notation..write this stuff ..(in all keys) again reinforce eye/ear connection
hope this helps
-
The idea of mapping a grip/shape to a specific chord voicing is only the beginning of the process of learning harmony on the guitar. Any note in a shape is potentially the root of the chord, plus notes that aren't in the chord can also be the root. As you play more, you internalize this and eventually stop thinking of shapes as rigidly mapped to specific chord names/voicings. For example: Originally Posted by jazzpazz
Consider Dmin7b5 voiced x454x (D Ab F C). This shape is often used for Bb9 with the 3rd in the bass or an Fmin6 with the 6th in the bass. Don't play the D (or slide it back a fret) and you have a DbMaj7. Now slide that up two frets, and you have a rootless Bb13 or B6 (Bb G D). Etc., etc.
So, start with the idea shapes as root position voicings, then learn to see them as voicings of something other than the lowest note in the chord, and then eventually take the next step of somewhat dropping the idea of shapes and thinking about harmonizing beneath a top line. It's a process, that begins with shapes.
-
Some thoughts, keeping in mind my piano experience was formal lessons and theory for six years reading classical music, not playing by ear, blues, or jazz (so I can't say much there). When I began the guitar I resolved to teach myself everything by ear, and that has always worked very well for me. Here are some ramblings that may be helpful to a pianist coming to the guitar, at least I hope something here is enlightening...
The Similarities between the piano and the guitar
Concert pitch
In stock form, both are non-transposing instruments with respect to concert pitch class (however, music notation for guitar is written an octave higher than the sounded pitches so as to allow reading in a single clef)
Eyes
Both instruments may be played without looking with enough time and experience
Differences between the piano and the guitar
Hands
Piano uses both hands mechanically in similar ways, musically in different ways
Guitars uses the hands mechanically and musically in entirely different ways
Pitches
Piano has 88 pitches, each unique to a specific key of the keyboard
Guitar has about half that many usable pitches (depending on the guitar), the majority of which may be sounded from multiple finger board locations (some up to five locations)
Notes and Intervals
Pianists learn that notes are named for the line or space occupied by the mark in the staff only, independent of key signature or accidentals, so Gbb, Gb, G, G#, and G## are all "G" and all the same note because they all occupy the same line or space. Likewise pianist learn that interval names are based on the distance between notes, not the distance between pitches.
Guitarists in practice do not hold to this part of music theory very much and casually equate pitches and notes, so they may call Gb and G two different notes but then call Gb and F# the same note. Likewise, guitarists may name intervals based on the distance between pitches rather than distance between notes.
Pro tip: never trust the called key declared by guitarists whose instrument has been subjected to any of the following (application of a capo, alternate tuning, down tuning of either standard tuning or alternate tuning)
Scales
Pianists know scales as notes from a key signature perspective (diatonic scales featuring one and only one of each of the seven note names, this enabled and enforced by the application of the key signature).
Guitarists think less in terms of key signature and more in terms of scale degrees, with less concern about absolute note name convention.
Chords
Inversions, extensions, alterations, close forms, non-root bottoms, polychords, etc. are potentially mechanically "straight forward" for the pianist in ways they may not be for the guitarist. Further, operationally, the guitarist's assignment of tone roles in a chord (is it a 2 or a 9?) depends on the span ( and implied span when accompanied) of the chord. The guitar easily plays chords spanning two octaves, many forms of which use degrees of 1 5 1 or 1 5 7 on strings 6 5 4 which may serve as either the chord tone octave or the bass octave, where the strings 3 2 1 would be respectively the extension octave or the chord tone octave. In the former, a pitch would be the 9, but in the latter it would be the 2. This is subject to change depending on if the guitarist is playing alone or with a band. This only gets less straight forward conceptually as one adopts using smaller rootless chords of extensions or alterations.
Shapes
The piano offers pseudo-patterns for the same thing played in different keys (the mathematical relationships between the keys of the keyboard are isomorphic but not physically the same because of the black/white keys - C major triad and D major triad have the same "schematic structure", but the actual fingering is different... could be the same three fingers but not placed in the same way).
On the guitar, most things formed and played may be transposed directly by shifts of hand placement with the fingers keeping the identical relative form. In this sense the C and D triads are the same thing in two different places, that same thing being the shape.
Knowing
On the piano, unless the piece has no use of black keys, one's hands always know where they are and the names of any notes played because the fingers feel their place with respect to the proximity of the two and three key sets of black keys. That is to say, when playing the piano, you can't really play a pitch without implicitly knowing what key was pressed down.
On the guitar, apart from open strings and their natural node harmonics, one can play a pitch and truly not know which fret and possibly which string produced the pitch. That is to say, it is possible to play the guitar from anything from moments to all evening not only not knowing, but not having to know (if you don't mind not knowing).
Sounds
Taking into account all the above, some additional differences emerge on the guitar
- string sets of chords, harmonic series of chord patterns, and scales
The strings 6 5 4 as the source of roots and tonics of chords and scales (even when not sounded) allow one to play light sounds, more sturdy sounds, or heavy thumpy sounds depending where on the neck, and these patterns or shapes may be quite different despite sounding the identical pitches in the same order or relative structure.
- limitations of harmonic structures based on the intervals between strings and practical fingering orientations
- harmonics generated from the natural nodes of the open strings or forced by fretting a string and touching it a fourth above to sound a harmonic an octave above the fretted pitch or slapping the strings against the frets with the picking hand index or pinky.
- various mechanical techniques that the piano does not do; hammer-on, pull-off, bends, vibrato, damping (partial, not full like piano pedal), volume swells, etc.
Hope this helps
Last edited by pauln; 09-13-2023 at 10:17 PM.
-
I can't think fast enough to try to remember all the notes in a chord and find them on the guitar, and probably couldn't even if all the notes were in one place like on a piano. Knowing shapes and patterns makes it easy to play in different keys. Of course, knowing where the notes are is also necessary for many kinds of playing, but I don't have time to keep up with all of them when playing rhythm at a brisk tempo. Muscle memory is essential for me. Sometimes I don't even consciously think of the chord I'm going to, I just rely on knowing connected patterns. It all depends on the song and the context. I don't do much chord melody solo playing, so I can't say much about that. N.B. I'm not a teacher, and my advice on playing should always be taken with liberal amounts of salt.
-
This is what the OP really wants. In other words, he wants to learn chord melody. And, from his piano playing, he knows that it's not just a question of playing root chords below the melody but also using various inversions, fragments, inner voices, and so on. Originally Posted by jazzpazz
Chord melody is a big subject and not an easy one. He really needs to start at the beginning with a book or a teacher to do it properly. And, before that, learn the guitar as an instrument. Luckily, being a pianist, he won't have to start learning notation so that's a great benefit.
Incidentally, where is he? Perhaps he's been showered with so much complicated information already that he's run for the hills :-)
-
Most of what can probably be said has been said here already, and it’s becoming a very useful thread.
To sift and sort what is relevant for me, I think of the context. As an amateur jazz guitarist who’s in it mostly for fun and to participate in musical social activities (with no aspiration to go pro or play like a pro), my context for the past five or so years is twofold: playing chord melodies in intimate gatherings (a tune or two for family and friends, or casual dinners and parties) or publicly at open mic nights; and playing standards with friends and strangers in open jam sessions at several local venues.
For chord melodies, I start with the melody only and then add a few notes here and there to suggest or outline the harmony. I first learned this approach from Bill Frisell, from an old instructional video floating around YT, in which he takes “Days of Wine and Roses” through the motions, emphasizing “melody, melody, melody.” Once I understood that minimalist approach, it changed how I work up chord melodies. For a thicker, more maximalist sound (a la Tony Mottola), full shapes, though possibly more limiting, will sometimes work better. So I use both shapes and notes governed by context.
For jam sessions, which are spontaneous and unpredictable, either lead sheets are handed out (by singers usually in their preferred keys) or tunes are called from a common repertoire that, at least for me, means having to read on the fly if I want to play music with others. In Japan, where I live, charts are common and acceptable at open jam sessions. We’ll use the two volume “Jazz Standard Bible,” which has melodies and chords similar to the “Real Book,” or iReal Pro for chords only, and take turns calling tunes. When comping a tune on the fly, I tend to use shapes at first. Once a tune is internalized (some never are for me) then I try using both notes and shapes depending on the tune and the situation. For improvisation, I’ll start with variations on the melody, then chord tones and then patterns and lines, depending on the tune, the key and the tempo.
So, to concur with and extend what has already been said, perhaps it’s good to take a both/and rather than an either/or approach, and being clear about the context helps to decided which to use and when.
-
I happen to think it's handy to learn in chord shapes to get a good "mapping" of the entire fingerboard, where the linear scale relates to the shape of the repeating fingerboard. Then I think it's really important to go back to the individual regions of the roots, look at the scale map created at each portion of the fretboard. In this second part I found working with dyads and intervals was really good for the ear, and breaking down a chord into thinking in individual voices.
THere's a proximal aspect to learning how to chord.
There's a kinesthetic aspect to learning how to play chords.
There's an aural aspect to combining chord voices into the movement that makes for good comping.
I found that this method is good for addressing the way I learned how to play chords, melody and chord melody. It was a little more work but it gave me freedom so I didn't have to unlearn grab habits as my ear developed.
But that was just what worked for me.
-
This is solid advice. You can build on a triad once you know all the shapes and inversions. Originally Posted by wolflen
-
Dawgbone - you're back. Good. I thought you were dead
-
Im still here guys, haven't run for the hills yet!
I was asked in this thread how I think when playing piano. What I do there is constructing every chord (which goes really quick once you're good at it) and arranging it in different voicings. When I've pieced it together I then work playing it quickly.
I have now after some intense mental memorisation managed to get all the notes on the guitar in my head. So now I as I improve I should be able to that same thing on guitar (in theory
)
But it will be pretty heavy theory/intellectual way of playing. Maybe it won't work, and ill end up learning the "shapes" first instead
-
Glad you're back.
Learning the shapes means learning the sounds of the chord types of those shapes. Since everywhere is generally isomorphic on the finger board (same shape is same chord type), the sounds of interest are the changes. That is, the sound of a chord change mapped as a change between two shapes and their relative positions.
That's why people mention the physical, dynamic, kinesthetic feel of the shapes and their relative positions... when you finger a chord and hear the chord type and its function in the progression, your hand and ear kind of potentially feel and hear the shapes and sounds of the other chord shapes around it.
I imagine a similar thing happens with the piano, but the chord form fingering shapes on the keyboard are only approximately isomorphic across different keys (although with experience, theory, and mental gear grinding you can kind of force the conception). The thing is, anywhere on the guitar's finger board where you aren't running out of finger board, the shape relationships stay the same across keys, but to really take advantage of that relationship one needs to learn to hear the relative mapping of the shapes and their relative positions to the chord type and function sounds - map the shapes to the sounds of the chords, imagine you can sing with your hands.
-
Oh, I would have done! :-) Originally Posted by jazzpazz
Absolutely. Probably, like most things, it's a question of familiarity. Don't forget nearly all chord shapes of whatever kind are moveable on guitar. If you know, say, a Dm7 at the 5th fret then you know where a Dbm7 and an Ebm7 are, and so on.constructing every chord (which goes really quick once you're good at it)
Personally, I didn't learn any of them in abstraction, I couldn't have done it that way. I learnt them by making my own backing tracks in various keys and then by having to improvise over them. It doesn't take long to know where, say, an AbM7 is and what the notes you're playing are, often because those same notes are used in other chords too. Gradually the 'network' becomes clear and connected.
But I didn't try to rush it either, just did one thing at a time. Knowing the notes was never an end in itself, it came about naturally through application.
Well, I can hear voices saying 'we're all different and different people do it different ways', etc, but I doubt it. It's done by repetition and familiarity over time. Even if one did it as a memorization exercise it would still have to be applied afterwards. So one may as well save time and energy by diving straight in.I have now after some intense mental memorisation managed to get all the notes on the guitar in my head. So now I as I improve I should be able to that same thing on guitar (in theory)
But it will be pretty heavy theory/intellectual way of playing. Maybe it won't work, and ill end up learning the "shapes" first instead
Learn as you go, it's honestly much more effective. Find a tune you like and start working it out. You'll be there in no time.
-
I’m sure everything had already been said but I think with guitar you kind of have to start with grips to some extent. Maybe I’m wrong… but it’s very visual.
This is why guitarists are stereotypically poor musicians. In the long term you have to grow beyond this, but I think it’s a pretty essential stage for learning the chords and scales and so on.
Reply With Quote
Melody between melody
Today, 03:25 AM in Chord-Melody