m6 or dim

[ragman1]

Correct. I’m rather better at turning a phrase.

Good job I'm here to point it out. Might give some folks the wrong impression.

I think you mean Freddie Green.

Oops, don't know where I got that from. Corrected.

And the multiple chords a bar stuff is a sort of yes and no.

I know. I use shells and it's definitely not Freddie Green stuff! Although I once did a very speedy version of Rhythm Changes that way.

No one said “substituting.” I said “starting with.”

I said substituting because that's what shells are. They're shortened forms of full chords. Starting with them is a bit like teaching people to write English using text-speak. Not very smart. Or nt vy smrt if you think it's more fun

And I specifically said you have to learn harmony too. And shells are actually a great way of making harmony visible on the fretboard because big voicings obscure that.

That's not a bad point. Although in that case the shells are being used for demonstration purposes which is not quite the same as using them instead of full chords in actual playing.

Mind you, a lot of jazz chord voicings are already short forms of, say, six-string chords. I'm absolutely including that when I say 'full chords'.

Do yr thng

I'm trying!

[pamosmusic]

I said substituting because that's what shells are. They're shortened forms of full chords. Starting with them is a bit like teaching people to write English using text-speak. Not very smart. Or nt vy smrt if you think it's more fun !

Or it’s like teaching people to write English by using short words before long.

[pamosmusic]

No, it's actually not. Short words like cat, dog and ball are not 'shell words', they're proper words. Teaching people Em, Am, D is not teaching them short chords, they're proper chords, albeit easy ones.

You teach proper words first, then abbreviations, not the other way round.

This might be new and radical … but music isn’t perfectly analogous to language.

G and Em etc all have more than one of most pitches. So why are they “proper” chords when shell voicings aren’t?

Again … if someone actually knows what notes are in a chord, then I still fail to see the problem with teaching shell chords first.

I do, however, see the problem with having students flounder with comparatively difficult chords just because they contain notes that aren’t really essential to the way the progression works.

[ragman1]

I deleted my post in your quote before I saw your reply because I wanted to simplify it. Doesn't matter.

No, yours is a typical theory-based answer which is clever in hindsight. You're finding reasons to justify teaching the wrong thing to people. It may make theoretical sense to the teacher but the student doesn't have that advantage. He just thinks goody, I can play jazz with these nice little chords.

Boy, is he in for a surprise.

[pamosmusic]

I deleted my post in your quote before I saw your reply because I wanted to simplify it. Doesn't matter.

No, yours is a typical theory-based answer which is clever in hindsight. You're finding reasons to justify teaching the wrong thing to people. It may make theoretical sense to the teacher but the student doesn't have that advantage. He just thinks goody, I can play jazz with these nice little chords.

Boy, is he in for a surprise.

Lol.

I suggest starting students off with something they can play, and give them the requisite understanding to know what they’re actually doing.

You insist that’s ridiculous because they’re not “real chords” and that they have to play at least four-note chords because they’re “real chords” and have no other real reason for it besides principle.

My guy … yours is the “theory based” answer.

Mine is practical, based on what works and what people actually play in the real world.

But again. Do your thing.

[pamosmusic]

I’ll have to check back in with Christian on “berkishness”

Then again, I might find I fit the definition too.

[J.C.]

Again … if someone actually knows what notes are in a chord, then I still fail to see the problem with teaching shell chords first.

I do, however, see the problem with having students flounder with comparatively difficult chords just because they contain notes that aren’t really essential to the way the progression works.

As a beginner jazz player (not a beginner guitar player) I probably shouldn't be anywhere near this conversation, but I 100% agree with the above statement.
If I had no knowledge at all about chord structure then it wouldn't be wise for me to start off learning shells. I understand that I also need to learn and play the full chords, but shells allow me to start playing now, which makes me want to play more and stick with it.
No harm meant to anyone...just my opinion.

[ragman1]

(not a beginner guitar player)

If I had no knowledge at all about chord structure then it wouldn't be wise for me to start off learning shells.

I hope he sees what you're saying :-)

[pamosmusic]

I hope he sees what you're saying :-)

Of course I see what he’s saying.

I also see what you’re saying.

But apparently you can’t see what I’m saying:

… and give them the requisite understanding to know what they’re actually doing.

Again … if someone actually knows what notes are in a chord, then I still fail to see the problem with teaching shell chords first.

And I specifically said you have to learn harmony too.

I think also to address Ragman’s concern, I don’t think you need the big chords first. But you definitely do need to know what notes are in those chord so that you can interpret what’s going on.

[ragman1]

So you're modifying what is essentially a rather back-to-front way of teaching with a lot of verbal, theoretical explanations about notes, note values, intervals, and so on. To a beginner would that be useful?

Wouldn't it be easier to start with the sort of chords they need rather than make one doubtful move the necessity for another?

[pamosmusic]

So you're modifying what is essentially a rather back-to-front way of teaching with theoretical explanations about notes, note values, intervals, and so on. To a beginner would that be useful?

Wouldn't it be easier to start with the sort of chords they need rather than make one doubtful move the necessity for another?

Ah yes, that’s exactly what I’m doing.

The chords they need.

Those would be shell voicings.

And beginners? No. Jazz beginners? Sure.

[ragman1]

To me that sounds like you're just sticking rigidly to a conclusion. And it's a conclusion that JC, who's actually been through all this (unlike yourself who learnt the ordinary chords first) doesn't support.

[pamosmusic]

To me that sounds like you're just sticking rigidly to a conclusion. And it's a conclusion that JC, who's actually been through all this (unlike yourself who learnt the ordinary chords first) doesn't support.

Oh Ragman.

[ragman1]

That's not an answer.

[pamosmusic]

That's not an answer.

You didn’t ask a question.

[ragman1]

It was a statement that would assume a response within the discussion. More than 'Oh, Ragman', that is.

[mr. beaumont]

OK, I got it...no more beginner theory questions.
I just found this site that will analize any chord I put in. Guitar Chord Analyzer (Chord Namer/Identifier)
I should have done that first.

Again, thanks to all who helped with my question.

No, please continue to ask here.

Those sites are the absolute worst.

[AllanAllen]

No, please continue to ask here.

Those sites are the absolute worst.

Are they really worse than the latest 3 page argument between Peter and Ragman?

[pamosmusic]

Are they really worse than the latest 3 page argument between Peter and Ragman?

It's a tie, probably.

[ragman1]

Are they really worse than the latest 3 page argument between Peter and Ragman?

It's an argument/discussion with a reason and purpose, it's not just stupid bickering. You seem to be a bit sensitive to robust exchanges. Shut your eyes if it all gets too much for you :-)

[mr. beaumont]

I prefer the arguments, at least they're entertaining.

[Bobby Timmons]

Peter vs ragman.

[ragman1]

Not really a contest if you ask me

[pamosmusic]

Peter vs ragman.

unstoppable force

immovable objection

[ragman1]

unstoppable force

immovable objection

Er, who is which? Is mine the same as a berk?