# removing the third altogether, what's that called?



## Greg Ellis

So thirty something years into playing guitar I'm finally, slowly beginning to wrap my head around theory.

I'm curious about something tho.

In the cowboy positions, we're all familiar with the A major and A minor chords lie this:

A major = A(root), E(5th), A, C#(major 3rd), E
A minor = A(root), E(5th), A, C (minor 3rd), E

It's that 3rd that defines the chord as major or minor, if I understand correctly.

What happens when I take the third away entirely, and replace it with a B? I guess that's a 2nd?

A ??? = A(root), E(5th), A, B (2nd?), E

I use that chord a LOT, generally as a substitute for the major, probably because jamming all three fingers into that tiny space is a pain, lol.

What is that chord called, and what are the implications of removing the 3rd completely? Does it become a neutral chord, that is neither major nor minor?

Sorry if this is a total newb question - I'm new at this side of things.


----------



## Guest

this one?


----------



## Woof

You are in sus chord land  I am not a theorist but I believe that if you replace the 3rd of the 1-3-5 triad with a 2nd like that you will have Asus2. Similarly if you replace the 3rd with the 4th (D) you will get Asus4.

So working only with the 3rd, C# is the major
Flatted 3rd C is the minor
Replace 3rd with 2nd B is Sus2
Replace 3rd with 4th D is Sus4

Theory drives me crazy...


----------



## jeremy_green

Yes, it is like a power chord, neither major nor minor .... when played in a vacuum. If you use that chord in a sequence though it will take on the function of the chord you replaced... Depending on what other players in the band do will determine ultimately whether it is major or minor.


----------



## Guitar101

I don't get into theory but this is convenient for finding the name of chords. (Don't forget to place a note at '0' if you strum the open string and 'x' if you don't.)

http://www.all-guitar-chords.com/chord_name.php


----------



## Woof

Guitar101 said:


> I don't get into theory but this is convenient for finding the name of chords. (Don't forget to place a note at '0' if you strum the open string and 'x' if you don't.)
> 
> http://www.all-guitar-chords.com/chord_name.php


Well that's a handy site, could save me a lot of time trying to figure out intervals and such


----------



## washburned

Doesn't seem to work with chords up the fretboard


My bad...have to get right up next to the fret.


----------



## Robert1950

To simple guy like me? A Power Chord.


----------



## dodgechargerfan

laristotle said:


> this one?


A favourite chord of Alex Lifeson.


----------



## RobQ

That's a A5sus2

Without the B it's an A5


----------



## snacker

that is an Aadd9 chord or technically an Aadd9(no3rd)

sus2 refers to a chord where the root has been "sus"pended to a 2nd in the same way that a sus4 has has the 3rd suspended to a 4th


----------



## RobQ

Never heard of suspending the root before. Usually it's the third. But I would still notate it a5sus2 for clarity.


----------



## bw66

snacker said:


> that is an Aadd9 chord or technically an Aadd9(no3rd)
> 
> sus2 refers to a chord where the root has been "sus"pended to a 2nd in the same way that a sus4 has has the 3rd suspended to a 4th


I respectfully disagree, a suspended chord is one where you replace the third (major or minor) with the major second or fourth. 

And (not that it's definitive) Wikipedia agrees: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspended_chord 9kkhhd


----------



## snacker

bw66 said:


> I respectfully disagree, a suspended chord is one where you replace the third (major or minor) with the major second or fourth.
> 
> And (not that it's definitive) Wikipedia agrees: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspended_chord 9kkhhd



hmmm...
and i thought i was always right 
cheers!


----------



## bw66

snacker said:


> hmmm...
> and i thought i was always right
> cheers!


For me, it feels good to be right - I have a nine year-old daughter!


----------



## Woof

bw66 said:


> I respectfully disagree, a suspended chord is one where you replace the third (major or minor) with the major second or fourth.
> 
> And (not that it's definitive) Wikipedia agrees: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspended_chord 9kkhhd


And I think that's what I said


----------



## dradlin

An add9 chord contains a major third.

You will often see, for example, a Cadd9 written as C2 which is different than a Csus2.


----------



## Jim DaddyO

So many answers, no wonder I don't get theory.


----------



## greco

snacker said:


> hmmm...
> and i thought i was always right
> cheers!


I remember three years ago, on a Tuesday, when you were wrong.

Cheers

Dave


----------



## bw66

Jim DaddyO said:


> So many answers, no wonder I don't get theory.


Baby steps. Too many people try to understand it all at once.


----------



## jeremy_green

Jim DaddyO said:


> So many answers, no wonder I don't get theory.


There really isn't a lot of answers... same ones really. 

The issue is always there is a lot of misinformation or individual views. Problem is, many of them are valid! ... Just maybe not the accepted convention. 

For example the sus2 vs add9 example.. 
In C, the note D is the second note ... but using the numeral "2" is less common... The same note D (because there are 8 tones in the major scale then it repeats) is ALSO the 9th. Same note - 2 names ... so does the 11 (same note name as a 4th), 13 (same note same as 6th) So many people see the inclusion of the note D and simply think of it as a 9 instead of a 2. It is really both.

Usually it is the notes octave that determines how it is named. 

C*D*EFGABCDEF... (this is the 2nd)
CDEFGABC*D*EF... (this is the 9th)

So on a piano, if you play a C Major chord and add the note right beside the C key (D) then this is a add2... However if you add the D that sits 8 keys away instead it is now an add9. Pretty clear really. This is why piano players have less confusion. On guitar, because of the layout playing a C and its neighbour D at the same time is quite a stretch... SO many chords get inverted and shoved all over the place fingering wise - which causes the confusion.

So you are likely not confused with theory ... more theory as it relates to a guitar.


----------



## Mooh

jeremy_green said:


> So on a piano, if you play a C Major chord and add the note right beside the C key (D) then this is a sus2... .


Sorry, no, to be a Csus2 the D has to r*eplace *the E. Csus2 is "spelled" CDG. What you described is either a Cadd2 or Cadd9, depending on the voicing.

Peace, Mooh.


----------



## Robert1950

Look at the 9th in the example by jeremy_green. If you augment it, raise it a half tone, you what has been referred to as the Jimi Hendrix chord, although I heard it used by players like Steve Cropper and Dom Troiano long before I heard Jimi.


----------



## jeremy_green

Mooh said:


> Sorry, no, to be a Csus2 the D has to r*eplace *the E. Csus2 is "spelled" CDG. What you described is either a Cadd2 or Cadd9, depending on the voicing.
> 
> Peace, Mooh.


Nice catch! Yes I didn't word that correctly.... going too fast. I edited the response.


----------



## Jim DaddyO

sus = replace the 3rd? (whether with the 2nd or 4th does not matter)


----------



## 4345567

__________


----------



## Mooh

jeremy_green said:


> Nice catch! Yes I didn't word that correctly.... going too fast. I edited the response.


I wondered. No worries.

Peace, Mooh.


----------



## washburned

another thing I've noticed is that chords with add numbers above the octave, e.g. 9th, 11th, 13th are built on a 7th chord structure while those below are built on a major, i.e.1-3-5 triad.


----------



## Mooh

washburned said:


> another thing I've noticed is that chords with add numbers above the octave, e.g. 9th, 11th, 13th are built on a 7th chord structure while those below are built on a major, i.e.1-3-5 triad.


Yes, if the number is 7 or higher, it contains the flat 7th (ie, dominant 7th). Eg, C7 is "spelled" CEGBb; C9 is spelled CEGBbD. C6 is spelled CEGA.

Peace, Mooh.


----------



## Guitar101

Well, you guys have got me thoroughly confused so if I see any of these cords in any sheet music. I'm just going to move along to another songs that's easier to play. Life is way too short.


----------



## jeremy_green

Guitar101 said:


> Well, you guys have got me thoroughly confused so if I see any of these cords in any sheet music. I'm just going to move along to another songs that's easier to play. Life is way too short.


Is this a joke or are you being serious?


----------



## Mooh

Guitar101 said:


> Well, you guys have got me thoroughly confused so if I see any of these cords in any sheet music. I'm just going to move along to another songs that's easier to play. Life is way too short.


No need to be confused, a good chord chart or book is all you need.

Try this one: Hal Leonard Guitar Chords Deluxe: http://www.amazon.ca/Guitar-Chords-Deluxe-Full-Color-Diagrams/dp/0634073893

Peace, Mooh.


----------



## Guest

this online source is simple too.


----------



## Guitar101

jeremy_green said:


> Is this a joke or are you being serious?


A little of both. I'll leave the tough songs for you young fellas.


----------



## jeremy_green

Guitar101 said:


> A little of both. I'll leave the tough songs for you young fellas.


Ha! Come on man!!! Step up your game with us : )


----------



## Greg Ellis

You've got to admit, it's pretty dense and cryptic.

I don't know how long I thought a major 7 chord and a minor 7 chord probably had some different sort of "7" in them. I think it's natural to assume that, based on the names, no?

I understand now, that it's really the 3rd that goes major or minor, while the 7 stays put. 

Perhaps they should have called it a D maj3 add7? Grin. Just for clarity.


----------



## jeremy_green

Greg Ellis said:


> You've got to admit, it's pretty dense and cryptic.
> 
> I don't know how long I thought a major 7 chord and a minor 7 chord probably had some different sort of "7" in them. I think it's natural to assume that, based on the names, no?
> 
> I understand now, that it's really the 3rd that goes major or minor, while the 7 stays put.
> 
> Perhaps they should have called it a D maj3 add7? Grin. Just for clarity.


Well, I am certainly no brain surgeon.... so if I can learn it, I am pretty certain most can.

It actually is quite logical, the problem is most people learn it in such a fragmented manner. What a horrible way to acquire these concepts... they must seem so separated.

Remember, It is also a cumulative process... I suspect you learned something from this thread... and You will from the next one, and the next one if you keep asking questions. Before long - like learning a map of a city - you just begin to know where things are. Because (unlike a city) things never change or move in music theory.... least it moves VERY slowly. 

I've said it before
I will say it again 
and likely many times before I leave this world:

The best thing I EVER did lesson wise was go to a theory teacher and do my level one and two rudiments. IF - you are at all serious about improving I would highly suggest you follow this advice. Once you have a foundation laid, then you can self teach for years and better yet can discuss concepts like these without your head exploding. I use these skills EVERY DAY on EVERY GIG or jam session. Most advanced ear players I know or play with regret not doing this.


----------



## bw66

jeremy_green said:


> The best thing I EVER did lesson wise was go to a theory teacher and do my level one and two rudiments.


+1 

Doing my Grade 1 and 2 RCM theory was the best thing I ever did for myself as a musician. (Though I felt a bit silly as the oldest person in the examining hall - I was about 26 and most of the kids writing were under 12!)


----------



## Mooh

jeremy_green said:


> Well, I am certainly no brain surgeon.... so if I can learn it, I am pretty certain most can.
> 
> It actually is quite logical, the problem is most people learn it in such a fragmented manner. What a horrible way to acquire these concepts... they must seem so separated.
> 
> Remember, It is also a cumulative process... I suspect you learned something from this thread... and You will from the next one, and the next one if you keep asking questions. Before long - like learning a map of a city - you just begin to know where things are. Because (unlike a city) things never change or move in music theory.... least it moves VERY slowly.
> 
> I've said it before
> I will say it again
> and likely many times before I leave this world:
> 
> The best thing I EVER did lesson wise was go to a theory teacher and do my level one and two rudiments. IF - you are at all serious about improving I would highly suggest you follow this advice. Once you have a foundation laid, then you can self teach for years and better yet can discuss concepts like these without your head exploding. I use these skills EVERY DAY on EVERY GIG or jam session. Most advanced ear players I know or play with regret not doing this.


Agreed, very true. I use my theory knowledge every day, every gig, every session, every lesson, every practice. I got most of mine from my Dad, sort of second hand Royal School Of Church Music, and a few very good organists. Plus, I really seriously enjoy it.

Peace, Mooh.


----------



## Moosehead

meh, got to about page 70 on the elemetary rudiments book and intended on finishing it but never did.

I dont THINK I missed that much in those last 100 pages but my A.D.D. kept me distracted enough not to return to it. (and my guitar kept me distracted enough not to care)

I DID learn a lot in piano lessons however ( i was only 7 or 8 and only took them for a few months but it stuck) and I think anyone trying to learn some theory should do so with some keys in front of them. Makes it a lot easier. Try it!


----------



## jeremy_green

Moosehead said:


> meh, got to about page 70 on the elemetary rudiments book and intended on finishing it but never did.
> 
> I dont THINK I missed that much in those last 100 pages but my A.D.D. kept me distracted enough not to return to it. (and my guitar kept me distracted enough not to care)
> 
> I DID learn a lot in piano lessons however ( i was only 7 or 8 and only took them for a few months but it stuck) and I think anyone trying to learn some theory should do so with some keys in front of them. Makes it a lot easier. Try it!


Well, based on your non-plussed reaction I would say the last 100 pages held a lot! I agree 100% on learning piano. These concepts are SOOOO much clearer on there.


----------



## jeremy_green

bw66 said:


> +1
> 
> Doing my Grade 1 and 2 RCM theory was the best thing I ever did for myself as a musician. (Though I felt a bit silly as the oldest person in the examining hall - I was about 26 and most of the kids writing were under 12!)


Man I relate to that! I was probably 21 with hair down to almost my waist and the general appearance and overall condition of a touring musician! They looked at me like i was an alien - examiners included! I did feel envious that they were learning this so young.


----------



## Greg Ellis

"Learn this now because it will help you later" is probably one of the hardest thoughts for me to swallow.

"Learn this now because it will help you NOW" is a lot easier.

I've started into theory lately mostly because it's helping me to find new places on the fretboard where it's easier to play a particular chord I need for a song. This is especially true for the open tunings I've been messing with, where I really don't know what note is where before pausing and counting frets.

It's all song-driven for me; if I don't need it to play the song I want to play, then I don't need it at all.

I certainly appreciate the other approach; it's just not for me. The idea that it's better to learn theory on a keyboard, for example... I can see how that would be so - the piano is completely linear, where the guitar is a total mess, really. But I have no desire to PLAY the piano, and any money I might have to spend on that would be put toward guitar stuff as a priority, so it's a non-starter, really.

It's been interesting for me to look at the chords I play all the time, and start to understand how they're constructed, and what makes them major or minor or neither. It's neat to notice that an A major, for example, is X-A-E-A-C#-E which translates to X-1-5-1-3-5. It's not really what I expected, and certainly not how you would see that chord on a piano.

The C major shape is perhaps a bit more predictable - at least the 3rd follows the root immediately - X-C-E-G-C-E translates to X-1-3-5-1-3. Woohoo, a 1-3-5 chord!

One that's got me stumped - not because I can't wrap my head around it, but because I can't wrap my FINGERS around it - is the sequence of A chords I see in both Harrison and Lennon:

In tab ------ in notes in scale chord is
X-0-2-2-1-0 | X-A-E-A-C-E | X-1-5-1-m3-5 Am
X-0-2-1-1-0 | X-A-E-G#-C-E | X-1-5-?-m3-5 ??
X-0-2-0-1-0 | X-A-E-G-C-E | X-1-5-?-m3-5 Am7

Not really sure what that chord in the middle is. I've seen it written Am/maj7, but i have no idea what that means.


----------



## jeremy_green

Greg Ellis said:


> "Learn this now because it will help you later" is probably one of the hardest thoughts for me to swallow.
> 
> "Learn this now because it will help you NOW" is a lot easier.
> 
> I've started into theory lately mostly because it's helping me to find new places on the fretboard where it's easier to play a particular chord I need for a song. This is especially true for the open tunings I've been messing with, where I really don't know what note is where before pausing and counting frets.
> 
> It's all song-driven for me; if I don't need it to play the song I want to play, then I don't need it at all.
> 
> I certainly appreciate the other approach; it's just not for me. The idea that it's better to learn theory on a keyboard, for example... I can see how that would be so - the piano is completely linear, where the guitar is a total mess, really. But I have no desire to PLAY the piano, and any money I might have to spend on that would be put toward guitar stuff as a priority, so it's a non-starter, really.
> 
> It's been interesting for me to look at the chords I play all the time, and start to understand how they're constructed, and what makes them major or minor or neither. It's neat to notice that an A major, for example, is X-A-E-A-C#-E which translates to X-1-5-1-3-5. It's not really what I expected, and certainly not how you would see that chord on a piano.
> 
> The C major shape is perhaps a bit more predictable - at least the 3rd follows the root immediately - X-C-E-G-C-E translates to X-1-3-5-1-3. Woohoo, a 1-3-5 chord!
> 
> One that's got me stumped - not because I can't wrap my head around it, but because I can't wrap my FINGERS around it - is the sequence of A chords I see in both Harrison and Lennon:
> 
> In tab ------ in notes in scale chord is
> X-0-2-2-1-0 | X-A-E-A-C-E | X-1-5-1-m3-5 Am
> X-0-2-1-1-0 | X-A-E-G#-C-E | X-1-5-?-m3-5 ??
> X-0-2-0-1-0 | X-A-E-G-C-E | X-1-5-?-m3-5 Am7
> 
> Not really sure what that chord in the middle is. I've seen it written Am/maj7, but i have no idea what that means.


Yup - minMaj7
Just a minor chord (which normally has a flat 7) with a raised or Major7 so minorMajor7.

I never bothered learning piano either ... sure that is a great route as suggested but wasn't for me. Given your logic though i must ask... do you eat nothing but Kraft Dinner and junk food? Or do you eat a balanced diet? I suspect if you are like most people you started eating the vegetables because they are good for you... good for your long term health. Perhaps after doing that for a period of time you now actually enjoy them. If you don't... well you may have a shortened or less than fruitful life.

The same holds for theory... it is the vegetables part of the equation. To be a well rounded musician I would say you need SOME... But nobody is saying you need to become vegetarian either.

Learning theory allows you some different colours in your palette to work with. Now that is something very useful NOW. I looked at that sequence and knew right away what was going on... That is all the info i need to be able to use that in any key.. again pretty useful "now" stuff.

Personally I don't care what people do... I can only say what worked for me in my playing life and also comment on discussions with other pro and semi-pro players. Most of them either did it - or wish they did younger... because all the best ones had to do it to some degree just to survive.


----------



## Moosehead

jeremy_green said:


> Well, based on your non-plussed reaction I would say the last 100 pages held a lot! I agree 100% on learning piano. These concepts are SOOOO much clearer on there.


Please explain how my reaction was non-plussed. From what i remember from 15 or so years ago it was a lot of transposing keys and such which is pretty easily learned on the guitar.
Dont need to write it out 10 times to "get it". Which is a lot of what that 100 pages was about. We are always learning and building on what we already know, and knowing i wasnt going to be writing any scores in the future I was at an age where I didnt really care about working diligently on theory. I was in my late teens and was more into girls, partying and jamming with friends. 
All the more reason to start young! lol 

Never was one for sitting down and working things out on paper, my ears led the way. Dont underestimate ear training. 
Some people have a natural ear (thanks grampa) but it can be refined or learned through ear training. 
I remember helping my GF (wife now) in our teens with intervals for an upcoming piano exam. Her ears weren't as refined as mine but through training her ears, she did just fine.

No need to learn piano to see how the theory applies. You could write out the keys on paper ( a few octaves should suffice) and see the notes of chords/scales and such.
Write the notes on the white keys if you need to.


----------



## FrankyNoTone

Is it time now to interject with Pat Metheney's opinion on TABS? largetongue


----------



## Mooh

It's easier to learn this stuff, as with most things, when you're young. It's easier on piano. It's easier with significant ear training at the same time. To apply it all to guitar, it helps to have the theory first and apply what you know when you start guitar. This doesn't happen often, though it's exactly what happened to me. When I get students who come from a piano, and sometimes vocal or violin background, it virtually always makes the guitar easier and faster to understand.

Among other reasons, this is why I advocate for music education in the school systems, especially at the elementary level. But that education should involve reading rhythms and playing them on percussion instruments, reading basic melodies and playing them on a portable keyboard or something portable like a small guitar. It also requires dedicated teachers and BUDGET. It's a dream that won't likely be realized in my lifetime. However, that weakness contributes to my job security as a private music instructor.

Peace, Mooh.


----------



## jeremy_green

Moosehead said:


> Please explain how my reaction was non-plussed. From what i remember from 15 or so years ago it was a lot of transposing keys and such which is pretty easily learned on the guitar.
> Dont need to write it out 10 times to "get it". Which is a lot of what that 100 pages was about. We are always learning and building on what we already know, and knowing i wasnt going to be writing any scores in the future I was at an age where I didnt really care about working diligently on theory. I was in my late teens and was more into girls, partying and jamming with friends.
> All the more reason to start young! lol
> 
> Never was one for sitting down and working things out on paper, my ears led the way. Dont underestimate ear training.
> Some people have a natural ear (thanks grampa) but it can be refined or learned through ear training.
> I remember helping my GF (wife now) in our teens with intervals for an upcoming piano exam. Her ears weren't as refined as mine but through training her ears, she did just fine.
> 
> No need to learn piano to see how the theory applies. You could write out the keys on paper ( a few octaves should suffice) and see the notes of chords/scales and such.
> Write the notes on the white keys if you need to.


How were you non-plussed? Well, after several of us commented that it was the best thing we did your first word was "meh" before going on to explain that you did less than half of the first book. Now, if you did the entire grade one and two levels and your reaction was the same, that would be different. 

Agreed the transposing to the various clefs stuff was not much fun ... But there certainly wasn't 100 pages of that.

Dont misinterpret what I am saying here. Did i say anything anti-ear?? I am an ear player and was playing semi pro before I ever took one lesson... In the days when Tab was few and far between. Your ears are absolutely number ONE. My theory comments are I regards to being taught something. Of all the lessons I had over the years the only ones I regularly draw on are these theory ones. Much more so than the technique things most people learn in lessons.

Also, this is a theory room is it not? I assume people here are here to learn some theory. With all the confusion I read all over forums just like this one, my observation is that these types of concepts are best learned one on one. With someone there to answer your immediate questions as the myriads of them arise. You could in one year of private theory lessons have an understanding that would take years and years of and tons of confusion to acquire online.


----------



## Guest

this may help. theory vs chord charts.
any reason really to post this.

[video=youtube;9cIdJFmFkag]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cIdJFmFkag[/video]


----------



## greco

laristotle said:


> this may help. theory vs chord charts.
> any reason really to post this.
> 
> [video=youtube;9cIdJFmFkag]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cIdJFmFkag[/video]


I never get tired of watching that !! 

Cheers

Dave


----------



## Moosehead

jeremy_green said:


> How were you non-plussed? Well, after several of us commented that it was the best thing we did your first word was "meh" before going on to explain that you did less than half of the first book. Now, if you did the entire grade one and two levels and your reaction was the same, that would be different.
> 
> Agreed the transposing to the various clefs stuff was not much fun ... But there certainly wasn't 100 pages of that.
> 
> Dont misinterpret what I am saying here. Did i say anything anti-ear?? I am an ear player and was playing semi pro before I ever took one lesson... In the days when Tab was few and far between. Your ears are absolutely number ONE. My theory comments are I regards to being taught something. Of all the lessons I had over the years the only ones I regularly draw on are these theory ones. Much more so than the technique things most people learn in lessons.
> 
> Also, this is a theory room is it not? I assume people here are here to learn some theory. With all the confusion I read all over forums just like this one, my observation is that these types of concepts are best learned one on one. With someone there to answer your immediate questions as the myriads of them arise. You could in one year of private theory lessons have an understanding that would take years and years of and tons of confusion to acquire online.


 
My first word was "meh" because although i know it, I dont find myself using it when playing guitar. Maybe I use it sub-consciously but I found it distracting to think of how the theory applies while I'm playing the guitar. Its just knowledge that sits up there waiting to get used but seldomly gets recalled. 
Correct me if im wrong but I was told the elementary rudiments book i was doing was the grade 2 theory book. 
http://www.amazon.com/Elementary-Ru...970044/ref=pd_sim_sbs_b_2/185-6922295-6061969

The ear training blurb was not directed at you but was to add to the conversation so others learning theory don't underestimate the use of their ears.

BTW love that video!


----------



## 4345567

__________


----------



## Greg Ellis

Not too sure about that "not very difficult" part.

There's quite a lot of prerequisite knowledge you need to swallow before you can understand how to build a chord. And much of it is neither straight forward, nor particularly logical.

For reasons I don't understand even slightly, we use a music system that divides an octave into 12 steps, and then divides that same octave into 8 intervals which are NOT evenly mapped to the 12 steps. If that's not arcane, I don't know what is.

Sure, I can learn that a major chord is made of root, 3rd and fifth, but if I don't understand what a 3rd is, or what a fifth is, then it doesn't help me at all.

And don't get me started on "sharps and flats". I don't have any black keys on my guitar, nor have I ever wished to have them.


----------



## Moosehead

Its not that difficult.

Sure there is some prerequisite knowledge just as there is in say math for example. You learn to count before you learn addtion and subtraction.
1 2 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th
To learn how to build a maj chord you need to learn the major scale. Which is -tone-tone-semitone-tone-tone-tone-semitone.

A tone or whole tone (different jargon often confuses) is 2 semi-tones. The distance between the third fret and fifth would be a whole tone. And 3rd fret and 4th is a semi-tone.
So in essence you do have black keys on the guitar. the distance between C and C# is moving up a semi-tone and going the other way D and Db is moving down a semi-tone.
See its not that hard.

So by understanding the major scale you can easily see how to build your maj chord from the first, third and fifth degree's of the scale. 
However on a guitar I always like to include the 8th especially on open chords.
Learning theory using just the guitar is a bit more confusing which is why I recommended drawing out a few octaves of a keyboard.

The key of C is the starting point as there are no sharps or flats. When following the major scale pattern on the guitar, the pattern is key and learning the notes becomes an added bonus.


----------



## jeremy_green

Moosehead said:


> My first word was "meh" because although i know it, I dont find myself using it when playing guitar. Maybe I use it sub-consciously but I found it distracting to think of how the theory applies while I'm playing the guitar. Its just knowledge that sits up there waiting to get used but seldomly gets recalled.
> Correct me if im wrong but I was told the elementary rudiments book i was doing was the grade 2 theory book.
> http://www.amazon.com/Elementary-Ru...970044/ref=pd_sim_sbs_b_2/185-6922295-6061969
> 
> The ear training blurb was not directed at you but was to add to the conversation so others learning theory don't underestimate the use of their ears.
> 
> BTW love that video!


Thanks! and it's all good bro. If my tone reads harshly it isn't at all. I am not bothered we are simply having a discussion. Better over beer - WAY less confusion!

To your post ... I am not sure what book grade that covers. I did it a long while ago and the books have changed here and there.

The use ... well here is how i use it every day:

-When on a forum like this or teaching - pretty obvious
-When at a rehearsal for a new project and someone calls a song i dont know. I ask the key and instantly know the scales, notes and chord types involved... i.e. If it shifts to a D chord I know it is minor
-soloing on that song
-During jazz fusion type gigs or a gig that requires spontaneous improvs - someone just calls out a key and we go. Switching keys on the visual cue. I do one of these weekly.
-Lifting and transcribing songs. Once I know the key I can grab the changes, then the notes fall into their slots. (BTW- all of those videos i do take me one hour start to finish - that is my personal challenge. Start with pencil paper and the tune, lift it piece by piece, learn it, video it - BAM. There is no way i could do this without knowing some theory)
-Practicing or composing - if I want to explore some new sounds I can use my theory to work up some chord changes that require some complex navigation... many of these chords I would likely be mesmerized by had i no idea where they came from.
-Watching a great player. I can tell by looking what is going on... if it is obscure i can watch the bass player, analyze what he is doing and determine the key which gives me an idea what the guitarist is using.
-Spending so much time with these diatonic things tunes your ear into hearing when things are NOT of the key. They jump out. So when i hear a jazz player going bananas I can typically hear the added colour tones... This gives me some reference to begin to use them - Which is ultimately the goal.

Having said all this - when i play I don't usually think of anything... least i try not to. I don't solo from a place of theory I use it prior to the song beginning to orient myself. Makes me more sure footed as I use my ears to explore. 

Like I said, I didn't see the benefits when i was doing it. In fact I did my exams kind of begrudgingly. My teacher MADE me do it. Insisted. I didn't get it at the time and it took me years to appreciate what he did for me. I mean no slight in this but perhaps you are forgetting, taking it for granted ... or perhaps you haven't made the connections .. only you know. As I said, I just know what it does for me.


----------



## 4345567

__________


----------



## Guitar101

Well, you guys have got me thinking about this "theory in music" thing and yes, were never too old to learn. Problem is, I also want to learn Spanish.

Question: Did Stevie Ray and Jimi Hendrix know theory. Hmmm, I wonder?


----------



## jeremy_green

Guitar101 said:


> Question: Did Stevie Ray and Jimi Hendrix know theory. Hmmm, I wonder?


They probably knew what it all was... just not what it is called. Believe me these greats KNOW where they are going. They just have their own catalogue system for it. But they also played guitar like 9-10 hours a day... Bottom line: A song in D they knew what chords they could use. How again is that not theory?


----------



## Jim DaddyO

I can relate to the frustration of learning theory. Most of it (for me) is mind numbing and relies totally on memory instead of it just "clicking" and making sense. After 30 years I still cannot remember any scale in any key all over the fingerboard. But I still try and I have fun playing.

To add to what Greg was saying.....it also does not start at the beginning. You start learning in C, which make sense because there are no sharps and flats in it, but A and B come before C.


----------



## jeremy_green

Jim DaddyO said:


> I can relate to the frustration of learning theory. Most of it (for me) is mind numbing and relies totally on memory instead of it just "clicking" and making sense. After 30 years I still cannot remember any scale in any key all over the fingerboard. But I still try and I have fun playing.
> 
> To add to what Greg was saying.....it also does not start at the beginning. You start learning in C, which make sense because there are no sharps and flats in it, but A and B come before C.


Yeah, here really is the crux of it... MOST people play guitar to have FUN. Theory is NOT fun - so people avoid it. I may have never completed it were it not for a very wise teacher who knew the buttons to push. But, just like anything you learn there are academic parts that have little to do with what you are actually doing (i.e. Art history to a graphic design program). No, you get little actual applicable things from the study right away... but your playing (or art) becomes more informed by these deeper studies. So you really need to separate the 2.. I mean does EVERYTHING have to be fun?? All the time?? Or are you willing to maybe invest in your passion a bit.

Here's the deal - there are 2 ways to learn theory.

1. Play guitar and only guitar for 20,000+ hours - including regular contant jamming and gigging. It's ALL you do.
2. Study theory for a year and have the observations of the above given to you.

After all let's remember theory is not a series of rules... more observations of things that work. The roads eventually meet if you spend enough time playing... but MOST people never will get here with playing alone. So they prefer to think of the greats as magical creatures... they aren't, they just worked a crapload harder than any of us.

It is also an ancient system (like the English language), so i don't know why anyone would expect it to ALL be logical. 
Their, there, they're, to, too, this is killing - and that's a good thing?? Masculine and feminine terms etc.... examine anything and tell me it is 100 logical. Even math there are some 'givens' that you just accept. I find 95% of music theory to be VERY logical... not too bad for a system designed to describe sound in words!


----------



## Greg Ellis

jeremy_green said:


> Here's the deal - there are 2 ways to learn theory.
> 
> 1. Play guitar and only guitar for 20,000+ hours - including regular contant jamming and gigging. It's ALL you do.
> 2. Study theory for a year and have the observations of the above given to you.


3. Pick at it when it's blocking your progress. Learn enough to move on to the next step, and then get back to having fun.


----------



## Mooh

[Jeremy...I think theory is fun. Really.]


----------



## jeremy_green

Greg Ellis said:


> 3. Pick at it when it's blocking your progress. Learn enough to move on to the next step, he and then get back to having fun.


Sure.... But The problem is, I don't see many people successful with this method. Because it relies on doing it in the right order for the concepts to be really clear. Go to these types of forums all over the net and check out the mass confusion with it. Doesn't look like much "fun" to me brother!

Mooh - me too! Now that is... I didn't enjoy it when I was doing the exam stuff though!


----------



## Jim DaddyO

Any suggestion for a book that will explain it? In a way that can be understood by someone who's brain is just not quite "wired" to understand it readily?


----------



## BIGDC

A brief example of how theory helped me ...........
I played quite a bit many years ago but never knew why, when I played the scale of C in chords (C,D,E etc), it never sounded right. Fast forward a few millenium and I got back into playing again. The course I was following recommended including some theory so I picked up a basic book and worked my way through it. I discoverd how scales were constructed and how chords were built from the scale.
The first song I tried to transcribe was The Weight and, thanks to my basic grasp of theory I just_ knew _the chords to play for the diatonic walk-down. In my case a little theory was time well spent


----------



## jeremy_green

Jim DaddyO said:


> Any suggestion for a book that will explain it? In a way that can be understood by someone who's brain is just not quite "wired" to understand it readily?


When I did my levels this was the series i went through:

http://www.amazon.ca/Keys-Music-Rud...83500/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_c/176-0667029-1757613

There is a text book - which gives you the "lessons" - and a series of 8 or nine workbooks.
You read the lesson then it says "In workbook one do exercises 1-4" ... that type thing. It was a good series.

As I said I went through this with a teacher so each week he would mark my work and anything wrong we would go over until i got it. This is kind of a great way to do it... as any misconceptions are cleared up right away. 

But there may be some newer, more self-serve type resources these days. The market now is really catered to "do it at home" without human interaction. Which does strike this old fart as kind of odd. For this topic - with so many questions - you really can't beat a private lesson... even once a month would be better than nothing.... and probably sufficient.


----------



## jeremy_green

As an aside, This is cool! Probably the most continued conversation that has gone on at this forum for a while. Nice to hear all of your opinions.


----------



## Guest

music theory for dummies


----------



## Greg Ellis

Here's an example of my "when it's needed" approach.

Out of the blue, this morning, I thought "hey, I should learn that old Level 42 song 'It's Over'". So I dug up a chord chart this morning, laughed at it because it's full of awkward guitar positions (probably written on piano, Bb kinda gives it away), transposed it down a semi tone, and started thinking about how I might play the resultant chords. It's not crazy complicated or anything, but it's not Green Day either.

|Csus2| |Fadd9| |Gm| |Asus4 A|
|Bm11| |Em7| |Asus2| |Csus2

Csus2 I'll probably use x30033, Fadd9 maybe xx3213, Gm just a barre chord at fret 3, Asus4 to A is familiar, also Em7. But Bm11? Hmmm.

Googled a few fingerings for Bm11 and started breaking down what they meant:

Bmajor scale is B C# D# E F# G# A#

Bm11 suggested I found were: x20200 or x20220 or x20230

And these translate as:
xBDABE root-minor third-flat7-one-eleven
xBDAC#E root-minor third-flat7-two-eleven
xBDADE root-minor third-flat7-minor third-eleven

It's very curious to me that there's no five in any of these suggested fingers, especially when there's an obvious one to grab (F# at the 2nd fret low E string, if I'm not mistaken). Any thoughts as to why?


----------



## Greg Ellis

jeremy_green said:


> Sure.... But The problem is, I don't see many people successful with this method. Because it relies on doing it in the right order for the concepts to be really clear.


Don't take this in a negative way, but this is what I call "rigid thinking"; i.e. the idea that there's a "right way" to do something. It's a personality trait, and a common one, actually, but it's by no means universal. There's nothing wrong with that approach, if it works for you, but you can't apply it with certainty to others. Everyone is different.


----------



## jeremy_green

Greg Ellis said:


> Don't take this in a negative way, but this is what I call "rigid thinking"; i.e. the idea that there's a "right way" to do something. It's a personality trait, and a common one, actually, but it's by no means universal. There's nothing wrong with that approach, if it works for you, but you can't apply it with certainty to others. Everyone is different.


It's not rigid thinking at all .. It is an observation. Yeesh, I ain't that guy. Man, my family would laugh to hear you describe me that way! Ultimately I don't give a flyin crap how people do things. Seriously.

Quick background ONLY because it is relevant: I have been playing for close to 30 years... I at one time taught up to 75 private students weekly - for a period of years. Geez, I have probably worked with over 1000 students in that time. Not bragging or trumping or any weird thing... hard to say that without sounding braggy. Just saying, my comments are simply personal observations of this time spent. Many people struggle with these concepts ... most of them (in my opinion) struggle because they didn't pick things up in order. (i.e. Pretty hard to understand how chords are constructed if you don't know scales first.)

There will NEVER be one path for any two people... agreed 100%. No such thing as absolutes. But you CAN make some generalizations about what works - for the majority. Nobody is going to listen to me anyway! This is the internet ... isn't everyone right on here? : )


----------



## Greg Ellis

Grin, cool. Curious to know your thoughts on the Bm11 thing, couple of posts back.


----------



## jeremy_green

Greg Ellis said:


> Here's an example of my "when it's needed" approach.
> 
> Out of the blue, this morning, I thought "hey, I should learn that old Level 42 song 'It's Over'". So I dug up a chord chart this morning, laughed at it because it's full of awkward guitar positions (probably written on piano, Bb kinda gives it away), transposed it down a semi tone, and started thinking about how I might play the resultant chords. It's not crazy complicated or anything, but it's not Green Day either.
> 
> |Csus2| |Fadd9| |Gm| |Asus4 A|
> |Bm11| |Em7| |Asus2| |Csus2
> 
> Csus2 I'll probably use x30033, Fadd9 maybe xx3213, Gm just a barre chord at fret 3, Asus4 to A is familiar, also Em7. But Bm11? Hmmm.
> 
> Googled a few fingerings for Bm11 and started breaking down what they meant:
> 
> Bmajor scale is B C# D# E F# G# A#
> 
> Bm11 suggested I found were: x20200 or x20220 or x20230
> 
> And these translate as:
> xBDABE root-minor third-flat7-one-eleven
> xBDAC#E root-minor third-flat7-two-eleven
> xBDADE root-minor third-flat7-minor third-eleven
> 
> It's very curious to me that there's no five in any of these suggested fingers, especially when there's an obvious one to grab (F# at the 2nd fret low E string, if I'm not mistaken). Any thoughts as to why?


Sorry, didn't see this question.

it is likely because dropping an F# on the bottom would dominate the sound pulling it away from the B root. Bass notes really dominate a voicing and make things sound more like slash chords than inversions.

Of all the intervals the fifth is the first to get removed (aside from the root that is, because the bass player has it). The fifth really provides little harmony, more thickens the root sound.


----------



## Greg Ellis

jeremy_green said:


> Of all the intervals the fifth is the first to get removed (aside from the root that is, because the bass player has it). The fifth really provides little harmony, more thickens the root sound.


Now that is a really interesting insight; very useful. Thank you!


----------



## jeremy_green

Greg Ellis said:


> Now that is a really interesting insight; very useful. Thank you!


No problem. 

In larger band formats or working with a piano player many guitarists just use shell voicings ... guide tones really. The 3rd and the seventh. They are the 2 most important notes in any chord (providing the bass player has the root). You can use just these 2 notes if you want to get really tight as they still carry the flavour of the chord. If you analyze chord changes you will see that usually what makes a chord change sound cool is often a semitone step between either the 3rd or the 7th from the first chord to the second... adding this type of voice leading gives the progressions a real pro sound... all uptown-y


----------



## gtrchris

Mooh said:


> It's easier to learn this stuff, as with most things, when you're young. It's easier on piano. It's easier with significant ear training at the same time. To apply it all to guitar, it helps to have the theory first and apply what you know when you start guitar. This doesn't happen often, though it's exactly what happened to me. When I get students who come from a piano, and sometimes vocal or violin background, it virtually always makes the guitar easier and faster to understand.
> 
> Among other reasons, this is why I advocate for music education in the school systems, especially at the elementary level. But that education should involve reading rhythms and playing them on percussion instruments, reading basic melodies and playing them on a portable keyboard or something portable like a small guitar. It also requires dedicated teachers and BUDGET. It's a dream that won't likely be realized in my lifetime. However, that weakness contributes to my job security as a private music instructor.
> 
> Peace, Mooh.


Hey Mooh, It's happening in elementary school already-though it's taking a lot of convincing of the older school admin who think playing recorder is the best way to learn to read and play music(ugh!!) Even to this day, there are still a few ukeleles hidden in the closets at elementary schools (which were abandoned basically because many elementary music teachers aren't real musicians or even qualified to teach music). I've been lucky in some of my teaching contracts to have a class set of ukes which I've used to deliver a string based music program(as well I allow kids(grades5-6) to bring in their acoustic and electric guitars as well) combined with percussion playing, rhythmic recognition and notational reading. This to me is the way it should be done-it's not expensive([email protected] for functional ukes) though it does require that a musican teach the class which is not always possible at every school. Ukes are great for primary-Kindergarten up to grade 3 due to the small fingers it's a perfect instrument to learn on-strum chords play simple melodies, and most of all it's an easy transition to guitar when their fingers are a little bigger and stronger.
The movement has begun but it still needs a lot more support.


----------



## Mooh

It's only happening to varying degrees, depending on jurisdiction. Most of my guitar students only get a minimal amount of primarily vocal ("choir" such as it is) before grade nine. Some get a little instrumental music, but it's NOT universal in my local school boards, and Ontario doesn't mandate it across the province.

I will admit to having a chip on my shoulder too. The high school I attended in the '70s had no music, visual art, or drama programs, though there were a couple of clubs, no credit courses. It was a joke. My only high school arts credit is grade nine typing. Yeah, typing. An art. Ironic that I make my living as a musician. No thanks to the Perth County board of education. I've been pissed about this since grade 8 when my family moved to a community with one high school with no arts. I got screwed. 40 year grudge.

Peace, Mooh.



gtrchris said:


> Hey Mooh, It's happening in elementary school already-though it's taking a lot of convincing of the older school admin who think playing recorder is the best way to learn to read and play music(ugh!!) Even to this day, there are still a few ukeleles hidden in the closets at elementary schools (which were abandoned basically because many elementary music teachers aren't real musicians or even qualified to teach music). I've been lucky in some of my teaching contracts to have a class set of ukes which I've used to deliver a string based music program(as well I allow kids(grades5-6) to bring in their acoustic and electric guitars as well) combined with percussion playing, rhythmic recognition and notational reading. This to me is the way it should be done-it's not expensive([email protected] for functional ukes) though it does require that a musican teach the class which is not always possible at every school. Ukes are great for primary-Kindergarten up to grade 3 due to the small fingers it's a perfect instrument to learn on-strum chords play simple melodies, and most of all it's an easy transition to guitar when their fingers are a little bigger and stronger.
> The movement has begun but it still needs a lot more support.


----------



## Jim DaddyO

You will be happy to know, that I go into an elementary school every day and there are about 18 or so acoustic guitars in there. Not great guitars, but I did a bit of work on them and they can be played. Also, they do get played, every Wednesday the grade 7 and 8 classes have guitar. The teacher is a great one and put a lot of effort into the program.


----------



## gtrchris

[/QUOTE]

[|Csus2| |Fadd9| |Gm| |Asus4 A|
|Bm11| |Em7| |Asus2| |Csus2

Csus2 I'll probably use x30033, Fadd9 maybe xx3213, Gm just a barre chord at fret 3, Asus4 to A is familiar, also Em7. But Bm11? Hmmm.

Googled a few fingerings for Bm11 and started breaking down what they meant:

Bmajor scale is B C# D# E F# G# A#

Bm11 suggested I found were: x20200 or x20220 or x20230

And these translate as:
xBDABE root-minor third-flat7-one-eleven
xBDAC#E root-minor third-flat7-two-eleven
xBDADE root-minor third-flat7-minor third-eleven

It's very curious to me that there's no five in any of these suggested fingers, especially when there's an obvious one to grab (F# at the 2nd fret low E string, if I'm not mistaken). Any thoughts as to why?[/QUOTE]

The 5th of a chord is usually the first note to go when playing guitar-as we don't have 10 fingers like piano players(well we do but you know what I mean), so a chord like a Bm11 has the notes B,D,F#,A,C#,E which is not very practical for guitar, so you have to try and imply the 'colour' of the chord, and typically you can drop the root and fifth as they are usually covered by the bass player. For example, if you were playing with a bass player you could play a Dmaj9 chord and the bass player would play the low B making it a Bminor 11. 
If you're on your own there are voicings of Bm11 chords that work and are easy to grab like: the first position chord you spelled out above B on the 5th string, A on the 3rd,C# or D on the 2nd,and open E.
There are also some open voicings that sound cool as well like B on the 6th string, A on the 4th string, D on the 3rd string and open B and E. There are many others but this should give you a start.
Hope this helps a bit.
Chris


----------



## gtrchris

Jim DaddyO said:


> You will be happy to know, that I go into an elementary school every day and there are about 18 or so acoustic guitars in there. Not great guitars, but I did a bit of work on them and they can be played. Also, they do get played, every Wednesday the grade 7 and 8 classes have guitar. The teacher is a great one and put a lot of effort into the program.


Absolutely! I've seen a number of successful guitar programs in Peel middle schools were I work, but not so much in K-6 where it's really needed-this age group could benefit so much from instrument and rudiments training.


----------



## gtrchris

Greg Ellis said:


> You've got to admit, it's pretty dense and cryptic.
> 
> I don't know how long I thought a major 7 chord and a minor 7 chord probably had some different sort of "7" in them. I think it's natural to assume that, based on the names, no?
> 
> I understand now, that it's really the 3rd that goes major or minor, while the 7 stays put.
> 
> Perhaps they should have called it a D maj3 add7? Grin. Just for clarity.


It is a little confusing at first as a 7th interval can be major or minor and that interval can be combined with either a major or minor triad(and others as well)
A major chord with a minor 7th(usually called b7th) is a dominant 7 chord
A major chord with a major 7th is a major 7th chord
A minor chord with a minor 7th is a minor 7th chord
A minor chord with a major 7th added is a minor maj7th chord


----------



## Robert J.M.

RobQ said:


> That's a A5sus2
> 
> Without the B it's an A5


You're right, depends on how you play the chord: With the B it's an Asus2 chord, without the B it's an A5 chord. 

















Keep on rockin', Robert
----------------------------------------------
Website: Robert Rocks The Mandolin
http://rdenronden.magix.net/public/


----------



## grooveyard

In my experience, if you take the third away completely,( i.e. your chord consists of 1st and 5ths only,) it gets referred to as a 5th chord. 
If you add the note B to it, it becomes a 9th. Now technically, the B (or 9th) needs to be in the next octave up from the root "A" to avoid muddiness

A B C# D E F# G# A B C# D 
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 etc / "A" scale example

If you play the 1,2,3 of a scale together, it's pretty mudding sounding, If you play 1,3 9 together, it can sound pretty cool.

You can see here that if you add the note F# to an "A" chord it becomes A6. If you add the note G# the chord is now A(major)7th. If you flatten the G# to make it G natural, the resulting chord is known as A7

3rd makes a major chord
flat third makes a minor chord
7th makes a "major 7th chord"
flat 7th makes a "dominant major chord". We tend to call these just "7th chords"

In a "major 7th" chord, the seventh is one semitone below the tonic.
In a "dominant 7th chord", the seventh is a whole tone below the tonic.

Sorry, I'm a theory nut:wave:,
Jim


----------



## gtrchris

2nd chords(with the 3rd missing) are really neat sounding as are the what I call Hendrix chords( stacked 5ths).
Try a closed voicing like G(4th str.) , A(3rd str.) and D(2nd str.) then play the Hendrix chord G(4th str),D(2nd str,) A (1st str.) They are just different voicings of the same chord.
These chords are used a lot in jazz which uses non-tertiary harmony like chords built in 4ths and 5ths. The same notes used in the first chord mentioned above can be constructed in 4th intervals starting from A(3rd str) up a 4th to D(2nd str) up a 4th to G(1st str). You can use these 3 note chords for more of a jazz sound-it works even in rock and funk-melodically and harmonically.
In D dorian for example try spicing up your arrangement using quartal harmonies-diatonic 4ths.(you can use parallel 4ths as well)
In d dorian the diatonic 3 note 4th clusters would be;
D,G,C
E,A,D
F,B,E
G,C,F
A,D,G
B,E,A
C,F,B
These voicings can be used in C Ionian,D Dorian, E Phrygian, F Lydian,G Mixolydian, A Aeolian, and B Locrian
As well you can extend the stacking of 4ths to 4 and 5 note chords.
if you're interested in this approach, check my Youtube site in a few days and I'll post a video demonstrating and explaining this.
http://www.youtube.com/user/gtrchris?feature=mhee


----------



## gtrchris

Hey friends here's a quick mixolydian improv showing the use of quartal chord clusters with some melodic content as well. There's a little bit of explanation in the info section-this one is in A mixolydian spelled A,B,C#,D,E,F#,G. See if you can take the ideas mention above and transpose them.
Here's the spelled out clusters on the first string set:
G(open 3rd),C#(2nd fret,2nd string),F#(2nd fret, 1st string) follow these patterns up the fingerboard on the first 3 strings
A,D,G
B,E,A
C#,F#,B
D,G,C#
Here's a link to a jam using the patterns
A Mixolydian improv using quartal chord clusters - YouTube
E,A,D
F#,B,E


----------



## Percy

i like pic,fingers........gl all Percy


----------



## Percy

lol rong thread.......Jimmy Page Luvs sus chords gl all Percy


----------

