ORIGINAL: kennywtelejazz

hey Fep ,
I like those chord diagrams.....I sure could of used something like that when explaining the D 7 chord with the chromatic movement on the b string...

Kenny

Hey Kenny,

I use this software: http://www.guitar-pro.com/en/index.php

It cost $60 and it is cool that you can notate all sorts of guitar nuances however I can't recomend it. It notates certain things incorrectly. For instance if you bend a note on the 7 fret 1st string up a ½ step the software will show it correctly in the tab lines but on the staff it will show it as a B note, the note the bend originated on, but it should show a bend symbol in front of a C note - the note that is sounding. In addition, you can’t separate one stave into two lines of music like you'd want if you were notating something like 'Boree in Em'. Here's an example of something I'm writing, I'd like the bass pedal notes to be sustained over the chords, but that can't be notated that way with this software

My Guitar Pro Example

However, subsequent to purchasing that software I found this freeware that looks like it does the same thing. If you try it let me know what you think and let me know if it handles notating bended notes properly.

http://www.download.com/Power-Tab-Editor/3000-2133_4-10502035.html

And Kenny, nice job on sharing your knowledge on this thread.

I've heard that same analogy in a perfect pitch course I tried. It is like the difference between watching a black and white TV and watching a color TV. In black in white you can't tell if the coat on the actor is green or red, just how dark or light it is. In color you can tell easily that the coat is red and you never get it wrong. Someone with perfect pitch can identify pitches with the same kind of confidence.

The first two pitches in the course were F# and Eb as they have the most distinct tone qualities. F# is vibrant or even buzzy sounding whereas Eb is more rounded or mellow. If F# is like a whirrrr, then Eb is like a whaaa. Apparantly there are piano tuners that complain that they can't get the buzz out of F#'s, thing is that is just the way an F# sounds. These descriptions aren't perfect but it is about as well as you can do with words. And it doesn't matter which octave they're in, they still maintain those qualities (although it is harder to hear in high or low octaves). I found it easiest to hear on a piano or a piano sample. Try it and see if you can hear it.

I tried but I couldn't develop perfect pitch but I do believe I could hear the difference between some of the tones as described in the course. It was all very faint in my ear, I'm guessing someone with perfect pitch hears it very distinctly.

Awesome stuff, Kenny. I'm a first-time browser in the Techniques forum, and when I saw this topic I had a major flash-back to my days at Grove School of Music (circa 1987... wow, it really has been 20 years). Grove was the best music school I could find back then, and it was located in Studio City, CA, by the founder Dick Grove.

I was a 19-year old rocker from a small town in Texas... and had no idea what I was in for -- a highly jazz oriented school. But the experience was truly amazing, education top notch, and I learned as much from my classmates as I did the instructors. Grove had an excellent Synthesizer program at the time (among others), taught by Lorenz Rychner (current editor of Recording Magazine).

I'm sorry, just recounting some good times... what does all this have to do with the topic? I'll never forget the raging debate that went on (almost daily at Grove) about whether all music (at least "good" music) had its roots in ii-V-I or I-IV-V. There were excellent arguments on both sides, and using chord substitution one could generally prove either theory. Mr. Grove himself (a Grammy nominated composer, and brilliant musician/teacher) was firmly convinced that ii-V-I was the key -- so much so that's what his license plate read!

hounDAWg

The first two pitches in the course were F# and Eb as they have the most distinct tone qualities. F# is vibrant or even buzzy sounding whereas Eb is more rounded or mellow. If F# is like a whirrrr, then Eb is like a whaaa. Apparantly there are piano tuners that complain that they can't get the buzz out of F#'s, thing is that is just the way an F# sounds.

Apologies for jumping into the middle of this thread having read only a little of it, but I just have to throw in my $.02 on this subtopic.

It's one thing to say that a particular instrument, or even family of instruments has different timbral qualities at different points in its range, no doubt about it. But it's a whole other thing to suggest that the pitches themselves have differing tonal qualities. Would this be true for pure sine waves of different pitches? I don't think so. At least not in a way that would be consistent from one person to the next, given the vast variability in ear structures and sizes of different individuals.

I absolutely believe that some individuals have perfect pitch that allows them to identify a pitch with a high level of accuracy, possibly even to within small fractions of a semitone, without any immediately available frame of reference other than their own mind. But this business of pitches having different qualities like "buzz" or "whirr" has always sounded like pure mysticism to me.

If the courses that teach this are based on notes played on a piano or a guitar, or any other common acoustic instrument. I'd attribute any differences in tone to the architecture of the instrument, or the technique of the player.

all light frequencies are just vibrations too, but make up distinct colours to our eyes. And most people would agree red is a warmish colour, and blue not.

Yes, but the idea of colors being warm or cool has a basis in physics: orange and red are toward the infrared, physically "warm", end of the electromagnetic energy spectrum, while the"cool" colors are farther away. But I know of no corresponding physics of sound that would justify describing pitches as having a specific tonal quality inherent in the pitch alone. Especially when you take into consideration the idea that all pitches an octave apart have to share some quality that distinguishes them from other octaves. There's nothing akin to this in the color spectum.

Hi all,

I thought it might be interesting to give a sonic example of some of the techs I have been talking about regarding the ii V I , and the use of 7th chord subsitutions in the place of a minor chord...

first I would like to thank the people who have recently posted
Houndawg ...nice stories ....
Fep...for the software recomedations and filling in some of the areas regarding the ii V I from his point of view..
also brundlefly .... who currently happens to be involved with me on a song collab.....
it turns out the clip happens to be from the song we are working on together and Dave was kind enough to say sure post the song clip here if you think it might be of some help .....
a big thanks out to you Dave
We are still tracking the song ...so I'm posting the clip as recorded ...pre efx and verbs..

Two Dude Defense .....link and song updated
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/songInfo.cfm?bandID=427899&songID=5931730



Kenny

Why do nails over a schoolboard give you the shivers? Why does a wailing siren alarm you (because of the 'wailing' probably). If a sound resembles a screaming baby, we freak.

But these things mostly get their effect from the timbre of the sound, not the pitch. A baby screaming at A#6 makes a completely different impression on us than a saxaphone playing the same note. But a baby screaming a semitone higher at B6 makes pretty much the same impression. The "feel" is all in the timbre, not in the pitch itself. Certainly higher pitches have a different "feel" to us than lower ones in general, but I don't think two adjacent notes in a given octave have a significantly different in "feel", unless the instrument/voice produces a different timbre (i.e. different overtone content) along with the change in pitch. That's all I'm trying to say.

But I really don't want to hijack this thread from it's original purpose, so I'll let it go at that. Thanks for the thought-provoking comments, in any case.

P.S.O.T. I always enjoy seeing Dutch posters on forums. My father was born there, and I spent a year there when I was a teenager.

De groeten,
Dave

i think part of the reason that different pitches have different qualities is because we don't use a perfect-pitch system, we use approximations instead. i personally think that songs in sharp keys sound "brighter" than songs in flat keys and c/a minor is kind of neutral. you can attribute this to the instruments if you want but that's been my experience.

different keys have different qualities because our western pitch system isn't perfect. so when you hear a particular note by itself you may already have a mental context of where that note is in relation to a particular key it is often used in.

ORIGINAL: brundlefly
But these things mostly get their effect from the timbre of the sound, not the pitch. A baby screaming at A#6 makes a completely different impression on us than a saxaphone playing the same note. But a baby screaming a semitone higher at B6 makes pretty much the same impression. The "feel" is all in the timbre, not in the pitch itself. Certainly higher pitches have a different "feel" to us than lower ones in general, but I don't think two adjacent notes in a given octave have a significantly different in "feel", unless the instrument/voice produces a different timbre (i.e. different overtone content) along with the change in pitch.

Everybody's ear drums have a different natural (resonant) frequency which can cause noticeable changes in perceived volume. If someone says that some notes have a different "feel" then maybe it's because they're sensing significant changes in volume when certain frequencies are present. Therefore, the person could identify some individual frequencies. Resonant frequencies corresponding to scale notes combined with excellent relative pitch and pitch memory would probably come pretty close to being "perfect" pitch based in frequency.

ORIGINAL: Roflcopter

Sounds great, Kenny.

Just wondered what *that* would sound like from tape, and indeed it sounded absolutely great, real dark atmo and all - even though I'm still figuring out recording levels (can go *real* hot without problems) and tape eq and type etc, but I can PM you a link to the mp3 - it's pretty OK, actually - considering it was taped straight from the soundclick player (never thought I'd type those words together, ever).

Hi Roflcopter
hey thanks
my PM thingamajing isnt on ...
I wouldnt mind hearing it though ...soundclick ...e mails get to me....
btw ...that clip is bone dry ...non carved....non Eqed
the frets still havent dried from lefty my fretting hands madd dash from the giddey up drum beat..
I'm starting to wonder if lefty was having a flashback and thought he was Lance Armstrong or something
figured since I'm still tracking ....why not post it ..its on topic

the ll V madd dash for the yellow jersey ......clip..
....link and song updated....
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/songInfo.cfm?bandID=427899&songID=5931730

that site makes it appear that frank wrote the song, which isn't the case. i've heard he actually hated it.

hey Roflcopter
didnt mean to leave you hanging...i idid look at the tune ,
it's realy no biggie ...when I finish up the song I'm working on ...I will see
Kenny

ORIGINAL: Roflcopter

i've heard he actually hated it.

Well, he sang it with passion, whatever the passion.

I always thought he sounded bored singing that one............and who can blame him?

i don't know if bored or heart-rending apply. :) it's a different aesthetic.
but i agree with roflcopter about known melodies. they lend themselves very well to mutation. sort of like a cliche...every change to the setting/context casts a different perception.