"Chords are just arpeggios"

It would depend on which note I choose to begin with. As I stated, it is not necessary to start on the root as the examples above (Beethoven, Mozart, etc) indicate
 
Bill1 said:
Root is only on the bottom in the 1st inversion. In other inversions the 3rd and 5th are on the bottom....
Click to expand...

To clarify-Root is on the bottom in root position.(hence the name) 3rd is on the bottom in 1st inversion, 5th on the bottom in second inversion. You would also have the 7th on the bottom in 3rd inversion of a 7th chord.
 
Hi, EDW! Thank you for the reply!

EDW said:
It would depend on which note I choose to begin with. As I stated, it is not necessary to start on the root as the examples above (Beethoven, Mozart, etc) indicate
Click to expand...

I use very easy example.

I show you basic arpeggio patterns (see the figure below). This is very basic style and we have studied it in elementary school. We starts with root notes. Just try it another notes whatever you like. And think the meaning of root notes in arpeggios. Guitar have extra two bass strings and they can choose them. C and Am7 starts with 5th, Dm7 starts with 4th and G starts with 6th string. Even Beethoven can not play this on ukulele.



We sometimes starts new chords on arpeggios with melody notes. That is fine. I use this arrangement too. But we can not play this (see the figure above) kind of basic arpeggios with 4 strings. Hence not many people use arpeggios on ukulele especially in accompaniment.
 
Last edited:
I believe I have made my point as clear as I am able. Perhaps not. Perhaps we are not talking about the same thing. Rather than beat my head against the same wall again I'll move on.
 
I was taught that technically, if you play the notes of a chord one at a time but out of sequence e.g. C G E instead of C E G, it's a called a broken chord. However, personally it doesn't worry me if all broken chords are referred to as arpeggios.

I regularly accompany songs, especially slower ones using broken chords. I like to use a low G tuning for that as I can more easily play an alternating low - high, low - high... note pattern. I find it quite effective.
 
I don't know , whoever says a statement like that just perhaps has a confusion on simple musical concepts that doesnt really need explanation. I mean, yeah how about middle c is just a higher c but just one octave lower?

I saw a guy trying to teach clair de lune on a piano which is an piece you need some experience musically to learn and he's explaining all the notes one by one by using some strange acronym / sentence , " this note is , once again , on this line, so, remember everyone, this line between 'dog' and 'fast', so what does that mean?? It is a E !!"

Wow after 20 or so YouTube videos, hes still on page 2....if you need to explain music like that to someone, they have no business learning clair De lune
 
if 'chords are just arpeggios'

...then 'Parrots' or 'Ravens' are just 'birds'...

:)

feathers in the quiver...tools in the box...
 
Wow, thanks everyone!
This certainly brought up a lot of theory to think about, some way over my head.
But it is certainly very interesting.
Going from trying to strum Jambalaya and sing it in C, to learning music theory and chord melodies is a very long journey, for me.
But I don't care how long it takes, I'm a lifetime learner.
This has become enlightening. Someday I'll understand all of it, maybe.
 
Croaky Keith said:
Music theory is a huge subject, just learn what you need to know. :)
Click to expand...

I often recommend that people check out Edly's Music Theory for Practical People http://www.edly.com/mtfpp.html

It is a really good book. It explains things in a very user friendly manner and actually makes theory enjoyable. While it is not essential that one learn theory, it can help the music make a lot more sense if you have a little understanding or the hows and whys of it all.
 
I've been told by LOTS of people that if they JUST want to learn a song, that getting overwhelmed with Music Theory is a HUGE PITA.

I've got no problem with theory myself, but for MANY folks, they need extraordinary motivation and great persistence to even approach the topic, never-mind to stick with it for long enough for it to be useful.

All the talk of theory is GREAT, but I'm afraid that it's going to scare off lots of newbies who are afraid of it.
 
Booli said:
All the talk of theory is GREAT, but I'm afraid that it's going to scare off lots of newbies who are afraid of it.
Click to expand...

The great thing about music is that you can learn as much or as little as fits your needs and desires. Most everyone drives a car or uses a computer, but not everyone has an understanding of how they work.

If I were to advise a new player, I would not necessarily suggest they jump in and learn theory to start. It is much the same as one learns language. We begin to speak as young children and the understanding of writing and reading comes a bit later.

It is helpful if one has a basic sense on note and rest values, lines and spaces on the staff and other basics. If one sees a piece of sheet music (as opposed to a chord sheet) it can help decipher what is going on. Later, if one is so inspired, perhaps a general understanding of basic harmonies and how the chords relate to one another (I, IV, V7) will be helpful. One can go as far down that path as one likes or feels necessary. If a player does not care about the nuts and bolts of it and wants to strum along happily playing and/or singing, that is great. If one wants to go more in depth that works too.

It does not have to be intimidating or scary. Some players shy away from it for fear that it will be overwhelming, which is why I always suggest Edly's book. It helps some get over that anxiety. Again, one can choose to go down that path or not, but I encourage those who are curious to explore the topic if they desire.
 
Coming from a lifetime of melodic instrument playing, I find it far easier to discern appropriate arpeggios to accompany a melody than to hear all the individual notes in a given chord. The latter often leaves me scratching my head, especially when going from a piano score! I like to write arrangements to play - I call them "chord melodies", but in fact they usually begin with underlying arpeggios, and then double and triple stops judiciously get added in, so there are eventually chords emerging from that process. The arpeggios may remain, or come and go, however it sounds best in the context.

Oh, and music reading and writing is not the same thing as knowing music theory, which indicates a thorough understanding of the nuts and bolts of music, and the whole "how it works" aspect! I know only the most rudimentary theory, despite making my living playing violin and then viola since my early twenties. I never formally studied music theory. So when I write arrangements, I just mostly go by what my ears tell me, and usually couldn't describe to you what chords or inversions I am even using, unless I should stop and pick them apart.

But that's just me. I generally dislike analytical approaches to any subjects I love, as it tends to make it seem more like work and less like enjoyment. I think if I were required to diagram the sentences I spoke, I would stop talking altogether. :)

bratsche
 
Last edited:
bratsche said:
Oh, and music reading and writing is not the same thing as knowing music theory, which indicates a thorough understanding of the nuts and bolts of music, and the whole "how it works" aspect!
bratsche
Click to expand...

The reading of music is theory, but is merely the basics or rudiments. Here is a good thumbnail description. (compliments of the Wikipedia page on theory)

The Oxford Companion to Music describes three interrelated uses of the term "music theory":

The first is what is otherwise called 'rudiments', currently taught as the elements of notation, of key signatures, of time signatures, of rhythmic notation, and so on. [...] The second is the study of writings about music from ancient times onwards. [...] The third is an area of current musicological study that seeks to define processes and general principles in music — a sphere of research that can be distinguished from analysis in that it takes as its starting-point not the individual work or performance but the fundamental materials from which it is built.
Click to expand...
 
Hi, Nickie!

Nickie said:
He said that chords are just arpeggios, played very fast.
Click to expand...

In general, the statement is very true. But on ukulele, we can not see good results. The figure shows arpeggio of C, Am7, Dm7 and G on guitar. Basically we play bass (root) notes first when change chords (see red circles). We play melody notes on the last note in chords in chord melody. We play melody often 1st strings in chord melody. Our ear distinguish that root on the bottom and melody on the top in play. If we just slow in these chords on our ukulele, the results are shown on the next tab. C/G means C chord on G bass. C and C/G are different chord and different sound. We have only 4 strings on our ukulele. In this manner, it is hard to manage root (bass) note in arpeggio. We can change the arpeggio patterns in order to get root note first. But it is still very difficult and frequent change pattern leads to bad result in a song. Guitar has 6 strings and they can manage it in the figure. EDW stated that the word arpeggiare comes from the Italian, meaning playing as if on a harp. Harp has lots more strings. We can not play as if on a harp.





Code: 
    C/G                        Am7/G                      Dm7/A                      G
A |----------3-----------3--------------0-----------0--------------3-----------3--------------1-----------1----
E |-------0-----------0--------------0-----------0--------------1-----------1--------------1-----------1-------
C |----0-----------0--------------0-----------0--------------2-----------2--------------2-----------2----------
G |-0-----------0--------------0-----------0--------------2-----------2--------------0-----------0-------------
 
ubu, my friend, please go easy on ZZ. He meant well, and I think I understood what he meant. I would LOVE to understand theory, it's not that I'm lazy (but I am very good at doing nothing), but hard headed. I failed college algebra twice.
I've studied MT with a teacher, and learned a little, but maybe only 10%. It's NOT easy.
And thanks for your explanation.
 
nuts and bolts... are for building objects.

Music is for listening though.
In my mind.. if it sounds right, it's right, and nothing else really matters.

The thing about theory... is it's words, and analysis of something someone already pulled out of their head to explain what they did.
Someone always has to create something before it can be "theory-ed" into a label or a thesis.

But that first guy to play it... didn't theory it into existence. It just came out, and sounded right.
So.. by nature of it... sounds right has to come before someone can analyse it, and put a label on it.
And if that's true.. you don't need theory if you can just.....feel it.

That isn't to say theory isn't useful.

But.. really.. it's an academic way of studying something someone already did, and the conventions they used.
But... so is listening, and just internalizing it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

IamNoMan
Arpeggios, broken chords, & Strumming frustration
Replies
2
Views
449
Ukejenny
Ukejenny
fumanshu
Harp+ukulele=nice arpeggios, solo and chords
Replies
0
Views
382
fumanshu
fumanshu
K
Learning Guitarlele chords question
Replies
7
Views
158
K-ukulele
K
G
Tabs/Chords Ukulele Chords/Tabs for "Home" by Robert Crumb and the Cheap Suit Serenaders
Replies
5
Views
215
Biem
B
BiosphereDecay
I can't add chords with more than one of the same note on different strings in Flat.
Replies
3
Views
199
Bill Sheehan
Bill Sheehan
Top Bottom