This is a Chord (2016) • Hacker News Board

Re: This is a Chord (2016)

#71

Post by ChancyChance » Fri, Mar 31, 2023, 3:26 PM UTC

max182 wrote: post #10

I think this is a good way of approaching life. Learn the absolute basics, then start making things. Trying to learn everything first will keep you in the consumer mindset. Be a producer.

Except with this strategy you only ever get a topical experience, and you only ever expose your customers to your topical experience. If it is a hobby to provide enjoyment in life, go for it; if not, don't be scared to put in a little elbow grease and learn something, otherwise you won't make a dent in the SAM/TAM of products that did put in the time.

> Trying to learn everything first will keep you in the consumer mindset. Be a producer.

Is this a quote from "Silicon Valley"? Sounds like something Bachman would say between bong hits.

Re: This is a Chord (2016)

#72

Post by brudgers » Fri, Mar 31, 2023, 5:33 PM UTC

DonaldFisk wrote: post #36

brudgers wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is from the era when guitar tab was not so ubiquitous…and I seem to remember a lot of the chords in pop song books printed with dots on the fret 45 years ago. But it has been awhile.

I have music books I bought in the 1970s, and those all have dots behind the frets.

I think you are right, and I just checked out a preview of Mel Bay's Rhythm Chord Guitar Method, and it's dots between frets.

Maybe it was my guitar teacher who wrote tab that way when I asked him how to play something.

Which makes sense to me since it seems like it would be simpler to write tab that way by hand...as opposed to typesetting it where it would probably be about the same amount of work either way.

What I mean is dots on frets would almost certainly be how I would write down tab for myself...and it seems like it would be clear enough to anyone who had a guitar in their hand.

Re: This is a Chord (2016)

#73

Post by acapybara » Sat, Apr 01, 2023, 12:02 PM UTC

qzervaas wrote: post #49

sambapa wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Idk. C, am, F and G are as easy, if not easier, and you can play with them a nice I-IV-vi-V instead of this modal interchange shit.

Maybe swap F for Em. Beginners aren't (successfully) playing F, no matter which variation.

sambapa must be a piano player

Re: This is a Chord (2016)

#74

Post by sambapa » Sat, Apr 01, 2023, 1:44 PM UTC

acapybara wrote: post #73

qzervaas wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe swap F for Em. Beginners aren't (successfully) playing F, no matter which variation.

sambapa must be a piano player

Nah, classical guitarist here ;)

Re: This is a Chord (2016)

#75

Post by schwartzworld » Sat, Apr 01, 2023, 6:30 PM UTC

Eavolution wrote: post #8

gaudat wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like 0-4-5, 0-4-6-5, 0-4-5-4-0? It may be off by a step or two, it has been years since I last touched a fretboard.

0-3-5, 0-3-6-5, 0-3-5-3-0

Duh duh duh, duh duh da-nuh, duh duh duh, duh duh

Re: This is a Chord (2016)

#76

Post by thanatropism » Mon, Apr 03, 2023, 12:20 PM UTC

tunesmith wrote: post #24

thanatropism wrote: post #19

Am-E-G would have been ii-V-I, the everpresent faux-jazz progression (also common in actual jazz of a certain vintage).

That would be Am-D-G. This one is probably more like A major with a flat seven since G major has two tones in common with the ii.

D-oh. You're right.