Minor Add4 Sweep or Minor Add11 Sweep?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 2 січ 2022
- We're editing our upcoming interview with the awesome Wim Den Herder, in which he plays this cool little minor pentatonic-sounding arpeggio. Part of the tedious process of transcribing licks is coming up with sensible names for four seconds of video, so you'll have some clue as to what the example contains when you're scrolling through fifty of these in a list. So we're calling this one "Minor Add4 Arpeggio". Why not add11? To me this doesn't sound very "eleveny", it sounds more like a pentatonic lick with some notes omitted. But "Minor Pentatonic Arpeggio" might be confusing. Same thing with the classic Gambale-style major add2 lick. That lick just doesn't sound very "niney" in the sense of "chord plus high extension", so I always call that one an "add2" and not an "add9". But I admit I'm ignorant. What's the rule with naming adds?
Love it. And tip of the hat for the new "slowed down half speed or more" audio and video quality. Kudos.
We've been delivering the musical examples in our interviews at 25% speed, with pitch-corrected sound, for years. Between all the interviews on the site the excerpts number in the thousands at this point. I'm not going to think about all the hours we've spent looking at hands, it's too weird!
@@troygrady I don’t know Troy if it’s that I was looking at this video on my desktop computer’s big screen versus my iPad but the video seemed clearer and sharper than usual.
@@aliensporebomb It's probably because it's acoustic. Distortion tends to sound terrible slowed down. No way around it really.
Best wishes for 2022
Love the videos as always. Been a longtime subscriber. I have one suggestion I felt I should bring forward. First, I love the picking view and the accessory for the phone. I will probably get one when it is finished and ready for sale. However, my suggestion is more with the camera than anything else. I understand it is a phone camera with limited resources and perhaps with all the processing of editing videos for publishing on youtube, as well as youtube streaming affecting video. I notice youtube has the option for 60FPS on some videos. I think that streaming capability would benefit on these type of videos. Again, great channel and it is the definitive, and unmatched, channel out there for improving picking and guitar playing! Keep up great work!
That sounded pretty cool
Dear Troy, Phil Tougas... I think you'll be pleasantly surprised to see the art of the shred is still pushing forward and would love to see you analyze whatever the hell he's doing
That was boss!
So when will the people who pledged money on Kickstarter get the magnet? I thought those were gonna get sent out by now but i havent heard anything about them in a while. Just curious! 😁
The short answer is we don't know, and we're in the same boat as you. We post updates periodically. The last one was super detailed about the issues with the factory and their difficulties trying to make the molds work. You can read that here ( www.kickstarter.com/projects/troygrady/the-magnet-smartphone-camera-mount-for-guitar/posts/3325835 ). We're waiting on another update from them, but since Omicron things have gotten nuts. We should have some more info soon.
Add 11 sounds more 'generally accepted' in my opinion, even though technically they're both right.
Agree with you there, it's a funny one. Lots of people say both don't they. My brain works in more of a "placement" order; I'd maybe say add4 if the 4th was close in sequence to the surrounding notes, whereas if it's played at the top register of the chord/arpeggio I'm more inclined to stick with add11. But then I say that, and I'd probably always say add11 because I always say add9 even if the 9th is close by! So who knows. What do you reckon?!
'Minor add4' is easy enough to understand what is meant but it's not really correct. chords where possible should be 'spelled' in thirds 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13. you would only call the 11th the 4th (or the 9th the 2nd) if there is no 3rd
Awesome master! New pick? Not Dunlop Jazz 3?
I think you might be thinking this is me playing, it's not - it's the fantastic Wim Den Herder. It's a clip from our upcoming interview with him. I don't remember what pick he used, but it looks like Tortex.
Mantap sweep nya
add11 is the answer.
add4 would be 1 b3 4 5 only...
add11 is 1 b3 (4) 5 8 b10 11 12...
sus4 would be 1 4 5, without the b3
edit: btw I'm not specifying that a min add11 must contain 8 b10 12, I only wrote that in reference to what Troy played in the video. The (4) I wrote in the min add11 is because Troy played a 4th on the descending part..
but the real answer is actually none of the above, because usually in modern guitar notation, only chords are named... arpeggios whose notes don't blend into each other, usually those aren't named because they're treated as more of scales... chords are named so because they're notes played together at the same time and those intervals evoke a certain feeling. It's different when the notes are played one after the other, and so modern guitar notation doesn't treat them as chords and doesn't notate them as chords...
Mm... I'm not so sure about that. First I should point out that in 'traditional' musical notations of old, the term arpeggio simply referred to a chord that was strummed slow enough that individual tones could be heard in succession along the direction of the strum while an implied 'let ring' allowed all the strings to sustain and bleed over each other; written as a squiggly vertical line drawn next to the chord on the staff (this was before tablature became a thing). And so it was by definition that the arpeggio's express purpose was intended as an articulation variation specially for chords. It wasn't until more contemporary jazz and neo-classical shred players brought the advent of the 'sweep arpeggio' into light as a brand new entity where especially distorted electric guitar tones would benefit from separatng the chord voices into lines of discreet (single, not 'let ring') notes played in increasingly rapid but still rhythmically meaningful succession.
Now, even though I do agree that we're largely talking semantics here, with due consideration paid to how altering a chord's voicing allows for various open/closed shapes and patterns that are in essence functionally equivalent, we must still take care not to get carried away with the concept, because extended chords have very specific applications and lose their meaning if not treated in kind.
So, assuming we can agree, at least for the sake of this conversation, that we should treat an add11 as its own chord, separate from add4, it would then require us to yield that the add11 should correspond with a wide spacing of tones 1, 3,* 5 & 11, where the 11 will likely be doubly voiced and/or serve as the lead voice, typically in the highest (soprano/sopranino) register (*note that I elected not to notate a b3 because this all applies exactly the same way to a major chord with a natural 3rd).
Now of course we know well and good by now that it is the principle of diatonic (/octave) identity that allows in context of analysis for an 11 chord to contain the 8, 10 & 12 you wrote and remain effectively the same chord, while the inverse allows us that (4) you indicated in the base register. BUT, unless you're scoring for multiple players as in an orchestral or concerto arrangement, having all of those intervals fully occupied is NOT ACTUALLY CORRECT, for a couple of reasons.
Firstly, the inclusion of 8, 10 & 12 intervals actually works against the notation, cluttering up what should technically be an open-voiced chord and thus defeating the purpose of explicitly denoting it as an add11. If we decided to allow for these octave identities in this type of notation, there wouldn't be any point in the entire conceptual existence of extended chords. Then it turns into a game of deciding whether to condense into a conventional (single-octave) chord, or get stuck in charting out a whole 2~3+ octaves (whatever describes your instrument's range), including the inverse intervals which become necessary to get the 4th into the add11 as you wrote. If we start allowing that, I could see no reason at all that the add4 chord must be strictly confined to only 1 octave, or much more importantly what would keep an add11 from being overtaken amidst a sea of add4 chords stacked by octave. Conversely, if we are conceding that diatonic identities are permissible, then it would apply in the inverse (lower) direction as well, which means we have more numbers to write out.
Right away, we can see that this 1 tiny allowance causes the distinction between add4 & add11 to dissolve completely, and concern for simplicity makes the add11 notation obsolete as it's swallowed by a wall of stacked add4s, spelled in intervalic series as the entire divergent set {[...], , (-12), «-11», (-10), , (-5), «-4», (-3), , 3, «4», 5, , 10, «11», 12, , [...]} where & «4ths» are marked thus (remember there is NO #0 when counting intervals!). I would sooner assert that a multiple-octave add11 might be more appropriately written as {, 3, 5, «11», , 17, 19, «25», , […]}, but this can also be misleading, as it looks to say that the whole 2nd octave may ONLY contain that 11th, which just isn't true. The main thing to remember is take airy over clluttered going for that nice open voicing in your chords/arpeggiated runs, and try to bring some extra attention to that 11th.
Above all though... These rules we've been talking about here... BREAK EM! Or don't! As much or often as you'd like, even if that's never, as long as you're loving playing, you're miles ahead of the game! Get the absolute most out of playing while you're in love with it, because almost nothing else even comes close!
wow
Normal speed sounds fine (which is all that matters), but seeing as you shared there’s a couple of dud/muffled notes on the 2nd and 3rd string on the upwards sweep (that’s slo mo for ya 😁🤓😅).
For sure, at stupid fast speeds like this I think it's fine. Even in our Gambale interview you'll hear lots of variation like this. Every listener will have a different bar for this type of thing, but to me these players still sound like experts with lots of control. Actual sloppyness sounds very different.
@@troygrady agreed!
Minor add 11 is usually how it is written, but lots of modern notation have add 4 - or it can be written as a sus chord....
No, sus no. Because it implies the substraction of the third.
Minor add11 is the most academic terminology
Tip: This won't go into the short rotation unless it's in vertical rotation. 👍 (you probably know this, but I noticed the #shorts tag…)
Ha, thank you. Yeah, I know. If I'm sitting at a keyboard, I don't want to see vertical video. And when you see the vertical version, you can't see what's written in the description. At least I haven't figured out how to see that. So I basically don't like "shorts" I guess! I'm just using the hashtag to justify why we've posted a super short video, but I acknowledge it's basically just another channel video.
@@troygrady I’m not big on them myself. Your content is always great though. 🤙
Add11
Because succession of Major/Minor 3rd intervals,,
3-5-7-9-11-13
The 2,4 appears as suspended chords
sus2, et sus4 in that case, there's no Minor/Major 3rd in these chords.
But in reality, many people prefer to use add4 than add11,,,, cause it's way easier to understand quickly
That makes sense. My question would be, if we say "add" for a 2 or a 4, then it's not really a "sus", because it's not replacing the 3, just "adding" to it. Is that usage accepted?
@@troygrady except if you are a musical theory snob,,, this usage is accepted by many (cause add4 is easier to understand that is using the 4th rather than 11th).
But if you write a musical Tab, and you write the name of the chords on it, it's a little bit more professionnal to write add11 i guess... (cause musical theory).
Great technique Troy,,, it's sweep combined with economy picking imo lol
Sometimes the terminology can be confusing, so I tend to use use "sweep" just to describe a pickstroke that goes across more than one string. I say "economy" when I'm referring to a picking style that uses a mix of sweep string changes and alternate picking, either on a single string or during string changes. Whew! Confusing, I know.
@@troygrady i agree with ur definition.. i always thought that economy picking is the path of least resistance. So in this case the whole idea kinda revolves around economy picking.
For sure, technically this would be an "economy" lick because you have sweeping motions and alternate picking motions mixed together.
Gotta say I have absolutely no fucking clue man
Just sweep picking on an Acoustic. There's nothing much more to understand.
@@richardjones2811 it’s a music theory question, not a technique question. Seems you missed the point lol
If the add is within the first octave you use the appropriate digit between 1 and 8, in this case 4. If the add is in the second octave you should use 11. In Jazz players will use both octaves interchangeably when written as 9 or 11, but typically when 2, 4 or 6 is used the writer specifically me at the first octave.
He plays the D in the second octave ascending, and he plays it in both octaves descending
Sor resting the pinky on the high e is just for muting purposes?
I think it's just for spatial awareness. The most common anchor points are forearm on the body, palm on the bridge, or finger on the guitar body. Almost everyone uses the forearm anchor. For the second point of contact, choose any of the other two, or both!
@@troygrady No you can clearly see the pinky is muting the high e string and eliminating that not before playing the b string.
Yes, I can see that, but you're asking why he does it. I think he does it for spatial awareness, not for muting the E string. I say this because from editing the interview there were a few times where there was E string contact during chordal and arpeggio playing, causing notes to be cut off too soon. In other words, I think the E string contact is an accident, and not the primary reason the finger touches the top. We have also filmed other players who have this form, like Carl Miner and James Seliga, and it looks like they also try to avoid touching the strings with that finger as much as possible.
@@troygrady "Almost everyone uses the forearm anchor. For the second point of contact, choose any of the other two, or both!"
Or none..)
I play mainly sweep patterns in most my lead playing. I struggle on straight down picking. Metallica is best at that 😂. I play similar to Zack Wylde as he was one of my teachers. Took 1 week course with him in florida in between one of my tours.
I learned a lot of pentatonic scales and picking patterns. Down down up down pattern as well.
An 11th cord can have the 7th and 9th present. A 4th chord cannot.
That seems to be the consensus so far. I'm ok with that, it's pretty straightforward!
That would be an 11 chord though, not an add 11. The basic rule is that anything that isn't in the triad is listed above that triad. Since the 4th lands between the 3rd and the 5th, it goes an octave up.
But I agree with what someone else said, in the case of this arpeggio it makes less sense to come up with an actual chord name, as it's not actually a chord that's being played. More musical to try and process it as a minor arpeggio with a passing tone, to me at least.
uhmm