I'm sure this has been brought up many times. I play guitar but never for accompaniment of trad music. For that I've always played melody on mandolin and a little bit of whistle. So, other than noodling around on my own in DADGAD, I've always played guitar with the standard tuning. Looking at chord fingering charts for DADGAD, I can't imagine anyone using it, even though the tuning itself does sound pretty grand. I'm thinking of doing some accompaniment at my local session (mainly because I don't know enough tunes yet on melody), and I'm wondering if I should just stick with standard tuning because of my familiarity, even though I really love the sound of the DADGAD tuning. Should I put in some effort to learn DADGAD accompaniment or stick with standard. Thanks in advance for any input.
Learning another tuning is always helpful in terms of developing your understanding of the instrument. Likewise learning other styles and approaches to the instrument can broaden your understanding. The vast majority of my time on the guitar is in dadgad. It works for me. I have played around with various other tunings for songs and so forth. Like most people I first learned the guitar in standard tuning and it is nice to go back to it to find new things.
As far as accompaniment goes, go with what seems right for you and what you are comfortable with. Listen to other guitarists and decide what you like. There are a great number of guitarists who use dadgad and it works very well. Equally however there are those who use standard tuning and make it sound great - Ian Carr, Kris Drever and Tony Byrne to name three. John Doyle largely uses dropped-D tuning for accompaniment.
I would say that if you want to learn to accompany in sessions then that is all well and good. As an accompanist you wouldn't expect me to disagree. I would say though that it does take work and effort. It should not be seen as something to do because you don't know the tunes. I would probably be a better whistle player if I was not always playing the guitar but that is not to suggest that I have just been lazy by focussing on the guitar. Do not look on accompaniment as the easy option.
Stick with standard IMO.
Knowing a tune does not automatically mean you know the chord pattern to go with the tune. It makes no odds how many tunes you know, there will always be ones played you dont know! The skill is to be able to figure out the key change and tunes as it happens. IMO the process involves learning the chord patterns that go with a bunch of tunes, say 20 or 30. this will give you the feel of the genre which will at least give you ideas of what might be happening in tunes you dont know.
You can do just fine with standard, and since you are familiar with that tuning, can focus on learning how the tunes are constructed, what harmonies underly them, etc, etc, rather than getting distracted by learning a new tuning. If you want to try something slightly different that helps with accompanying this music, try dropping your bottom string to a D.
Click on my user name, and you will see a little essay I wrote on getting started in accompanying.
By knowing the tunes and their melodies, you are already off to a good start. And however you decide to pursue The Music, don't forget to enjoy the journey!!!
this is something ive thought alot about,
i have played standard tuning (ST) for ever. with dadgad i can make half a fist of it, but i dont think i'll ever get that level of intuition i have on ST.
guitar in ST is almost an extra limb to me.
i dont aim to be a backer in in sessions; its something i typically do when i still have a guitar in my hands after singing a song, and a tune starts up.
.... and my hands just know what to do, i might as well send my brain home. its not just the given chords, its inversions, chucked in base notes, relative minors/majors, 7ths , sus 4ths etc etc etc
but with dadgad, or indeed chords on the bouzouki, which is new to me at present, if i'm trying to busk it, i will just play the dumbass obvious inversions, as my fingers arent sure where else to go; which imo makes for crap backing.
* the point im trying to make is, it largely depends on how intuitive you are with ST, and whether you really want to start again.
i love the dadgad sound in the hands of a master; but sometimes it does sound too modal/samey
regardless of tuning, john doyle is worth hearing for his percussive approach. lovely!
Maybe this is the fodder for another thread. But this thread probably draws some experience in DADGAD.
As my freinds here know I often play backer guitar in our Liturginazi's brass band. And then there is her piano player who has never seen a song she couldn't play in e flat a flat f or bflat. A real treat for us B/C box players.
And for us backer guitar players
I have been wrestling with capos.
In the more typical flatted and sharped keys, does DADGAD give us backer guitar players any advantages. I am looking at having to explore jazz barr chords (more than the standard position stuff I have been playing for years and sounds DULLLLL.) I have gotten a new Martin and the barr chords are easier to play, and sound a bit better,,,,,but they are still dull barr chords.
John Doyle is unbelievable. I saw him live with Liz Carrol a few weeks ago. She just let him go on a couple of numbers.....made me want to change my musical vocation to Tuba...
I made the switch a year or so ago and it doesn't take to long, and pays off. Especially if you are going to attempt to play along with tunes you don't know. It is much faster to change chords in DADGAD because you can use more open strings. The optimal choice would be to have a second guitar (not to bring to the session but to have at home) so you can practice both. Personally I use my classically tuned tuned guitar for classical music and fingerstyle, and my steel string in DADGAD. The higher tension of steel strings makes DADGAD a blessing.
Zippy. In Isolation, jazz chords, 13th etc are pretty meaningless, IMO you need to learn them in the context of jazz standards. Pick one like say Aint misbehavin, or Honeysuckle rose, and there are loads of chord possibilities and settings easily found.
Earl, I can change chords pretty damn fast in standard
IMO the two systems are like 2 different instruments. I use Drop D for playing the tunes but standard for backing in sessions. Open chords DGC, Am G, Em D, etc that kind of thing.
No, I have not given up on flute at all, I'm just taking my guitar along to play on sets where I don't know the tunes yet. I'm working on about a tune a week, it's going to take a while
it's definitely individual, for some reason standard tuning is hard on my left hand when it comes to holding down some chords. I guess maybe my action is too high, but it's as low as will go without buzzing. That being said, DADGAD and ST require different action with DADGAD being slightly higher because the strings are looser. I don't know why, but within a week of changing to DADGAD the chord shapes became more intuitive to me, and when I go back I have to think extra hard, don't know what happened there really
We had a guitarist come up from Illinois about a month or so ago to the Madison session. I am pretty sure he was playing standard, but his style was very refined with lots of bass runs and bits of melody. I still prefer DADGAD though
I like all the drones that are available. the funny thing is that the middle strings stay the same so all the triads you know on the ADG strings and all their inversions are still good.
but there are alot of great textures you can get and its easy to sound like you are playing Irish music in that tuning for some reason, so I like DADGAD quite a bit
Fair play Jimmy. For better or worse it is simply not the way I would start into a new session ~ playing on every tune. Tunes I don't know, I sit & listen. Sometimes I even sit & listen on tunes I do know.
Funny thing is, a couple of my mates have said I don't like a tune when they notice I'm not playing. I guess they just don't *see* me listening.
The more I play the more I listen. Hope that makes sense.
Cheers.
I hear you. I'm just excited about the combination of getting back into playing music regularly, and also because it's something new. I'm not new to Irish music, just to sessioning. Many years ago I played mandolin with a small group and we played mostly songs with the occasional tune set, but a very limited selection at that, a couple of jigs, a couple of reels, maybe a hornpipe, but that was about it. You're probably right, and I should probably spend more time listening and learning my melody instruments which is what I really want to do, it's just the excitement that makes me want to participate perhaps more than I should. But still and all, I do love playing guitar as well and I'm a fairly competent rhythm player, so that was part of the motivation as well.
Are there any particularly good resources available for learning DADGAD? The things I have seen on the web have left something to be desired, or maybe I don't appreciate them
Take music theory at your local community college.
Then... sit down with a pad of graph paper and draw out chords for every common key. Then... do it with the capo on the second fret.
well, I seriously recommend drawing out your own chords on graph paper. It's how I taught myself how to play in DADGAD. I found some really cool ways to play chords that nobody ever mentioned on any online lessons whatsoever.
If you capo on the second fret, and play the same shapes
they will be a whole step higher (which you must already know)
so this is a way to change the coloring of your chords, for instance your C Major 9 becomes a D major 9 which is more colorful when playing in E dorian. it is possible to play a D Major 9 in open position, but it sounds too identical to an E minor minor 7th for my taste.
also try the DADGAD slide chords in D.... a lot of people do this and use a QuickDraw capo to change keys, so essential capo 5 for G, capo 7 for A etc.... this is largely because, due to the notes in the tuning, DADGAD sounds best when the chords played are in D so using a capo isn't cheating but achieving a nice, dron-ey voicing.
Chord 1:
0
0
2
0
0
0
Chord 2:
0
0
0
0
2
2
Chord 3:
0
0
2
0
4
4
Chord 4:
0
0
4
0
5
5
Chord 5:
0
0
6
0
7
7
Chord 6:
0
0
7
0
9
9
Chord 7:
0
0
9
11
X
11
Chord 8 (a higher variant of 1):
0
0
11
0
12
12
... so you'll see that a lot of these are based around the same position that is slid up the neck to achieve a drone on the high strings...
Earl Cameron - Your G ambiguous is hardly a G chord. The notes in that chord are DDDGDD. At the very most you could call it a very minimal Dsus4. If you work out where you would play that chord in a progression then it infers a D chord eg you might slide that shape up and down the strings. At the 10th fret it is a G chord. As you move it down you can count the chords down that are inferred. G (10th) -> F#m (9th) ->Em (7th) -> D (5th) -> etc. Your G on the 2nd fret (020020) can also infer a Bm depending on how you use it.
Your Em is very weak as it has only one E, 2Gs and a G and the E is not even the bass note.
Your E minor minor 7th is in fact just Em7 and is again a weak chord.
I am not sure what theory book you are using but I would suggest you bin it.
Don't just consider what a chord is in isolation but on what it is as part of a progression.
I get a Martin that has great action and solid tuning up the neck and now I can work on this.
I suppose once I focus on getting the logic of the system down I will figure this out, but how I can get a Fmaj9?
And Earl, your advice is very well taken. Herself gets on me because-even though I sight read, I am learning box/ITM by the traditional method- I transcribe all the tunes I learn since I am no Spring Chicken and the memory isn't what it once was. That staff music is all over the house.
I can't say it is that common a chord though in accompaniment. I have certainly hardly ever used it. I will use maj7th chords quite a lot but not too many maj9ths.
A standard maj7th position would be:
3X223X (F)
5X445X (G)
etc
Again a handy moveable chord.
To get the minor7th you just need to move the fingers behind the root back one eg:
That G chord is still a G chord and I usually use it when passing up the neck, I definitely wouldn't use it as a D chord in the Key of D, it sounds like a G chord because the G stands out. I more often use the G major or minor shapes.
I wouldn't use it as a D chord in a D tune either. That would just be daft! I would use it as a D chord in a G tune though.
I suppose my point is why would you play it instead of a G chord when you can play 5X005(0) instead which gives you a much stronger G chord as the G is in the route and is no harder to play at all? I don't understand.
Alternate tunings are fine until someone jumps from D into E flatt and A flatt and a pipe tune in Bb or one has to play a gypsy jazz tune and a wee solo in the middle of a set of trad tunes... no time to put a capo on ... and even if there was time why chop off access to good fretts?
I prefer standard tuning by far. It beats everything else because it is good in any key.
DADGAD vs. Traditional Tuning
DADGAD vs. Traditional Tuning
I'm sure this has been brought up many times. I play guitar but never for accompaniment of trad music. For that I've always played melody on mandolin and a little bit of whistle. So, other than noodling around on my own in DADGAD, I've always played guitar with the standard tuning. Looking at chord fingering charts for DADGAD, I can't imagine anyone using it, even though the tuning itself does sound pretty grand. I'm thinking of doing some accompaniment at my local session (mainly because I don't know enough tunes yet on melody), and I'm wondering if I should just stick with standard tuning because of my familiarity, even though I really love the sound of the DADGAD tuning. Should I put in some effort to learn DADGAD accompaniment or stick with standard. Thanks in advance for any input.
# Posted on October 7th 2009 by Jimmy B
Re: DADGAD vs. Traditional Tuning
Learning another tuning is always helpful in terms of developing your understanding of the instrument. Likewise learning other styles and approaches to the instrument can broaden your understanding. The vast majority of my time on the guitar is in dadgad. It works for me. I have played around with various other tunings for songs and so forth. Like most people I first learned the guitar in standard tuning and it is nice to go back to it to find new things.
As far as accompaniment goes, go with what seems right for you and what you are comfortable with. Listen to other guitarists and decide what you like. There are a great number of guitarists who use dadgad and it works very well. Equally however there are those who use standard tuning and make it sound great - Ian Carr, Kris Drever and Tony Byrne to name three. John Doyle largely uses dropped-D tuning for accompaniment.
# Posted on October 7th 2009 by No Cause For Alarm
Re: DADGAD vs. Traditional Tuning
Interesting. I wonder what tuning Ged Foley uses. He is quite amazing.
# Posted on October 7th 2009 by Jimmy B
????????
jimmy, have you given up on flute so soon?
# Posted on October 7th 2009 by Ben Steen
Re: DADGAD vs. Traditional Tuning
According to this website:
http://www.sover.net/~artedel/tunings.html
he uses CGCGCD which you are bound to hear about shortly from Lisaniska because it is his pet topic!
# Posted on October 7th 2009 by No Cause For Alarm
Re: DADGAD vs. Traditional Tuning
we have some one who plays guitar chords & bodhran because, she, 'doesn't know enough tunes yet on melody.' drives me bananas.
# Posted on October 7th 2009 by Ben Steen
Re: DADGAD vs. Traditional Tuning
"Should I put in some effort to learn DADGAD accompaniment or stick with standard. Thanks in advance for any input."
Do both!
Whats the rush?
# Posted on October 7th 2009 by Hugo Chavez
~
What is the rush? Go to the session & listen ;)
# Posted on October 7th 2009 by Ben Steen
Re: DADGAD vs. Traditional Tuning
Maybe your time would be better spent learning the tunes first...
# Posted on October 7th 2009 by wyogal
Re: DADGAD vs. Traditional Tuning
I would say that if you want to learn to accompany in sessions then that is all well and good. As an accompanist you wouldn't expect me to disagree. I would say though that it does take work and effort. It should not be seen as something to do because you don't know the tunes. I would probably be a better whistle player if I was not always playing the guitar but that is not to suggest that I have just been lazy by focussing on the guitar. Do not look on accompaniment as the easy option.
# Posted on October 7th 2009 by No Cause For Alarm
Re: DADGAD vs. Traditional Tuning
Stick with standard IMO.
Knowing a tune does not automatically mean you know the chord pattern to go with the tune. It makes no odds how many tunes you know, there will always be ones played you dont know! The skill is to be able to figure out the key change and tunes as it happens. IMO the process involves learning the chord patterns that go with a bunch of tunes, say 20 or 30. this will give you the feel of the genre which will at least give you ideas of what might be happening in tunes you dont know.
# Posted on October 7th 2009 by piobagusfidil
Re: DADGAD vs. Traditional Tuning
You can do just fine with standard, and since you are familiar with that tuning, can focus on learning how the tunes are constructed, what harmonies underly them, etc, etc, rather than getting distracted by learning a new tuning. If you want to try something slightly different that helps with accompanying this music, try dropping your bottom string to a D.
Click on my user name, and you will see a little essay I wrote on getting started in accompanying.
By knowing the tunes and their melodies, you are already off to a good start. And however you decide to pursue The Music, don't forget to enjoy the journey!!!
# Posted on October 8th 2009 by AlBrown
Re: DADGAD vs. Traditional Tuning
this is something ive thought alot about,
i have played standard tuning (ST) for ever. with dadgad i can make half a fist of it, but i dont think i'll ever get that level of intuition i have on ST.
guitar in ST is almost an extra limb to me.
i dont aim to be a backer in in sessions; its something i typically do when i still have a guitar in my hands after singing a song, and a tune starts up.
.... and my hands just know what to do, i might as well send my brain home. its not just the given chords, its inversions, chucked in base notes, relative minors/majors, 7ths , sus 4ths etc etc etc
but with dadgad, or indeed chords on the bouzouki, which is new to me at present, if i'm trying to busk it, i will just play the dumbass obvious inversions, as my fingers arent sure where else to go; which imo makes for crap backing.
* the point im trying to make is, it largely depends on how intuitive you are with ST, and whether you really want to start again.
i love the dadgad sound in the hands of a master; but sometimes it does sound too modal/samey
regardless of tuning, john doyle is worth hearing for his percussive approach. lovely!
# Posted on October 8th 2009 by rumpole
Re: DADGAD vs. Traditional Tuning
Maybe this is the fodder for another thread. But this thread probably draws some experience in DADGAD.
As my freinds here know I often play backer guitar in our Liturginazi's brass band. And then there is her piano player who has never seen a song she couldn't play in e flat a flat f or bflat. A real treat for us B/C box players.
And for us backer guitar players
I have been wrestling with capos.
In the more typical flatted and sharped keys, does DADGAD give us backer guitar players any advantages. I am looking at having to explore jazz barr chords (more than the standard position stuff I have been playing for years and sounds DULLLLL.) I have gotten a new Martin and the barr chords are easier to play, and sound a bit better,,,,,but they are still dull barr chords.
Any suggestions?
# Posted on October 8th 2009 by zippydw
Re: DADGAD vs. Traditional Tuning
Oh
John Doyle is unbelievable. I saw him live with Liz Carrol a few weeks ago. She just let him go on a couple of numbers.....made me want to change my musical vocation to Tuba...
Guy is a master
# Posted on October 8th 2009 by zippydw
Re: DADGAD vs. Traditional Tuning
I made the switch a year or so ago and it doesn't take to long, and pays off. Especially if you are going to attempt to play along with tunes you don't know. It is much faster to change chords in DADGAD because you can use more open strings. The optimal choice would be to have a second guitar (not to bring to the session but to have at home) so you can practice both. Personally I use my classically tuned tuned guitar for classical music and fingerstyle, and my steel string in DADGAD. The higher tension of steel strings makes DADGAD a blessing.
# Posted on October 8th 2009 by Earl Cameron
Re: DADGAD vs. Traditional Tuning
Zippy. In Isolation, jazz chords, 13th etc are pretty meaningless, IMO you need to learn them in the context of jazz standards. Pick one like say Aint misbehavin, or Honeysuckle rose, and there are loads of chord possibilities and settings easily found.
Earl, I can change chords pretty damn fast in standard
IMO the two systems are like 2 different instruments. I use Drop D for playing the tunes but standard for backing in sessions. Open chords DGC, Am G, Em D, etc that kind of thing.
# Posted on October 8th 2009 by piobagusfidil
Re: DADGAD vs. Traditional Tuning
Random,
No, I have not given up on flute at all, I'm just taking my guitar along to play on sets where I don't know the tunes yet. I'm working on about a tune a week, it's going to take a while
# Posted on October 8th 2009 by Jimmy B
Re: DADGAD vs. Traditional Tuning
it's definitely individual, for some reason standard tuning is hard on my left hand when it comes to holding down some chords. I guess maybe my action is too high, but it's as low as will go without buzzing. That being said, DADGAD and ST require different action with DADGAD being slightly higher because the strings are looser. I don't know why, but within a week of changing to DADGAD the chord shapes became more intuitive to me, and when I go back I have to think extra hard, don't know what happened there really
# Posted on October 8th 2009 by Earl Cameron
Re: DADGAD vs. Traditional Tuning
although it is still easier to play melody in ST, especially if I'm reading
# Posted on October 8th 2009 by Earl Cameron
Re: DADGAD vs. Traditional Tuning
please learn DADGAD.... please.....
# Posted on October 8th 2009 by camwebby
Re: DADGAD vs. Traditional Tuning
We had a guitarist come up from Illinois about a month or so ago to the Madison session. I am pretty sure he was playing standard, but his style was very refined with lots of bass runs and bits of melody. I still prefer DADGAD though
# Posted on October 8th 2009 by Earl Cameron
Re: DADGAD vs. Traditional Tuning
I like all the drones that are available. the funny thing is that the middle strings stay the same so all the triads you know on the ADG strings and all their inversions are still good.
but there are alot of great textures you can get and its easy to sound like you are playing Irish music in that tuning for some reason, so I like DADGAD quite a bit
# Posted on October 8th 2009 by Nate Ryan
Re: DADGAD vs. Traditional Tuning
Fair play Jimmy. For better or worse it is simply not the way I would start into a new session ~ playing on every tune. Tunes I don't know, I sit & listen. Sometimes I even sit & listen on tunes I do know.
Funny thing is, a couple of my mates have said I don't like a tune when they notice I'm not playing. I guess they just don't *see* me listening.
The more I play the more I listen. Hope that makes sense.
Cheers.
# Posted on October 8th 2009 by Ben Steen
Re: DADGAD vs. Traditional Tuning
Random,
I hear you. I'm just excited about the combination of getting back into playing music regularly, and also because it's something new. I'm not new to Irish music, just to sessioning. Many years ago I played mandolin with a small group and we played mostly songs with the occasional tune set, but a very limited selection at that, a couple of jigs, a couple of reels, maybe a hornpipe, but that was about it. You're probably right, and I should probably spend more time listening and learning my melody instruments which is what I really want to do, it's just the excitement that makes me want to participate perhaps more than I should. But still and all, I do love playing guitar as well and I'm a fairly competent rhythm player, so that was part of the motivation as well.
# Posted on October 8th 2009 by Jimmy B
Re: DADGAD vs. Traditional Tuning
Are there any particularly good resources available for learning DADGAD? The things I have seen on the web have left something to be desired, or maybe I don't appreciate them
# Posted on October 8th 2009 by zippydw
Re: DADGAD vs. Traditional Tuning
Take music theory at your local community college.
Then... sit down with a pad of graph paper and draw out chords for every common key. Then... do it with the capo on the second fret.
# Posted on October 8th 2009 by Earl Cameron
Re: DADGAD vs. Traditional Tuning
Already have the music theory. Just need someone to point me in the right direction.
Thanks though
# Posted on October 8th 2009 by zippydw
Re: DADGAD vs. Traditional Tuning
well, I seriously recommend drawing out your own chords on graph paper. It's how I taught myself how to play in DADGAD. I found some really cool ways to play chords that nobody ever mentioned on any online lessons whatsoever.
I can show you a few of my favorites here
A (ambiguous)
2
0
2
2
0
X
C Major 9
0
3
0
2
3
X
C Major
X
3
0
2
3
X
G Major
0
2
0
0
2
0
G (Ambiguous)
0
5
0
0
5
0
G minor
0
1
0
0
1
0
E minor
X
2
0
2
2
X
E minor minor 7th
0
2
0
2
2
X
D (Ambiguous)
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
5
0
D Major
0
0
7
0
9
0
A Major
7
0
6
7
0
0
# Posted on October 8th 2009 by Earl Cameron
Re: DADGAD vs. Traditional Tuning
If you capo on the second fret, and play the same shapes
they will be a whole step higher (which you must already know)
so this is a way to change the coloring of your chords, for instance your C Major 9 becomes a D major 9 which is more colorful when playing in E dorian. it is possible to play a D Major 9 in open position, but it sounds too identical to an E minor minor 7th for my taste.
# Posted on October 8th 2009 by Earl Cameron
Re: DADGAD vs. Traditional Tuning
Hi again....
also try the DADGAD slide chords in D.... a lot of people do this and use a QuickDraw capo to change keys, so essential capo 5 for G, capo 7 for A etc.... this is largely because, due to the notes in the tuning, DADGAD sounds best when the chords played are in D so using a capo isn't cheating but achieving a nice, dron-ey voicing.
Chord 1:
0
0
2
0
0
0
Chord 2:
0
0
0
0
2
2
Chord 3:
0
0
2
0
4
4
Chord 4:
0
0
4
0
5
5
Chord 5:
0
0
6
0
7
7
Chord 6:
0
0
7
0
9
9
Chord 7:
0
0
9
11
X
11
Chord 8 (a higher variant of 1):
0
0
11
0
12
12
... so you'll see that a lot of these are based around the same position that is slid up the neck to achieve a drone on the high strings...
# Posted on October 8th 2009 by camwebby
Re: DADGAD vs. Traditional Tuning
CGCGCD
# Posted on October 8th 2009 by lisaniska
Re: DADGAD vs. Traditional Tuning
Earl Cameron - Your G ambiguous is hardly a G chord. The notes in that chord are DDDGDD. At the very most you could call it a very minimal Dsus4. If you work out where you would play that chord in a progression then it infers a D chord eg you might slide that shape up and down the strings. At the 10th fret it is a G chord. As you move it down you can count the chords down that are inferred. G (10th) -> F#m (9th) ->Em (7th) -> D (5th) -> etc. Your G on the 2nd fret (020020) can also infer a Bm depending on how you use it.
Your Em is very weak as it has only one E, 2Gs and a G and the E is not even the bass note.
Your E minor minor 7th is in fact just Em7 and is again a weak chord.
I am not sure what theory book you are using but I would suggest you bin it.
Don't just consider what a chord is in isolation but on what it is as part of a progression.
# Posted on October 8th 2009 by No Cause For Alarm
Re: DADGAD vs. Traditional Tuning
Ah Lisaniska, I wondered when you would join us!
# Posted on October 8th 2009 by No Cause For Alarm
Re: DADGAD vs. Traditional Tuning
Earl Cameron, your C Major 9 is, in fact a Cadd9 chord.
A Cmaj9 chord has to have a B in it. Cmaj9 is a Cmaj7 with a D on top. Like, X-3-2-0-2-0.
# Posted on October 9th 2009 by DonaldK
Re: DADGAD vs. Traditional Tuning
Thanks everybody.
I get a Martin that has great action and solid tuning up the neck and now I can work on this.
I suppose once I focus on getting the logic of the system down I will figure this out, but how I can get a Fmaj9?
And Earl, your advice is very well taken. Herself gets on me because-even though I sight read, I am learning box/ITM by the traditional method- I transcribe all the tunes I learn since I am no Spring Chicken and the memory isn't what it once was. That staff music is all over the house.
Now I can add chord charts!
CLean freaks should not marry musicians.....
# Posted on October 9th 2009 by zippydw
Re: DADGAD vs. Traditional Tuning
Fmaj9:
30303X
FAFGCX
Yes?
# Posted on October 9th 2009 by No Cause For Alarm
Re: DADGAD vs. Traditional Tuning
Needs an E.
# Posted on October 9th 2009 by Bob himself
Re: DADGAD vs. Traditional Tuning
Indeed. I realised I slipped up as soon as I posted it.
Fmaj9:
303032
or
30203X
or
33200X
Indeed there are a number of options.
# Posted on October 9th 2009 by No Cause For Alarm
Re: DADGAD vs. Traditional Tuning
thanks.
looks like that will do wonders for wrist cramps!
# Posted on October 9th 2009 by zippydw
Re: DADGAD vs. Traditional Tuning
There is a closed position and therefore moveable chord for it too although it is a bit of a stretch with the pinky:
332235
or
3X2235
F(C)EACG
It gets easier once it moves up the neck.
# Posted on October 9th 2009 by No Cause For Alarm
Re: DADGAD vs. Traditional Tuning
Zippydw - not sure where the problems are with those first lot of chords.
The first one can be played as 3X3032 which might make things easier.
# Posted on October 9th 2009 by No Cause For Alarm
Re: DADGAD vs. Traditional Tuning
I can't say it is that common a chord though in accompaniment. I have certainly hardly ever used it. I will use maj7th chords quite a lot but not too many maj9ths.
A standard maj7th position would be:
3X223X (F)
5X445X (G)
etc
Again a handy moveable chord.
To get the minor7th you just need to move the fingers behind the root back one eg:
Gmaj7:
5X445X
Gmin7:
5x335X
And a G7 would be:
5X345X
# Posted on October 9th 2009 by No Cause For Alarm
Re: DADGAD vs. Traditional Tuning
That G chord is still a G chord and I usually use it when passing up the neck, I definitely wouldn't use it as a D chord in the Key of D, it sounds like a G chord because the G stands out. I more often use the G major or minor shapes.
0
2
0
0
2
0
or minor
0
1
0
0
1
0
# Posted on October 10th 2009 by Earl Cameron
Re: DADGAD vs. Traditional Tuning
I wouldn't use it as a D chord in a D tune either. That would just be daft! I would use it as a D chord in a G tune though.
I suppose my point is why would you play it instead of a G chord when you can play 5X005(0) instead which gives you a much stronger G chord as the G is in the route and is no harder to play at all? I don't understand.
# Posted on October 11th 2009 by No Cause For Alarm
Re: DADGAD vs. Traditional Tuning
try it i urge everyone as it's the tuning that will supercede all others trust me
# Posted on October 17th 2009 by lisaniska
Re: DADGAD vs. Traditional Tuning
Alternate tunings are fine until someone jumps from D into E flatt and A flatt and a pipe tune in Bb or one has to play a gypsy jazz tune and a wee solo in the middle of a set of trad tunes... no time to put a capo on ... and even if there was time why chop off access to good fretts?
I prefer standard tuning by far. It beats everything else because it is good in any key.
# Posted on February 13th 2011 by johnscone