Perhaps I have compleatly misunderstood the question but I thought he was
asking how to work out the different inversions of the major and minor
triads on a guitar fret board. Not learn every inversion of every chord from
C major to the 5th inversion of B#13 with a #5 and flat 9
There are 3 inversions of a chord in an octave so there are only 3 shapes to
be learnt for each set of 3 strings. There are 4 sets of strings ie. 1 2 3,
2 3 4, 3 4 5, and 4 5 6. That makes 12 shapes for the major and another 12
shapes for the minor. A total of 24 shapes to learn that you then move all
over the fret board. These shapes are almost as fundamental to playing and
improvising as learning the 5 or 6 movable patterns for each type of scale.
These shapes are all through a guitarists playing. If you look at a
transcription of anybody from Eric Clapton to Joe Pass you will probably
find them use one at some stage. I know that they both do.
If you want to set the tone of the discussion for the group at a higher
level and think that questions like this are more suted to news groups like
rec.music.makers.guitar thats fine. I get realy board trawling through all
the crap on those gps to find the interesting discussion and I would much
rather read a more focused group. But don't lead begginers astray.
At 12:23 AM 20/10/96 -0700, you wrote:
>The way you are approaching things will not yield anything of
>general value for your playing.
>
>I know from experience because as kid I learned to play all those inversions
>and it didnt get me any closer to be able to play better chords
>than if I hadnt studied them at all. It does teach you alot about
>fingerring, etc and other technical issues but it won't help you play
>chords in a real setting.
>
>Like I said, if you just want to improve technically, get the Leavitt books.
>
>If you want to play jazz, pose a better question. I mean you must want
>to play like Barney Kessel or Wes Montgomery or Joe Pass or something.
>You must have heard something that sounds good to you that you want to
>be able play. Or maybe you'd like to play a chord melody for "The Days of
>Wine and Roses" or something. Approaching things from that direction will
>yield infinitely better results.
>
>Just doing stuff for the sake of you think you ought to will just
>be a waste of time. Until you are a top level player, you don't really
>know what's important to do for the "sake of it".
>
>Do you think Wes Montgomery spent time practicing "all the inversions"
>for that sake of it. I don't think so. How about Barney Kessel? I doubt it
>. How about any top player? I doubt it.
>
>If they did, it was because they saw some musical device that they
>were using over and over again and wanted to generalize things for
>themselves. And then they just practiced that exact device in say 12
>keys or something.
>
>It was not motivated by some intellectual presumption that it would be
>good for them like eating liver or something.
>
>reed
>
>
>
>
Data is not information,
Information is not knowlegde,
Knowledge is not wisdom. Anon.