Talk:Guitar chord

Music theory Mid‑importance

	Music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Music theory, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of music theory, theory terminology, music theorists, and musical analysis on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Music theoryWikipedia:WikiProject Music theoryTemplate:WikiProject Music theoryMusic theory articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Guitarists

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Guitarists, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Guitarists on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GuitaristsWikipedia:WikiProject GuitaristsTemplate:WikiProject Guitaristsguitarist articles

Intro

What about: bar (or Barre) chords, the older cousin of power chords, and middle chords, and base chords. There always seems to be no reference in chord books for diminished chords (which I have written out here (brackets = finger number).

(talk) 20:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)this fikjje44jjexdci344u3wzx3iu[reply]

== File:Headline text[[Media: $Example.ogg$ <nowiki>Insert non-formatted text here--98.167.212.62 (talk) 22:20, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

</nowiki>]] == --------

== --4(4)-- ==

--2(1)---
--4(3)---
--3(2)--
--------

Did I miss any chords in those categories? I love how the chord diagrams have turned out so far (and I have the GIMP XCF file that I'll look into uploading). I want to be fairly documentive on the open-stringed chords (complete with diagrams), and have a real good summary for bar chords by just using pictures of guitar players playing bar chords. Either I'm going to have to find PD-licensed photos, or make them myself of myself (Hey that's an idea! Immortality through Wikipedia!).

It will get a little long considering I haven't yet even scratched the surface of how many open-stringed guitar chords there are out there. If it gets too annoying I'll split it up, but for now: one article.

Bass Chords

What about them, they exist. Do they not deserve a section on the wikipedias? this thing sucks

yeah, i think bass chords deserve a section but the best bit is if you tune the bass to a chord then use that tuning in a song

e.g. g minor is awesome try
----/----/--0-/----/----/----
/----/0---/----/---0/----
/--0-/----/----/-0--/----
0---/----/----/----/---/--0-
in g minor tuning

perhaps include a bass chord section —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jedjui (talk • contribs) 18:17, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Power chords

I dont exactly have the software to draw it out, but anyone mind making section for power chords? I mean there is a separate page for it but merging and more detailed Guitar chord page would be certainly nicer.-- WB 00:52, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

Re: Power chords

I wouldn't mind doing examples. Power chords are pretty simple... you can provide three or four examples and pretty much cover the entire range of the guitar. I'm not sure if it needs its own section or deserves a subheading under "bar chords". I'll give it its own section and let fate sort it out I guess.

"Power chord" should remain its own topic for the same reason "major chord" is its own topic. If we need more articles then they'll be "Guitar: Power Chord" or something specific like that. We'll just provide links to those articles as appropriate. Right now I don't see any reason to split off new articles; I'll keep everything I can here for now until the page gets too unwieldly.

I'll get those graphics up for the power chord examples. It usually takes me a few minutes from the xcf template file I made to make the graphics for each chord, so I'll whip up something tonight. -- Zalasur 07:08, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

Re: Re: Power chords (Yeah!)

What do you think?:) -- Zalasur 02:00, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

Re: Re: Re: Power Chords

Nice! -- WB 03:40, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

Re: Re: Re: Re Ppwer Chords

Is a new section really necessary? A powerchord is, in essence, simply a bass note, perfect fifth and octave.

Torn

I'm torn on what to do with the sections... well it's organized now. It needed clean-up. I gotta do that to my other articles too. :^)

Replacing the graphics

I'm going to upload the XCF file (GIMP compatible) to the Wikicommons area. In the meantime, the graphics will be fixed. No more red. -- Zalasur 03:19, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Please do this Zalasur - I cannot find it anywhere. Andeggs

I have uploaded Image:Chord_template.png which can be used for creating chord diagrams. If Zalasur does not put up the existing template soon, I suggest we use this from now on. Andeggs 12:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A more usable version is the GIMP file Image:guitar_chord_template.xcf Andeggs 21:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Movable forms section woefully inadequate

This goes with what the user at top is saying, but the movable forms section is pitifully underwritten. We need something on 5- and 6-string barre chords, arguably the most essential elements for rock-style guitar aside from the power chord. There's also plenty of other movable chords, too, aside from just major, minor, dominant, maj7, and min7.

Root Note

What is a root note? Some three string cords reference this.

Some chords are missing images.

Propose merge

I propose merging List_of_minor_chord_shapes_for_guitar and List_of_major_chord_shapes_for_guitar into this page because there is really no need for seperate pages and also their titles are crazily long! Any thoughts? PS I take silence as agreement Andeggs 11:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested merge outline is:

Notation

The CAGED system

C, A, G, E and D chords

B and F bar chords

Bar chords

Triads

Sixths

Sevenths

Ninths

Thirteenths

Augmented

Power chords

Comments? Andeggs 12:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you got the merge done, since both the above links now resolve to this article. I don't see the reorganization indicated in the above outline, but I think it'll be an improvement. Just one request from me, because I had no idea what the CAGED system was, or why you started referring to it when it wasn't mentioned in the list of standard notations. I had to surf elsewhere to find what it meant.

So, my request is: would you add the following (boldfaced) text to the intro, or introduce it some other way?

"Guitar chords can be represented in standard notation, tablature (frequently referred to as tab), or in chord diagrams of the CAGED system that are used on this page. (CAGED is an acronym standing for the five easiest major chords, etc., etc, yadayada... "

Kkken 10:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC) (who was just passing by, looking for information about some chords)[reply]

FmajorDform

I believe the fingering for FmajorDform should be

X11243 rather than X11234

Re: FmajorDform I still cant get that right! LOL 1w2y3a4t5t (talk) 20:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Diagram

A suggestion: it would make the Chord diagrams section easier to follow if an example diagram were placed alongside it, preferably illustrating as many features of the notation as possible. I'm not a guitarist myself so I don't know what the most appropriate one would be, but I'm sure there's a suitable one. --Blisco 19:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More about the diagram

In the section where chord diagrams are explained, the 4th point is "An O above a vertical line indicates an open string (a string that is played without being fretted)." But what about those cases where the O is not at the top, but over one of the frets, as in the first chord, A(6)? The meaning of this is not explained. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.137.36.15 (talk) 17:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My changes of 12-11-2006

The article's introduction seemed more about how a guitar is strung and tuned than anything to do with chords. I changed the intro so it explains what makes guitar chords special in contrast to chords in general. --Trweiss 14:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template from Finnish Wikibooks

You can copy the guitar chord template from the Finnish Wikibooks if you like.

Link to the template: [1]. The template contains links to all the images it uses.

Link to the page that instructs in the use of the template: [2]

Why is this an article?

Why is this not a Wikibook. The parts of it that don't belong on Wikibooks could then be transferred to the article Chord (music). It's very strange to go to the disambig. page for Chord and see the possibilities of a chord in music, and a chord on the guitar - chords, if played on guitar, are the same phenomenon as chords in music in general, just played on guitar. And a tutorial on playing chords on the guitar belongs on wikibooks, not on wikipediaþ --Sterio 17:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Put it up for deletion; I'll vote for that. +ILike2BeAnonymous 17:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can see it being on Wikibooks as well; this is pretty technical for a non-guitar-playing audience. PureJadeKid (talk) 15:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. By your logic you could just as well ask for the articles on vocal techniques or dancing to be deleted because they all deal with the same subject. You could say the same thing about almost any article about art, computer programming, astronomy, biology or philosophy. Articles will always be technical in nature when they deal with certain subject matters. The martial arts are another topic where the disctinctiveness of a particular technique is characteristic for a style and thus in need to be explained. A strike is not just a strike and it's the same with chords played on musical instruments. Chords played on a guitar adhere to different principles than chords played on a piano or another instrument. Perhaps the article lacks quality in this regard and this question would not have been raised raised otherwise. 91.44.50.5 (talk) 00:55, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I explained why the theory of guitar chords discusses implementation issues that do not occur in the abstract theory of chords: e.g., chords are adapted to tunings, there is a tradition of adding duplicate notes to increase amplification, and there is a tradition of alternate voicings and inversions. In fact, none of the major CAGED chords in this article (in standard tuning) appear to be major chords as defined in the musical chords article (or in musical theory). Please help with sourcing these statements! (Perhaps some Berklee book has a page on why guitarists find musical theory difficult?!?) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

muting sixth string for C Major and A Major, and muting fifth string for D Major?

According to Guitar chords#CAGED major chords, the context and the pictures say that we need to mute sixth string for C Major and A Major, and fifth string for D Major. But why do we need to? Since the open sixth string makes E sound, we don't have to mute the sixth string for C and A. The same rule goes to the fifth string also; the open fifth string makes A sound, we don't have to mute the fifth string for D. -- (talk) 19:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's about the voicing, zB: EAEAC#E is the second inversion of the A chord, not the root position. For more on inversions, look at the other articles on chord (music), inversion (music) and figured bass. -69.151.147.118 (talk) 04:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand this: the above explanation is totally sensible and yet the notation for a D Maj:

D: 000232

This is flat out incorrect? There's no E in it at all, and you wouldn't include the low A on string 590.255.131.238 (talk) 22:35, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reference for CAGED

Edwards, Bill (1997). Fretboard logic (first ed.). Bill Edwards Publishing. ISBN 0962477060, ISBN 978-0962477065. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Maybe someone can put that in the right format and add it to a references section of the page. Gotta run.

PureJadeKid (talk) 15:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I formatted the reference.

IMHO, this reference is interesting, but not influential and its analysis is idiosyncratic (perhaps brilliant...).

For this reason, I have been trying to use standard references (Denyer, Kolb) to rewrite the section on chords in standard-tuning in a more NPOV way.

(User:Hyacinth noted that I had over-emphasized comparisons with major-thirds tunings, and I shall remove such references, per WP:NPOV and WP:Due Weight).

Thanks! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:39, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please evaluate these external links?

Hi, I have an indepth couple of series on open position chords and barre/movable chords that I think would be useful as a continuation from the wiki. Please take a look and let me know what you think:

Open chords - http://www.fretjam.com/basic-guitar-chords.html Barre/CAGED - http://www.fretjam.com/guitar-barre-chords.html

Thanks

Nice links. Thank you for sharing. The entire first page looks correct and useful. On the second page, I didn't look at the long list of chord shapes in too much depth, but it looks great, barring any mistakes (pun intended). Kudos. PureJadeKid (talk) 19:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links

Please don't use the talk page to advertise your blog, website et cetera. Thank you.

I agree, it is important to maintain non-bias and to keep things professional. Not just the articles, but also the talk page.

chord diagrams

I've created chord diagrams that show the nut of the guitar or fret position. I'm going to replace the diagrams in this article which don't show the nut. If for any reason you would like to revert to the earlier diagrams please do. You can find my diagrams in Wikicommons in the categories: chords in guitar, scales on guitar and guitar technique. I've used the same diagrams for the Wikibook: Guitar (where I've added some jazz exercises and technical exercises). Comments, observations and typo errors please use my talk page. --Sluffs (talk) 12:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chord progression and alternate fingerings

I think you need to add a Chord progression and alternate fingerings section, or at least a brief discussion of the subject. I was going to add a 'See also' section and a direct wikilink to Chord progression until I read the dire warning (of doom?) to people who add links. Trilobitealive (talk) 19:57, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(You may also want to look at Wikibooks article for some more information about writing a brief discussion on the subject.)Trilobitealive (talk) 20:02, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure that "dire warning" applies to external links, not (internal) wikilinks. This page must be a magnet for spammy external links to things like "guitar mega-shopping site's page of chord diagrams." __ Just plain Bill (talk) 22:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bass note isn't always root note

In the case of C Major, these notes are C, E and G. The graphical representation on the left shows how left-hand fingering produces:

E on the first string C on the second string G on the third string E on the fourth string C on the fifth string

No note is played on the sixth string.This is because if you played the 6th "E" string, that would become the base note, and therefore, the root note.

That should be fixed, the bass note isn't the root note,if you played a C chord with the 6th string it would become a C chord with E bass note ( a slash chord ). But the root would still be C. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.28.52.1 (talk) 07:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Revisionism

I've been revising this article, with several goals. The simplest is to document it with references. A second goal is to distinguish between chords and chords implemented in particular tunings, while maintaining the emphasis on standard tuning and its chords, per WP:Due Weight.

The theory part discusses basic chords (major, minor, and sevenths) and chord progressions.

I shall try to finish the tuning-free discussion of chords first. Then I would revise the standard tuning chords, following Denyer and Kolb, which seem to be the most mainstream widely used books to which I have access.

For consistency, I plan to describe the theoretical chord and then an implementation in each tuning (and perhaps a third with many, perhaps maximum duplications).

This should be easy in standard tuning, for which all basic books known to me, describe the maximally duplicated chords-fingerings.
In major-thirds tuning, I have given only the music-theoretic chord-forms, which are given by jazz guitarists like Patt and Kirkeby; more traditional (cowboy campfire) chords are discussed by Sethares and Griewank, and at some point I can give examples of throwing in all possible notes.

The article would continue to be a mess without more structure. Thus, I've moved all the chords besides major, minor, and dominant sevenths to an "intermediate chords" section. Now, this section emphasizes standard tuning.

Thanks for your patience. A special thanks to Hyacinth for suggestions and constructive criticism. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:30, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking, specifically WP:OVERLINK/WP:REPEATLINK. Hyacinth (talk) 06:57, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer to worry about overlinking and repetitive linking after the article is stable. Perhaps readers with less familiarity with music may prefer more links?

A textual descriptor, perhaps with a link, in a footnote seems harmless, and positively helpful for a reader scrolling footnotes, which are located at the end of the article, rather than at the bottom of each section. History monographs and advanced surveys have such descriptors in their endnotes.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:25, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking "MacBeth" backstage: "Angels and ministers of grace defend us"

Perhaps we can list the sharp enharmonic equivalent in parentheses after the canonical flat? Would that be objectionable? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:32, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dominant sevenths: One root canal

Editor Hyacinth tried to clarify the content, however, introducing terms not in Kolb (the cited reference).

The next sentences (in our article) explain how dominant seventh chords are implemented in standard tuning, complete with a diagram and based on citations, so it's clear to the reader that standard tuning has dominant sevenths.

I removed the qualification, because it wasn't based on Kolb officially. Unofficially, I'm happy to restore the qualification if the talk page thinks the qualification is better. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:45, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dominant seventh chord on C, played on guitar in open position Play and as a barre chord Play.

"seventh chords require severe hand-stretching in standard tuning"

Obviously that's not true, without qualification.

"Consequently, seventh chords are rarely played (in standard tuning) in the form defined by musical theory."

Again, not true as written.

"In their stead, standard-tuning uses "alternatively voiced" chords, which have the same notes but in different order (and perhaps in a different octave)."

Alternative to what? Same notes as what? Hyacinth (talk) 08:43, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please review the definition of the dominant seventh chord, which appears in the article. I believe you wrote the definition.

Are you claiming that the usual fingering in standard tuning satisfies that definition? (This would be an interesting claim!)

Regardless, Kolb disagrees and he is the source cited. He says that such sevenths "contain some pretty serious stretches in the left hand. For this reason, seventh chords are rarely voiced in a closed manner" (p. 37), although he fails to discuss voicings or "closed manner" until the next chapter.

Like Kolb, your earlier edit introduced new terminology and gave no explanations. I asked you to address the prose of the paragraph, which immediately explains that guitarists do play an approximate seventh chord (although not an inversion, as defined in the sources, or later in the article). Why is this inadequate?

You asked "Same notes?". The article defined the chord as an n-tuple of notes. The ersatz dominant seventh in standard tuning contains the notes in the dominant seventh (albeit in different and non-inverted order and shifted an octave, obviously): They don't satisfy the definitions given in the article. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:39, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for expressing irritation.

I have trouble understanding the trouble with what I wrote. We gave a definition. It's obvious that if you try to implement the (defined) chord, then you have to stretch a lot. Kolb says that it's tough. Everybody says that the dominant seventh is implemented otherwise in standard tuning; that implementation does not satisfy the definition given in the article (and in Kolb, ...).

Why not add an explanatory footnote giving a precise musical name to the ersatz dominated seventh chord (in standard tuning)? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:57, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The link to open voicing makes sense to me. I should add something about guitars offering unusually many voicings earlier. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:56, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hope we're not restricted to what already makes sense to you and me. Hyacinth (talk) 00:44, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Making sense to me is desirable, but making sense to you seems necessary, if we want to have a good article.

I still dislike the "closed voicing" interjection in the discussion of sevenths, which at least is intelligible since it has been linked. The definition did not require "closed voicing", so there is no logical need to specify "closed voicing". Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:17, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The definition of what? Hyacinth (talk) 00:31, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dominant seventh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk • contribs) 08:13, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, otherwise hand-stretching is not involved. Hyacinth (talk) 00:09, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The definition is by semitones and it implies what you call "closed voicing", which seems to be logically redundant. Perhaps an implicit equivalence-relation (e.g., mod 12 semitones) should be made explicit? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You refer to the definition of "dominant seventh chord" found in dominant seventh chord, however, it appears that you have not looked at that article. The article reads:

"a dominant seventh chord...is a chord composed of a root, major third, perfect fifth, and minor seventh."

This says nothing about semitones, and nothing about close position, root position, or any position.

An unqualified statement that a dominant seventh chord requires severe hand stretching on a guitar in standard tuning is false nonsense. To make such a statement one must not play the guitar, not know what a dominant seventh chord is, or both. Hyacinth (talk) 03:13, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article is based on Denyer and Kolb, who define intervals in terms of semitones. It is not based on your article on dominant seventh chords. If there is an alternative definition of the intervals, given in your article and based on reliable sources, you might be correct in fact and hence Kolb and Denyer wrong. Perhaps you know more than them?

However, another alternative occurs to me: You have not complained about the definition of intervals in this article. Could logical fluency (and fidelity to what Kolb wrote) better explain my preferred wording? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:11, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that it is not my article on dominant seventh chords, but Wikipedia's article on dominant seventh chords. Hyacinth (talk) 22:07, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you miss the point entirely. It doesn't matter if a major third is four semitones (first of all we're talking about the dominant seventh, not intervals). Directly above you refer to two definitions, one by Kolb and one by Denyer, neither of which appear in this article. Furthermore, the article originally read (before I added "close position") "Consequently, in standard tuning, seventh chords are rarely played in the form defined by musical theory." Not "in the form defined by Kolb & Denyer." It still doesn't matter. You provide a list of five dominant seventh chords that may be played on a guitar in standard tuning without severe hand stretching. Hyacinth (talk) 12:03, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if my ignorance or stupidity or both upset you, and I'll give us both a few days off, before I return to editing here. I trust you are well. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:45, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Putting words in my mouth and ignoring the problem doesn't make it go away. Hyacinth (talk) 21:56, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your behavior is the problem, and you need to go away until you can be civil. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:14, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did not call you ignorant or stupid. Implying that I did is inappropriate. If you believe I am being uncivil specific the details on my talk page. Hyacinth (talk) 00:11, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you did not mean to imply that I called you ignorant or stupid then I apologize. Calling yourself ignorant or stupid is unnecessary. Hyacinth (talk) 22:01, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Above you refer to the definition of dominant seventh chords in this article. You say you believe it was written by me. Later you say the article is based on Denyer and Kolb. The definition of dominant seventh chords in this article cannot both be written by me and based on Denyer and Kolb. Hyacinth (talk) 22:07, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voicings: Drop 2 and drop 3

I asked añ expert for help. He wrote the following

RE "drop 2" and "drop 3" voicings. [...] You take a closed voicing of a chord in any inversion, and then take the 2nd (or 3rd) note from the top and drop it down an octave. This often generates a voicing that is playable on the guitar.

For example, the C7 on the right in the pdf. This is a second inversion C7 drop 2. Second inversion means the 5th is the bottom note, so a second inversion C7 would be (low note to high note) G-B♭-C-E. You then take the 2nd note from the top (C) and drop it down and octave. This gives you the C-G-B♭-E that you see above.

A very useful voicing for C7 (or any seventh chord) is a third inversion drop 3. Using C7 as an example, third inversion means the 7th is at the bottom of the chord: B♭-C-E-G. You then take the 3rd note from the top (C again) and drop it an octave, giving you (bottom to top) C-B♭-E-G (use fingers 1-2-4-3).

This third inversion drop 3 fingering is more compact, and presumably easier to play. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:06, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To act on his explanation, we should find a reliable source discussing such dropped voicings (which are not discussed by Kolb or Denyer). Hyacinth, perhaps you know of a reference discussing this topic? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

Fisher (2002, 'Drop voicing' and '7th chords in drop 2 and drop 3 voicings', pp. 30-33) : Fisher, Jody (2002). "Chapter Five: Expanding your 7 chord vocabulary". Jazz guitar harmony: Take the mystery out of jazz harmony. Alfred Music Publishing. pp. 26–33. ISBN 073902468X, ISBN 9780739024683. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |item= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |upc= ignored (help)
Smith (1980, pp. 92–93): Smith, Johnny (1980). "XVII: Upper structure inversions of the dominant seventh chords". Mel Bay's complete Johnny Smith approach to guitar. Complete. Mel Bay Publications. pp. 1–256. ISBN 1-5622-2239-2, ISBN 978-15622-2239-0. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |upc= ignored (help)
Vincent (2011, "Tweaking dominant chords", p. 15): Vincent, Randy (2011). "Chapter II: Tweaking drop 2". Jazz guitar voicings, Volume 1: The drop 2 book. Sher Music Company. ISBN 1457101378, ISBN 9781457101373. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Scope: Remove intermediate cords

I'd like to remove the "intermediate chords" section, e.g. mentioning additional sevenths chords. I think that the issues of chord implementation was already discussed, and examples of standard tuning's fingerings have been given. Does anything more really belong in an encyclopedia?

It might be useful to have a list of intermediate chords (and down the road, advanced chords).

There are plenty of sites on the web that have large lists of chords, and many chord dictionaries and encyclopedias exist. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:45, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Equal temperament

Chords and chord terminology/numerology predate the adoption of equal-temperament tuning. Following the sources listed, this article defines chords in terms of musical intervals. Presumably other definitions could also pre-ET chord terminology? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:43, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Guitar playing and musical theory: References

White, Mark (2005). "Reading skills: The guitarist's nemesis?" (html). Berklee Today. 72. Boston, Massachusetts: Berklee College of Music. ISSN 1052-3839. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); External link in |journal= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help)

References on guitarists and musical theory could be helpful. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:02, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Naive chord. Minor seventh named incorrectly.

In the picture next to the "naive chord" section, the seventh is incorrectly named A# instead of Bb, A# is the augmented sixth of C and not the minor seventh. Someone should fix that, i don't know how to do it. 190.193.250.243 (talk) 02:55, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I shall review the sources and if necessary correct any heterodox designation. :)

With equal temperament, they are equivalent sounds and they have the same fingering on a guitar, right? Thanks Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:02, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They're equivalent sounds but they are not the same, it could be considered analogous to an orthographic error (writing 'kat' instead of 'cat', for example)

190.193.250.243 (talk) 16:54, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. I have updated my LaTeXed PDF file, and shall soon upload it to the Wikimedia Commons. It may be a few weeks before I update the png images. At some point, all the images will be redone in SVG format, because the PNG format looks so blurry and hogs memory; I shall likely redo the images using GNU Lilypond, which exports SVG. I've been busy concentrating on the prose and content first, for what is called a Good Article Nomination review.

Thanks for your correction. I am not an expert, btw. In fact, I learned the difference between a dominant and major seventh writing this article. Luckily, viewing Ole Kirkeby's diagrams made me realize that I had misunderstood something. Please make more criticisms! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:03, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is This What Exception To The Rule Means?

How bizarre is it that the very first picture the reader spots in Guitar Chord is a guy playing sans chords? Just look at the picture! Slide guitar involves playing open strings, as opposed to forming chords on the fret board with the four available fingers of the non-dominant hand. It’s pretty hard to form a chord with a silly cylinder of glass surrounding your finger. How about a picture of someone playing a chord, say Steve Howe for instance, with his amazingly masterful left hand?

Apachegila (talk) 16:34, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK. The picture does show Ry actually playing a chord. But why muddle the issue by highlighting a technique that basically eschews chords in favor of hardwiring them (one) into the tuning? Oh, I get it, Open tunings are mentioned right off the bat because they define chords by hook or crook. Wow. I’m glad we got that out of the way.

Apachegila (talk) 17:11, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A picture of an open tuning illustrates that there is specific content to the topic of guitar chords, which is not included in the general harmony-topic of musical chords and voicings.

A frequent question about this page used to be, "Why have a separate article on guitar chords? Surely the articles on chords and chord voicing cover all the material in this article...". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:660:2402:14:6C87:74B2:D164:8168 (talk) 12:11, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I want to Link my Blog www.folkguitartabs.blogspot.com . Is it Relevant to this article ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hemanjosko (talk • contribs) 06:54, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chord name for no strings depressed?

What is the chord name given where no strings are depressed (so all 6 strings open)? (Assuming standard tuning, of course.) Rarely encountered though I recall when I took ukulele in elementary school we played a song that had such a chord. Gave our chord fingers a break! 68.146.52.234 (talk) 02:47, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation of diagrams?

Guitar chord diagrams are used extensively in this article with no explanation of their meaning, either here, on the tablature page, or anywhere else I can find on Wikipedia. How did this get missed? JMT32 (talk) 02:51, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Guitar chord. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:47, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Elvis 1968 Comeback Special.jpeg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:32, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]