#1
Well, if you play a minor 7th, when you use the second inversion structure, but just barre your index finger over to add the root back as the bass, lifting the finger that plays the duplicated root would barre the string over the 7th, and that doesn't require any weird finger placements.


But when playing a major 7th, the 7th needs to be only one semitone below the octave, and the only finger placement that looks like it'd might make sense is when the pinky moves down to hold the 5th, the ring finger moves up to hold the 3rd and the middle finger moves down to hold the 7th, just that it seems a bit clumsy, especially in cases where quick and complex chord progressions that require many shape changes this way are needed.


If you got what I'm talking about, is that simply how it's supposed to be played and I just need to practice on the finger placement?
#3
e 0
B 2
G 1
D 2
A 0
E X

Just shift that up and down the neck. That's an AMaj7
Quote by sporkman7
so what wierd things can u guys do? no not like laser vision or meat vision or something, but like random stuff that usually comes in handy
#5
Oh, right, I was talking about playing it from the bass E.

You could play it more freely from the A string. It's a bit more limiting on range but I guess that you could play it from the E as well like I said when really wanting a bassier one ("blue_strat's" fourth suggestion is what I've explained. He also used the E string on the third one but that shape doesn't seem to make any sense. It's just the second inversion shape as in the fifth suggestion simply with bass duplications in unreasonable places).

Thanks.
#6
Quote by user1a
Oh, right, I was talking about playing it from the bass E.

You could play it more freely from the A string. It's a bit more limiting on range but I guess that you could play it from the E as well like I said when really wanting a bassier one ("blue_strat's" fourth suggestion is what I've explained. He also used the E string on the third one but that shape doesn't seem to make any sense. It's just the second inversion shape as in the fifth suggestion simply with bass duplications in unreasonable places).

Thanks.


really the third one is second inversion shape? what are you talking about
e-7----B
B-5----E
G-5----C
D-5----G
A-7----E
E-8----C

Im really confused as to how this is any form of an inversion shape, its clearly a Cmaj7 shape.

Are you telling me theyre out of dragons?
They never had dragons..
Who didnt?
The world..
GET THIS GUY OUT OF HERE, FIND ME A DRAGON
#7
E shape maj7 chord

e|---0--
B|---0--
G|---1--
D|---1--
A|---2--
E|---0--


Simplified
e|------
B|------
G|---1--
D|---1--
A|------
E|---0--
#8
Quote by glenthemann
really the third one is second inversion shape? what are you talking about
e-7----B
B-5----E
G-5----C
D-5----G
A-7----E
E-8----C

Im really confused as to how this is any form of an inversion shape, its clearly a Cmaj7 shape.



That's not how I meant it. I said that it's like in the fifth which was [x x 10 12 12 12], where the second string plays a B instead of C (so playing the 13 would be a regular C major, and here I mean that main part of the triad is inversed, you then can also add the root back at the bass), and the third was [8 7 5 5 5 7]. You can just play it [x x 5 5 5 7] and it would be an inversion with the 7th being added an octave above.

He doubled the 3rd at the 7th fret on the A string and the root at the 8th on the bass E, so now the bass part is simply First-Major Third-Fifth, but the fingering is just awkward and most certainly makes less sense than what I've suggested (the structure he used in the fourth suggestion he made). You could just move the C from the bass E to the A string at the 3rd fret and then it would be [x 3 5 5 5 7] simply without doubling the 3rd with a bass (you can even then play it with the bass E open [0 3 5 5 5 7] instead of the 7th fretting over the A string being removed, but it'd might be a bit "bassy" for the third).
Last edited by user1a at Aug 1, 2010,