#1
An arpeggio doesn't need a specific order am I right?
For example thats an AMaj Arpeggio right?
e:-----------------9h12p9h12p9
B:---------------------------------
G:------------9-------------------
D:---11--------11-----------------
A:---------12----------------------
E:9-----9--------------------------
#2
It doesn't 'need' an order, there are basically three ways you can outline
the chord:

1. Playing A C# E this arpeggio makes the A Major chord in ROOT POSTION

2. Playing C# E A this arpeggio makes the A major chord in FIRST INVERSION

3. Playing E A C# this arpeggio makes the A Major chord in SECOND INVERSION

Playing different inversions of a chord can slightly change the sound of a piece/sound, but you are playing the SAME arpeggio making the SAME chord, its just a different way of voicing it.
Last edited by geo1450 at Jan 4, 2012,
#3
Quote by geo1450
It doesn't 'need' an order, there are basically three ways you can outline
the chord:

1. Playing A C# E this arpeggio makes the A Major chord in ROOT POSTION

2. Playing C# E A this arpeggio makes the A major chord in FIRST INVERSION

3. Playing E A C# this arpeggio makes the A Major chord in SECOND INVERSION

Playing different inversions of a chord can slightly change the sound of a piece/sound, but you are playing the SAME arpeggio making the SAME chord, its just a different way of voicing it.


Thanks for that man
#6
^What these guys said. Inversions are great for making a chord have a different feel, but retaining its original properties.
Amon Amarth to Frank Zappa
and everything in between.


The A-Z's of music.
#7
Quote by ouchies
^ Thats called sequencing



A sequence is the repetition of a musical contour, albeit starting on a different note. For example, a phrase of D F# G C followed by a phrase of E G A D in the key of G major would satisfy the criteria for a sequence.
Unless the arpeggio is phrased as, pertaining to the example, E C# A, and succeeded by another within a different register of the key, it doesn't constitute a sequence.

There's debate on these boards over whether arpeggios can be characterized under the theory of inversions like regular chords can, but I won't attempt to get onto that, as my explanation won't be too crash-hot. AeolianWolf has a strong thesis for this though, so hopefully he'll stop by.

Sorry about the momentary thread-derailing.

Last edited by juckfush at Jan 5, 2012,
#9
Quote by juckfush
AeolianWolf has a strong thesis for this though, so hopefully he'll stop by.


thanks, JF.

i'll just reiterate what i said in another thread about a month ago:

generally, you don't think of the arpeggios themselves as having inversions. it doesn't really make sense.

you might arpeggiate a root position chord (C E G), or arpeggiate a first inversion chord (E G C), and so on, but the arpeggios themselves aren't really in inversion. keep in mind that chords and arpeggios are not the "same thing". an arpeggio consists of the notes of the chord played sequentially. chords encompass far more possibilities and concepts.

keep in mind that if you play a Gmaj7 arpeggio as D F# G B D F# G B D and the bass is playing a G, it will still be root position, even though you start on the D. remember that the inversion is dependent on the lowest note sounding. which is why, in my opinion, it's kind of counter-productive to think of arpeggios as having inversions. like i said, think about arpeggiating a chord in first inversion, rather than having a first inversion arpeggio.
Anfangen ist leicht, Beharren eine Kunst.
#10
I was tempted to say the OP was more of a broken chord, perhaps?
#11
Quote by juckfush


A sequence is the repetition of a musical contour, albeit starting on a different note. For example, a phrase of D F# G C followed by a phrase of E G A D in the key of G major would satisfy the criteria for a sequence.
Unless the arpeggio is phrased as, pertaining to the example, E C# A, and succeeded by another within a different register of the key, it doesn't constitute a sequence.

There's debate on these boards over whether arpeggios can be characterized under the theory of inversions like regular chords can, but I won't attempt to get onto that, as my explanation won't be too crash-hot. AeolianWolf has a strong thesis for this though, so hopefully he'll stop by.

Sorry about the momentary thread-derailing.



Rofl
#12
Care to elaborate on what you disagree with? I'm happy to take criticism and learn from discussion, so long as there's content to it.
Last edited by juckfush at Jan 5, 2012,
#14
While my post was pigeonholed to one criteria, I am aware of different categorizations for sequences, just as there are for many aspects of musical devices and their terminologies. Admittedly though, I wasn't aware of the terms themselves as they regard those forms, so thank you for clarifying with the link.

As for the question of ''What if you play E C# A?'', I don't understand how those three tones on their own, without a context, could be considered sequential in any sense (taking into consideration the types listed in the link you've posted). If I've misinterpreted any of the information, I'd definitely appreciate feedback.
Last edited by juckfush at Jan 5, 2012,
#16
I was thinking that might it, but wasn't too sure. My immediate interpretation was that you were suggesting that re-arranging the order of notes performed in an arpeggio to be a sequencing of the arpeggio in itself, so I raised an eyebrow there.

Can a triad displaced across octaves be considered a legitimate sequence though, given that the same notes are being used with the same perceived starting position? Pardon my wording of that, but I hope it conveys what I intend it to.
I wouldn't say it's unheard of to label a passage of the sort as such for ease of communication, but you've got me thinking about the validity of it in - for lack of a better word - a more traditional sense.

Thanks in advance for the reply.
Last edited by juckfush at Jan 5, 2012,
#17
Quote by juckfush
I was thinking that might it, but wasn't too sure. My immediate interpretation was that you were suggesting that re-arranging the order of notes performed in an arpeggio to be a sequencing of the arpeggio in itself, so I raised an eyebrow there.

Can a triad displaced across octaves be considered a legitimate sequence though, given that the same notes are being used with the same perceived starting position? Pardon my wording of that, but I hope it conveys what I intend it to.
I wouldn't say it's unheard of to label a passage of the sort as such for ease of communication, but you've got me thinking about the validity of it in - for lack of a better word - a more traditional sense.

Thanks in advance for the reply.


Lol I don't see why not. Its definitely not the craftiest of sequences, but most players I play with would label it as a sequence none the less.

Yeah I should have clarified the fact that I was making that assumption