Page 1 of 2
#1
What does it mean when you play an Am7 in seventh position or like twelfth or any position
#2
Whatever fret your middle finger is playing on minus one equals your position #.

middle finger on 8th fret - 1 equals 7th position.
#3
so what if you were to play an inverted power chord.

------------------------
------------------------
------------------------
-11--------------------
-9---------------------
-7----------------------

would you be in the 8th position?

Im Drop tuned!
Last edited by TheHumanMeat at Mar 27, 2012,
#5
depends on your fingering. if your middle is on the 9 then you are in 8th position. if your ring is on 9 then your middle is considered to be on 8, and you would be in the 7th position
#7
There's no definate meaning when people say position. Some people mean in relation to the root: so a chord being played with the root note as the bass note is 1st position, with the 3rd as the bass note as third position and so on. Same for scales.

Other people say position to mean the fret that the chord/scale/lick/whatever starts on, so your example would be 7th position.

I have never heard anyone refer to position as being anything to do with where the middle finger is, however...
ProTone Pedals: Attack Overdrive
Fractal Audio: AxeFX 2
Engl: Fireball 60
Zilla: Fatboy 2x12
Carvin: DC700
Carvin: Vader 7
Schecter: KM-7 MKii
Schecter: Banshee 8 Passive
Jackson: DK2M
Last edited by pigeonmafia at Mar 27, 2012,
#8
Quote by d1sturbed4eva
You're in whatever posistion your index finger is


This is a half-truth. There are occasions when this is true, but technically, it is the fret behind the middle finger.
#9
Quote by pigeonmafia
There's no definate meaning when people say position. Some people mean in relation to the root: so a chord being played with the root note as the bass note is 1st position, with the 3rd as the bass note as third position and so on. Same for scales.

Other people say position to mean the fret that the chord/scale/lick/whatever starts on, so your example would be 7th position.

I have never heard anyone refer to position as being where the middle finger is, however...


This is just wrong. There is a definite meaning when it is used by people who know what they are talking about.

Third in the bass is first inversion 5th in the bass is second inversion and 7th in the bass is third inversion.
Last edited by shreddymcshred at Mar 27, 2012,
#10
Quote by shreddymcshred
This is a half-truth. There are occasions when this is true, but technically, it is the fret behind the middle finger.


I'm sorry but that makes no sense at all....
#11
Quote by shreddymcshred
This is just wrong. There is a definite meaning when it is used by people who know what they are talking about.

Root in the bass is first inversion 3rd in the bass is second inversion and 5th in the bass is third inversion.




If the root is in the bass, it isn't a inversion
#12
Quote by shreddymcshred
This is just wrong. There is a definite meaning when it is used by people who know what they are talking about.

Root in the bass is first inversion 3rd in the bass is second inversion and 5th in the bass is third inversion.


I'm aware of what an inversion is. And bass as root is not the first inversion

Show me an article or video where someone refers to the position as one fret behind the middle finger.

The main problem I have, is what position would this be in by your definition

-
-
-
11
9
5

or, so there isnt an odd no. of frets between fingers 1 and 3

-
-
-
11
9
6
ProTone Pedals: Attack Overdrive
Fractal Audio: AxeFX 2
Engl: Fireball 60
Zilla: Fatboy 2x12
Carvin: DC700
Carvin: Vader 7
Schecter: KM-7 MKii
Schecter: Banshee 8 Passive
Jackson: DK2M
Last edited by pigeonmafia at Mar 27, 2012,
#13
Quote by d1sturbed4eva


If the root is in the bass, it isn't a inversion


Shit, you're correct, I didn't double check that. I'm editing my post, thank you.
#14
Quote by shreddymcshred
There is a definite meaning when it is used by people who know what they are talking about.


Quote by shreddymcshred

Root in the bass is first inversion 3rd in the bass is second inversion and 5th in the bass is third inversion.


Oh the irony...
ProTone Pedals: Attack Overdrive
Fractal Audio: AxeFX 2
Engl: Fireball 60
Zilla: Fatboy 2x12
Carvin: DC700
Carvin: Vader 7
Schecter: KM-7 MKii
Schecter: Banshee 8 Passive
Jackson: DK2M
#15
Okay, so long explanation.

If your fingers are on frets 1,2,3,4 you are in first position. In this scenario the fret the index finger is on is also one behind the middle finger.

The reason why position is marked as being one behind the middle finger is because there are instances when the index and middle play on the same fret.
#16
Quote by shreddymcshred
Okay, so long explanation.

If your fingers are on frets 1,2,3,4 you are in first position. In this scenario the fret the index finger is on is also one behind the middle finger.

The reason why position is marked as being one behind the middle finger is because there are instances when the index and middle play on the same fret.


So again, what position is this

-
-
-
11
9
6
ProTone Pedals: Attack Overdrive
Fractal Audio: AxeFX 2
Engl: Fireball 60
Zilla: Fatboy 2x12
Carvin: DC700
Carvin: Vader 7
Schecter: KM-7 MKii
Schecter: Banshee 8 Passive
Jackson: DK2M
#17
Quote by pigeonmafia
Oh the irony...


I already caught him on that

And shred, can you please explain where you got "the posistion is a fret less from where your middle finger is".. what if your middle finger and index is on the same fret?

Quote by shreddymcshred

The reason why position is marked as being one behind the middle finger is because there are instances when the index and middle play on the same fret.


So if your index and middle finger are both on the 5th fret, you're in 4th position That makes no sense. No offense but that's wrong
Last edited by d1sturbed4eva at Mar 27, 2012,
#19
Quote by d1sturbed4eva
I already caught him on that

And shred, can you please explain where you got "the posistion is a fret less from where your middle finger is".. what if your middle finger and index is on the same fret?


I felt it hadn't been pointed out enough

+ apparantly, you would be in the position behind the rest of your fingers...

Quote by shreddymcshred
I'll grab some sources to cite, brb


Be interesting to see if there are some valid ones. May have to eat my words!
ProTone Pedals: Attack Overdrive
Fractal Audio: AxeFX 2
Engl: Fireball 60
Zilla: Fatboy 2x12
Carvin: DC700
Carvin: Vader 7
Schecter: KM-7 MKii
Schecter: Banshee 8 Passive
Jackson: DK2M
#20
Edited my post because I didn't want to duble post, but I guess I didn't to. Just to make sure you guys are aware
#21
Quote by d1sturbed4eva
Edited my post because I didn't want to duble post, but I guess I didn't to. Just to make sure you guys are aware


S'alright, we saw

Also, if you play

-
-
-
0
0
0

Are you in the -1th position??
ProTone Pedals: Attack Overdrive
Fractal Audio: AxeFX 2
Engl: Fireball 60
Zilla: Fatboy 2x12
Carvin: DC700
Carvin: Vader 7
Schecter: KM-7 MKii
Schecter: Banshee 8 Passive
Jackson: DK2M
#22
^more like

1
1

Using your index and middle

According to his definition, that would be in 0 position which doesn't exist...
#23
Quote by d1sturbed4eva
^more like

1
1

Using your index and middle

According to his definition, that would be in 0 position which doesn't exist...


Yeah, I'm seeing a lot of holes in the middle -1 definition.

Although I have a horrible feeling he's gunna come screaming back and prove us wrong
ProTone Pedals: Attack Overdrive
Fractal Audio: AxeFX 2
Engl: Fireball 60
Zilla: Fatboy 2x12
Carvin: DC700
Carvin: Vader 7
Schecter: KM-7 MKii
Schecter: Banshee 8 Passive
Jackson: DK2M
#24
Don't worry bro, we're right

He's taking a long time to get back to us, which probablyy means he can't find anything. Even if he does, I'm prepared to prove him wrong
#25
William Leavitt in his "Reading Studies For Guitar" Includes examples of the middle -1 idea. while he does not write the idea verbatim, a glance at his fully fingered and notated examples remove doubt. Examples where he asks the student to have the index and middle fingers on non-adjacent frets are the proof.

Leavitt asks the student to play a 3rd position D major scale. The ring finger begins on fret 5, and the index reaches to the E on fret 2, while the middle prepares the F# on 4. Leavitt does not mark a position shift.

Basically, things get muddy when you have extensions or compressions of hand positions, and this smoothes those problems out.

Typically, position will be the same fret the index is on, as these fingers are usually on adjacent frets (with the exception of extension and contraction). Middle -1 is used to cover the exceptions
#26
Quote by shreddymcshred
William Leavitt in his "Reading Studies For Guitar" Includes examples of the middle -1 idea. while he does not write the idea verbatim, a glance at his fully fingered and notated examples remove doubt. Examples where he asks the student to have the index and middle fingers on non-adjacent frets are the proof.

Leavitt asks the student to play a 3rd position D major scale. The ring finger begins on fret 5, and the index reaches to the E on fret 2, while the middle prepares the F# on 4. Leavitt does not mark a position shift.

Basically, things get muddy when you have extensions or compressions of hand positions, and this smoothes those problems out.

Typically, position will be the same fret the index is on, as these fingers are usually on adjacent frets (with the exception of extension and contraction). Middle -1 is used to cover the exceptions


Finger positioning doesn't include finger streaches (the E on the 2nd fret). The book even says it's in the 3rd position....
#27
Quote by shreddymcshred
William Leavitt in his "Reading Studies For Guitar" Includes examples of the middle -1 idea. while he does not write the idea verbatim, a glance at his fully fingered and notated examples remove doubt. Examples where he asks the student to have the index and middle fingers on non-adjacent frets are the proof.

Leavitt asks the student to play a 3rd position D major scale. The ring finger begins on fret 5, and the index reaches to the E on fret 2, while the middle prepares the F# on 4. Leavitt does not mark a position shift.

Basically, things get muddy when you have extensions or compressions of hand positions, and this smoothes those problems out.

Typically, position will be the same fret the index is on, as these fingers are usually on adjacent frets (with the exception of extension and contraction). Middle -1 is used to cover the exceptions

That's got absolutely nothing to do with fingers. When you're talking about scales and positions then the major scale is generally divided up into 5 positions, however whilst the sane diagrams tend to crop up you can really arrange the notes however you want, and likewise finger them however you choose.

For chords it's just going to be the fret that the root note falls on, I think you're horrendously overcomplicating things
Actually called Mark!

Quote by TNfootballfan62
People with a duck for their avatar always give good advice.

...it's a seagull

Quote by Dave_Mc
i wanna see a clip of a recto buying some groceries.


stuffmycatswatchontv.tumblr.com
#28
Edit: this is a response to disturbed, not seagall


How do you suppose to notate that position then? by your logic, the player is in second position.

Middle minus one includes the details of finger stretches where the index rule leaves off, which is why it's a superior system.

The middle is on 4 in his example, middle minus one gives you third position.
Last edited by shreddymcshred at Mar 27, 2012,
#29
Quote by steven seagull
That's got absolutely nothing to do with fingers. When you're talking about scales and positions then the major scale is generally divided up into 5 positions, however whilst the sane diagrams tend to crop up you can really arrange the notes however you want, and likewise finger them however you choose.

For chords it's just going to be the fret that the root note falls on, I think you're horrendously overcomplicating things


You are referring to a whole different topic, my friend.

EDIT:

I am presenting the best argument I can, leaving as few gaps as possible.
Last edited by shreddymcshred at Mar 27, 2012,
#30
To add on what I was saying before, the index finger is just stretching to the 2nd fret. The hand shouldn't move, and as soon as you play that note the index finger immedietly returnds to the 3rd fret.
#31
Quote by d1sturbed4eva
To add on what I was saying before, the index finger is just stretching to the 2nd fret. The hand shouldn't move, and as soon as you play that note the index finger immedietly returnds to the 3rd fret.


Your logic was that the index finger denotes the position. Who's to say the index finger will go back to the third fret? It could be at the second fret for any amount of time.
#32
Quote by shreddymcshred
Your logic was that the index finger denotes the position. Who's to say the index finger will go back to the third fret? It could be at the second fret for any amount of time.


Well with your logic, it's possible to be in 0 position

By any chance, did the author write fingerstretch or "fs"?
#33
There are no marks to indicate a stretch, or any kind of exception to the position. The only indicators are 3rd position, and E on the lowest line of the staff played with the 2nd finger going to the F with the fourth.

Yes my system allows for Zeros. It does not allow for negatives as another poster mentioned.

EDIT: The 0 is a situation where the first finger would be out of position and describes a situation where the pinky reaches the G without an extension.
Last edited by shreddymcshred at Mar 27, 2012,
#34
I'm assuming he assumed that the guitarist knew where E was so he didn't have to indicated the stretch. Also, why else would he use the ring finger on D? He could have just indicated to use your pinky and you wouldn't have to stretch at all. This is why it's in third posistion, not for the reasons you've mentioned.
#35
Quote by d1sturbed4eva
I'm assuming he assumed that the guitarist knew where E was so he didn't have to indicated the stretch. Also, why else would he use the ring finger on D? He could have just indicated to use your pinky and you wouldn't have to stretch at all. This is why it's in third posistion, not for the reasons you've mentioned.


This is a didactic work, where authors do not make assumptions on the part of their students. The ring finger is on D because if the pinky were there, the middle would be at the 3rd fret, putting the exercise in the second position.

Unless there are any new arguments, it appears neither of us will be able to convince the other.

I suppose both are viable ways to think, I just prefer the added info middle-1 provides.
#36
Proof 1: In your example, you could have stretched with your pinky instead of your index finger. Just because the index finger isn't consistant in your example as the ring finger is, it doesn't make the ring finger that determines what the position is.

Proof 2: You're hand moves with your index finger, aka "position". I can post pictures if someone can tell me how to post them, and you want me to.

Proof 3: There is no such thing as 0 position, which exists in your method.
#37
Quote by d1sturbed4eva
Proof 1: In your example, you could have stretched with your pinky instead of your index finger. Just because the index finger isn't consistant in your example as the ring finger is, it doesn't make the ring finger that determines what the position is.

Proof 2: You're hand moves with your index finger, aka "position". I can post pictures if someone can tell me how to post them, and you want me to.

Proof 3: There is no such thing as 0 position, which exists in your method.


Rebuttal 1: Stretching with the pinky moves the hand into second position. The middle finger must play the F# on the 4th fret, necessitating an index stretch. I believe you may have confused the middle and ring fingers in your argument. The middle determines the position, not the ring.

Rebuttal 2: It does not matter if your hand moves with the index (and it doesn't have to, you can move your index independently) and even if it did, whose definition is that? Yours? Without meaningful sources, your definition holds no weight.

Rebuttal 3: 1. It's not my method, it's Leavitt's (who published his book with the Berklee Press) 2. There is technically a 0 position, as evidenced by his logic.
Last edited by shreddymcshred at Mar 27, 2012,
#38
Quote by shreddymcshred
Rebuttal 1: Stretching with the pinky moves the hand into second position. The middle finger must play the F# on the 4th fret, necessitating an index stretch. I believe you may have confused the middle and ring fingers in your argument. The middle determines the position, not the ring.


That is possible without changing positions. You don't move your hand when you stretch, or else it wouldn't be a stretch. You would use the exact same fingers except switching what you would fret with your index with your pinky (pinky plays on 7th fret on a lower string then when the index would play on the second fret).

Quote by shreddymcshred
Rebuttal 2: It does not matter if your hand moves with the index (and it doesn't have to, you can move your index independently) and even if it did, whose definition is that? Yours? Without meaningful sources, your definition holds no weight.


Just an observation. Someone really needs to tell me how to post pictures so I can show you what I mean.

Quote by shreddymcshred
Rebuttal 3: 1. It's not my method, it's Leavitt's (who published his book with the Berklee Press) 2. There is technically a 0 position, as evidenced by his logic.


He never said "the position is determined by what fret your middle finger and subtract 1."
It's just an assumption you made, or what I would call a misunderstanding.
#39
Not a misunderstanding. If he notated a position change (as he notates positions throughout the book) then I would agree with you. There are other examples throughout the book as well, but I have neither the time nor the effort (nor the desire) to continue further.

It has been a nice debate, but my participation in the matter is now closed.
#40
Misunderstanding or not, it's still an assumption. The author never actually said that. If you actually find a source that specifically said that, I'd be more inclined to believe you. You're only argument against it is that he didn't specify the stretches. There is many arguments that could be made in why he didn't.

I just don't like it when people give flawed information
Page 1 of 2