I use a tool made out of a steel wire clotheshanger to squeeze the two pins together and open the link.

Also, that one hanger turned into three tools: the link opener, a tool to hold the ends of an open chain together, and one to hang the cleaned-and-drying chain from the tree over the driveway.

When disconnected, a chain master link looks like this: Opening this style requires pressure between the two pins, parallel to the length of the chain.

The proper tool is a special pair of pliers like this: And in use look like this:

It is possible to open the link without the "special tool" that Criggie's answer uses.

The trick is to get the chain loose/slack

so you can fold it back on itself such that the master link is at right angles to the two adjacent links.

Then you use a regular pair of pliers, held at an odd angle (helps to contort your mouth as you do this), to apply pressure to the two plates in opposite directions.

There are other sorts of master link too.

If you have one like this then the outer plate needs to be driven or levered off.

The pliers above won't help.

This answer could do with more info, feel free to edit.

I used one like this years ago.

Putting a large flat blade screwdriver in the opening shown and twisting would open the right end enough to slide the plate to the left and remove it.

Then the rest of the link could be removed by sliding the pins out of the chain.

To reinstall push the pins through the other two links then slide the plate on from the left.

A small flat blade

screwdriver supplied enough force on the left end to do the job.

[Updated after comments]

On a well maintained, clean chain you might be able to do this by hand.

If your chain is dirty, crusty and dry, you might not be able to open it by hand.

Instead of buying the link tool above, you can use a pair of pliers as shown below: Full sequence here .Note

that nose pliers / needle nose pliers are not necessary; any pliers will do where the jaw tip is narrow enough to sit on the pins of the chain.

Also note that some quick links are not meant to be re-used indefinitely.

KMC quick links can be removed by hand without any tools This was mentioned at: https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/a/45960/34651

but I would like to make it a bit clearer.

First if the chain is very dirty/rusty, make sure to clean it up around the quicklink with a drivetrain cleaner such as Muc-Off Drivetrain Cleaner if you have access to it.

Then: hold the quick link tightly in a Z shape between your thumb and index finger of your dominant hand (right in picture)

hold the chain with your other hand (left in picture)

pull hard on both sides of the chain with both hands while holding the Z in place with the dominant hand

Your hand position and direction of applied forces will be like this: Here is a video showing what I just described: The importance of cleaning the chain cannot be overstated.

Before I knew this tip, I was trying to open the same chain with my hands for second time once it had become dirty, and it wouldn't open for the life of me.

So I used the chaintool as a one off, went home and bought the proper tool on Amazon for 10 bucks .

Then the following day, I decided to clean the chain, and then I tried to open it again with my hands just for fun, and it opened up extremely easily!

Tested with: a KMC Z-51 / Z-8S - 6/7/8 speed chain: https://www.amazon.co.uk/KMC-Z-51-Z-8S-Speed-Silver/dp/B01I1GL49U

If you have a SRAM Powerlink as your master link, apparently you need to squeeze the two plates (if you stood over the bike, one on left side, one on right) toward each other for release, at which point it's easy to slide the two halves of the master link toward each other along the line of the chain and the link drops apart or can be coaxed open.

It helps to remove chain tension from the master link first.

I used light pressure from needlenose pliers on the two sides, plus my wire tool from my other answer , to keep my hands clean, but apparently this is easy to do with fingers only.

This person has a video explaining:

The master link on the left needs no tool to open.

Instead you hold the chain either side of the joiner, put both thumbs on the side plate, and bend the chain towards you.

This angles both pins and allows the clipon plate to clip off.

Down side is that you're putting sideways bending forces on links which may be bad for the chain.

If you have master link pliers, the link is trivially easy to remove.

These are cheap and a worthwhile investment for any cyclist who does any kind of maintenance.

Without pliers its possible but some tricks can make it infinitely easier.

The key to making it easy is pinching the plates of the chain together.

If you get this right, it will just fall apart.

If you get a chance, try it on a brand new link and see how easy it is.

These links can be damaged using brute force, and its entirely possible to hurt yourself using the wrong tools and high forces, so best to learn to do it right and not need force.

First clean the link to remove any dirt and grit from between the inner and outer plates so they can move closer together.

If there is any dirt between the inner and outer plates, link removal becomes very hard.

Next pinch the plates together.

If you are lucky, the plates will slide apart easily.

If not, wiggle them around while pinching them.

You may need to use a pair of pointy nosed pliers as shown by @kabZX, especially with a dirty chain, but the trick is in the pinching the plates together.

Question: How can I undo a chain that is closed with a master link?   Inspired by comment from  https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/a/39284/19705

How do I open a master link in a chain?

S7: First clean the link to remove any dirt and grit from between the inner and outer plates so they can move closer together.   If you have a SRAM Powerlink as your master link, apparently you need to squeeze the two plates (if you stood over the bike, one on left side, one on right) toward each other for release, at which point it's easy to slide the two halves of the master link toward each other along the line of the chain and the link drops apart or can be coaxed open.  The key to making it easy is pinching the plates of the chain together. Suggested tools are flat blade screwdriver or pointy nose pliers. However, KMC quick links can be removed by hand without any tools. This was mentioned at:  https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/a/45960/34651.

The master link can be opened with a special tool or pointy nosed pliers. SRAM Powerlinks or KMC quick links can be removed by hand without tools. Clean the link and remove tension from the chain before attempting to remove the link, and learn the correct technique to avoid injury or damage to the link.


As a one-off, that should be completely doable.

Your fitness from running and the gym should be plenty enough, especially as the route is pretty flat.

Bear in mind that it will be tiring, since cycling uses different muscles to running, and the saddle may get a bit uncomfortable if you're not used to it.

Make sure you have plenty of water and something like a cereal bar or a banana to eat half-way would be good, too.

(You want something that will release energy over time, rather than a big sugar hit.)

Riding in traffic can be mentally tiring when you're not used to it so definitely consider a route using quieter roads and cycle paths, even if that adds a few miles.

The thing you want to avoid most is narrow roads with lots of traffic: if cars can overtake you easily, everybody's much happier.

And there's lots of public transport available

so, if you get to Slough and can't bear the thought of cycling home again, you can always get on a train, though don't try to do that at rush-hour.

Man, just do it!

There isn't much that can go wrong.

If you feel tired, turn around midway.

Take a mobile phone with you in case something happens, look up the weather forecast, take something to eat and drink with you (or some money to buy some).

If you end up at a different location than initially planned, so be it; my personal experience is that too much planning destroys much of the fun of riding.

I often start thinking about going for an hour ride and end up doing 100km.

Or vice versa.

As an inexperienced rider you may do 10 mph (16km/h), thus 3 and a half hours of riding time for 34 miles (54km).

So just make sure you don't start in the evening.

Have fun!

Nope - go for it.

Here are two suggested routes from Strava, which were generated at https://www.strava.com/routes/new and then clicking a start and end point, and changing some options.

This first one is based on "most popular with cyclists" and runs for 30 km with total elevation change of 204 metres.

Another choice is "minimise elevation change" which saves you 5km and 50 metres of vertical ascent, but is a less popular path with cyclists.

I see part of it appears to be down the A40 motorway, but there appears to be a cycle path there.

Finally if you'd rather make your own way, here's the "heatmap" for the area.

You can access this at http://labs.strava.com/heatmap/#13/-0.44289/51.51782/blue/bike

Our LBS has a Saturday morning ride for which we often get beginners.

Many are no longer young and not particularly fit.

They can do 17 miles of flat ride before lunch.

I wouldn't worry about the amount of exercise if you have a nice break in the middle.

Discomfort after that much riding is more of a worry.

Allow enough time, about two hours each way with rest stops.

You will probably ride faster than that, but don't push too hard.

The main thing is to have fun

so you keep riding.

I typically tell people that any normal healthy novice can get on a bicycle and do 10 miles per hour without difficulty, so if you can walk for two hours stop for lunch and walk back, then you can do this with less work.

Pack water, a cellphone and lunch money.

If things go wrong you can put the bike in the boot of a cab.

If you were a little older I'd say work up to it over a month or so, doing progressively longer rides to give your body time to adjust and tell you how it's doing, but at 17 you can recover from almost anything.

Have a great time.

I can't tell how much you've ridden already, but

maybe (if you're not tubeless) practice changing a flat in the field to make sure you have everything with you that you need.

Ride a mile from the house then pretend you have a flat, then change or patch the tube right there by the side of the road.

It's do-able.

We have some guests, a couple in their 20s or 30s, who both know how to cycle but aren't accustomed to it.

They were able to go somewhere and back, 25 km each way.

Caveat:

It took them several hours; partly because they stopped when they got there.

But also because they cycle relatively slowly.

They borrowed my bikes which are "hybrids" of reasonable quality (several hundred euros with good tires)

They went along a semi-paved river tow-path which is closed to vehicle traffic, so no worries about that.

When they went again some weeks later, they found it easier.

It seems to me too that any route is easier the second time you do it.

We did distances like that several times a year when I was 12 years old.

So just drive off, without any special preparation, I am sure you will find something to drink and eat near to your route as soon as you want some...

I drove that as a daily commute for a year.

Was slightly hard the first week, after that easy enough.

If you keep a normal relaxed pace you should be able to do the entire distance 2x27 in about three to four hours

Question: I go to the gym on a regular basis and do a fair bit of running. I feel like I'm fit enough to do this. It would be a one-off ride from Wembley to Slough and back so it would be a fair bit of road which could be a problem.

Is 17 miles (27km) each way a lot for a newbie cyclist?

As a one-off, that should be completely doable. Your fitness from running and the gym should be plenty enough, especially as the route is pretty flat. Bear in mind that it will be tiring, since cycling uses different muscles to running, and the saddle may get a bit uncomfortable if you're not used to it.  Take a mobile phone with you in case something happens, look up the weather forecast, take something to eat and drink with you (or some money to buy some). Riding in traffic can be mentally tiring when you're not used to it so definitely consider a route using quieter roads and cycle paths, even if that adds a few miles.  Maybe (if you're not tubeless) practice changing a flat in the field to make sure you have everything with you that you need.  Finally, make sure to allow enough time for the ride before nightfall.

This is very doable at your age and fitness level, but be aware that cycling uses different muscles to running and you may not be used to the bike. Leave plenty of time, pack food and water, repair kit, mobile phone and money and go at an easy pace. You can turn around if you feel tired or things go wrong, or even go home in a cab. Choose quieter roads with enough space for cars to pass easily, and practice changing a flat before your trip.


Forks on bikes and motorcycles do pay either a weight or stiffness/strength penalty for their lack of triangulation.

One can imagine systems for steering the front hub with a linkage rather than a conventional cantilevered fork.

That sounds more heavy and complex than it's worth for a bicycle once you have it able to handle the full range of motion needed, but that's just a guess, and it's not say there's not some other application for such an idea.

One piece of the answer is that the main drawback to a cantilevered fork is that they're vulnerable to being smashed into things head-on.

If all else was equal that would be a nice vulnerability to eliminate, but it's hard to imagine a situation where all else is equal, especially considering the forces the bike encounters in such incidents are quite high.

Good forks offer a degree of valuable micro suspension even if they're not suspension forks, and losing that just to be able to smash into things would not be a welcome compromise for most.

This is to say that a more triangulated design employed in a way that increases stiffness likely would be unwanted.

If you could keep it at the same stiffness but with less weight, I would say the main reason that doesn't exist is no one's been able to figure out how.

If the fork was also welded to the frame at the bottom, you would not be able to steer.

There are still two points of contact to the headset, the down tube and the top tube.

Also, the fork needs to be compliant and not totally stiff for good riding properties, otherwise the ride is too harsh and braking could also be bad.

In the back it works differently.

One sort of drags the rear wheel behind and it reacts to bumps and other forces differently.

Also the braking is very different.

And one does not steer the rear wheel.

A triangle is a truss.

Old bikes had trusses front and back.

Two (seat tube - chain stay - seat stay), and one (seat tube, down tube top tube).

As bikes and materials and construction methods have evolved manufacturers were able to develop designs that are not trusses - either by beefing up a single tube or some other geometry.

Suspension systems have required unique designs between manufacturers.

But a truss is a classic construction component and is the simplest way to add strength and stiffness to a frame.

As others have said there is basically no good way to add additional structure to the front wheel to triangulate the support for it without lots of extra weight and complications to allow it to turn and steer the bike.

It turns out we can make forks that are good enough without triangulation.

Also bear in mind that the rear part of a bike frame has to transmit forces from the crank though the chain to the rear wheel, which which means it has to be stiffer.

They are not necessarily stiffer in the back merely because that section more closely resembles a triangle.

The geometry and structure of a bicycle is more complex than that.

The primary purpose of a bike frame is to hold your weight over the wheels, stiffness isn't the main goal.

A relative amount of stiffness is necessary, but a little flex is good too.

Part of the purpose of putting rake into the fork is to allow for flex.

Modern mountain bike frames aren't stiff at all, and have pivots that allow for many inches of flex.

I have a carbon fiber cyclocross frame that is about the stiffest thing I have ever ridden and that doesn't make for the most pleasurable ride.

Question: I know that triangulation of structures makes them stiff. Why are bicycles stiff at the back but not at the front?

Why are bicycles triangulated at the back but not at the front?

There is basically no good way to add additional structure to the front wheel to triangulate the support for it without lots of extra weight and complications to allow it to turn and steer the bike. Also it should be borne in mind that the rear part of a bike frame has to transmit forces from the crank though the chain to the rear wheel, which means it has to be stiffer.  There is some disagreement on this though as some bikes, particularly MTB are not stiff at all. In fact, the primary purpose of the bike frame is to hold the rider's weight over the wheels.

The considerations are a lot more than just stiffness, and the front steering and different forces make different front and rear structures more useful. Modern bikes are better at providing the right amount of flex without using triangulation in many places, and the support at the down tube and top tube is sufficient for strength requirements. Bicycles are not normally meant to be as stiff as possible. Modern mountain bikes have suspension that allows a lot of movement, and the rake of a fork on most bikes is there to allow some flex.


What I do for critical recordings: I simply don't use virtual instruments running on the computer, but split the MIDI signal, route only one path to the interface and the other to a cheap general-MIDI sound module.

This sounds horrible, but has neglectable latency so I can well use it for monitoring and get an as-clean-as-possible MIDI track.

Once that's recorded, latency doesn't matter anymore

and I can switch to the better-sounding virtual instruments.

Where the sound module offers insufficient quality even for monitoring, I try step by step reducing the latency.

I usually go down to 48 samples, though with that I already get stability problems when running processor-intensive plug-ins.

It's a bit of trial-and-error.

If you're on Windows, it's almost certainly not a hardware problem.

The situation is caused by the audio output going through the Windows mixer before going to the sound card.

That adds a significant delay.

Look in your audio application settings for ASIO or WASAPI output.

If ASIO, you need to download ASIO4ALL .

This will let your program bypass the Windows audio subsystem and talk directly to the sound card.

Using ASIO or WASAPI, the latency with my onboard sound is good enough that I can play on my MIDI keyboard without a noticeable delay.

Logic has a very simple solution for this: The low latency button (looks like a car tachimeter in main toolbar).Press

it and then record. :)

A core element of latency is often dependent on the audio interface to your PC - the sound card on your motherboard probably won't be up to the job of even semi-pro audio.

We use M-Audio for most of our stuff that goes through a PC, as we can guarantee very low latency (all the bottleneck pieces are moved off onto hardware to ensure this) (I'm not affiliated with M-Audio, but their kit works well for us as we are heavily dependent on computers in our rhythm section.)

Find in your DAW settings where you can set the buffer size, lowering this to 256 or 512 can get you down to the 20-30 ms range where there is less noticable latency.

Otherwise you can fiddle with 'Software Monitoring', and I think there is a way to make it pass directly through.

USB is great in that it provides inexpensive connectivity options, but there is a good reason that more expensive standards exist.

This is one of them.

I'd suggest trying to get your hands on a good Firewire audio interface, such as from Avid's M-Audio line .

I have a decent pc

and I bought a new icon ikeyboard

but it had horrible latency even after installing its driver .After

reading a few blogs all I did was just installed the ASIO4ALL and that was it , did not even had to do any configurations, my pc recognised it itself and the latency is gone.

I use sonar and it worked for me , I hope it does for you too.

Good luck

Question: I'm using Logic Pro (I have Snow Leopard) and I have a Korg R3 and a VB-99 as music instruments...I use usb connection on both and I would like to have suggestions and ideas to get rid of the latency when recording.Using my actual hardware with software tweakings would be lovely but also suggestions about buying new hardware that would solve the problems (cheap, if possible :) ) is appreciated.

Get rid (or die trying) of latency when using a MIDI instrument

Using ASIO or WASAPI, the latency with the onboard sound is good enough that you can play on the MIDI keyboard without a noticeable delay. M-Audio through a PC also reduces latency. You can also find in your DAW settings where you can set the buffer size, lowering this to 256 or 512 can get you down to the 20-30 ms range where there is less noticable latency.

There are number of ways to address this issue. As far as software is concerned, you could try using ASIO or WASAPI, or alternatively, you could try reducing the buffer size in your DAW settings. Otherwise, you could try replacing your hardware with M-Audio equipment, use a Firewire Audio Interface or even use an alternative MIDI module for monitoring purposes.

You could use an additional MIDI sound module for monitoring purposes.

Using ASIO or WASAPI may reduce latency enough for it not to be a problem.

Using M-Audio hardward may reduce the latency enough for it not to be a problem.

Reducing the buffer size in your DAW settings may fix this issue.

You might want to try a good Firewire Audio Interface instead.


Check out Lilypond: http://lilypond.org/

It's free and powerful, and although it won't do audio playback, I believe it can do the rest of what you ask.

It's text-based, and if you are at all familiar with TeX or LaTeX, Lilypond will feel similar.

It has a somewhat steep learning curve, but there are some GUIs in active development that make things easier, and there's also some software that allows for input via MIDI keyboard.

Edit:

Seems Lilypond can output MIDI files, so presumably you could get audio playback that way.

MuseScore is getting some attention.

It's free, cross-platform, and imports and exports MusicXML.

I have not tried it.

rosegarden is another option.

It's mostly meant to be used as a MIDI sequencer/DAW, but has a score facility which I believe will let you edit scores directly.

It's only available for linux.

I agree with everyone else that is suggesting Lilypond.

Here is a Linux Journal article on creating Schenker Graphs with Lilypond .

As little addon to the Lillypond suggestion: Check out this snippet from the Lilypond Snippet Repository I also found the channel #lilypond on Freenode being quite a good resource when getting stuck with something.

With Lilypond, the example of the OP could be drawn like follows: \score { \relative c { \time 2/4

\clef bass

\key

f \major << { \override NoteColumn.ignore-collision =

##t \stemDown \phrasingSlurDown \phrasingSlurDashed \once

\override

NoteHead.duration-log =

#1 \once

\override Beam.positions

= #'(-6.47 . -6.47)

\once

\override

PhrasingSlur.control-points = #'((1 . -.5)

(3 . -5) (22 . -5) (24 . -3)) f8*4[\( ~ \hide Stem f8*4] ~

*2( \newSpacingSection g4 a)

( \phrasingSlurSolid \undo \hide Stem f,\)\()( \once \hide Stem c')

d\)\

(( \once \hide Stem a')

\once

\override Stem.length =

#9.27 \newSpacingSection

\time 4/4

*8/3\)\( \once \hide Stem e,4

*4/3( f) \newSpacingSection \time 8/2 \once \hide Stem d4

*2 \once

\override Beam.positions

= #'(-5.97 . -5.97)

\once

\override Beam.transparent =

##f \once \hide Stem e8*4[\) \once

\override

NoteHead.duration-log = #1 f8*16] }

\\ { \hide NoteHead

\hide Stem \slurUp s2*6 \once

\override

Slur.control-points = #'((1 . 3.5) (3 . 5) (11 . 4)

(13.5 . 1))

( bes,4*4) \undo \hide Stem e4*2 } \\ { \hide NoteHead

\hide Stem s2*6 \once

\override

Slur.control-points = #'((1 . -7) (10 .

(17 . 7.5) (20 . -.5))

bes'2( s4 e,4) } >

> \bar "|." } \layout { \omit Score.

TimeSignature }}

Question: What is the best free or cheap music editing software available? I am looking for something to write and edit scores with. I know that Finale and Sibelius are the best on the market, but I wouldn't use them enough to justify the price.  I don't need many features, though here are a few that I could really use:   Audio play back  Ability to write without a time signature  Able to draw non-conventional notation (i.e. Schenker graphs)   Here's an example of what I'd like to draw:

Is there any notation software that supports unconvential notation like Schenker graphs?

For notation software that supports unconvential notation like Schenker graphs try MuseScore, rosegarden, or Lilypond.

There are a number of different programmes that might be suitable, such as Lilypond, MuseScore or rosegarden.


At first this happens because you are concentrating so much on your hands that the rest of your body can move in sympathetic ways - not just gurning faces, but you find some guitarists twist their bodies, arching their backs - not always deliberately :-)

Once you have learned the 'muscle memory' to a level that playing is automatic, the gurning reduces and

you become much more relaxed.

If you are pushing the limits of your capabilities it may happen.

Personally, I wouldn't worry about it - once you can play well, you'll be forgiven a lot of things.

The jazz nod and the blues grimace are things that many players practice for hours in front of a mirror to ACHIEVE...and you want to practice to ELIMINATE them?

heh

Try singing along.

You can't make weird shapes with your lips if you're using them at the same time as you're playing.

Circuits in your brain controlling your hands while playing, those circuits in some people are right adjacent to the circuits that control facial muscles.

There can be a little bleed through, like faintly hearing the wrong phone call on your land line.

If you force yourself to smile while you play it may help.

Only eliminate a guitar face if it makes you look ugly.

Consult the opposite sex on this.

If it concerns you, practice playing in front of a mirror.

Also practice in front of a mirror moving from your guitar face to a relaxed face.

You will learn how it feels when you make the face and have the muscle memory to return your face to a relaxed position.

While playing the violin, I tend to make all sorts of strange faces.

Like, faces that involve muscles I didn't even know

I had

(although now I have this strange ability for bizarre faces, which comes in handy when you're doing childcare ;-)).

For me, it manifests itself in the form of strange eyebrow movements and rapidly blinking eyes.

I'll see videos of myself playing while my eyes are batting, and no, it's not particularly attractive.

I've started to curb this habit though.

I received some advice in a different question, and have started thinking about it more.

It is suggested that people who's facial muscles twitch a bit may be nervous or, in my opinion, straining to much.

You should be totally - totally - relaxed while playing.

If you are stressed, it will show in your body language.

Try recording yourself again and again, and focus on staying calm and collected...

cool as a cucumber.

If you get comments from non-musicians about your facial expressions, invite them to try. ;-)

I chew on my tongue when playing guitar.

I am playing guitar for 30 years.

But because I hardly ever perform I am not aware of my facial expression.

It looks as if I am chewing a gum bit

then I stop and you can see that I am not chewing any gum.

It looks weird.

A musician friend suggested I actually should chew a gum to prevent that becasue it is too late to eliminate that habit.

So instead of hiding your mimic you expose it.

Question: When I'm playing (learning) difficult chords on guitar (ex: F,B7) my facial muscles (basically lips) form a weird action (I felt it and I saw it in the mirror).  I feel I'll get used to it as I go and I have seen some good players also do that (may be they can't help it).  You may also have faced this experience in learning stage and got over it. How did you overcome this?

How can I avoid making unpleasant facial expressions when playing difficult chords?

There are a few ways to stop making strange facial expressions when playing the guitar. You can sing along to the song, play in front of a mirror or film yourself while playing.

If you want to avoid making unpleasant facial expressions, you could try practising in front of a mirror or singing along with the music at the same time as playing.

Try singing along to prevent unintended facial expressions.

You can always try practising in front of a mirror to try and eliminate unpleasant facial expressions.


My music teacher taught us to memorise and recognise intervals using the "compare-it-to-a-familiar-song" method too.

It works really well and Somewhere Over The Rainbow

was the exact song we used as well.

However, it's only effective if you're actually familiar with the tune - Also Sprach Zarathustra doesn't ring any bells with me.

So, as my teacher did, why not play the interval to the student and get them to name a tune they know which contains the same interval?

If it happens to be by some obscure X-Factor drop-out, so be it - they'll always remember it because they made the link.

If you're too proscriptive about the tunes they'll not be able to identify and remember them.

A great one to use for the rising major 6th is the "NBC" motif.

Fun fact, NBC was originally a subsidiary of General Electric, and instead of "National Broadcasting Company", "General Electric Company" was used, or G-E-C for short.

That initialism spells the notes that make up what is now known as the NBC motif!

Bali Hai, from "South Pacific" -- actually it's an octave jump up followed immediately by a half-step down, but you hear that M7 clearly.

West Side Story is all about tritones.

The signal whistle is G C F#.

Jet Song:

G G E C F#. Maria:

C F

# G. Cool:

C F# G

C First sung note of "Gee Officer Krupke" is an F# against C in the bass.

Jaws theme of course!

Since you're already using West Side Story: the canonical mnemonic for the tritone is Maria .

(In fact, I've never seen anybody use a different one.)

m6 - 'Bei Mir Bistu Shein' (or 'Bei Mir Bist Du Schön') M6 - '

My Bonnie Lies Over the Ocean' (For most intervals I use(d) non-internationally known songs that I chose myself like Widor so nicely suggests.)

Very nice question....

You brought back memories :)

My music teacher did the exact same thing.

I can't seem to recall all the songs she taught us though.

I remember she used Singing in the rain for Octave though! :)

Check out this link it has many interesting examples many of which my teacher used as well (like jaws, happy birthday, Superman Theme) http://www.musicalintervalstutor.info/listenpg.html Widor's answer presents an interesting approach I have to say.

M3 (going down to tonic from major 3rd) =

doorbell...

ding dong.

Don't laugh - I still use it.

(Love the other examples!)

This site has an extensive list of songs corresponding to the intervals.

It's too much to reproduce here

but I will note that it's missing "O Canada" for the ascending minor third :P

The stacked thirds from the bridge of Twist and Shout by the Beatles.

It gives you the whole layout of the scale in one meme.

Question: As the tutor for my school's music department, I spend a lot of time helping students drill intervals.  However, I only have a handful of songs to recommend recognition.  P8 — Somewhere Over the Rainbow P5 — Also Sprach Zarathustra P4 — Here Comes the Bride m7 — Somewhere (West Side Story)  And there's the extent of my help.  Everything else I work as either arpeggios or scales.  What are good pieces to help my students?  Particularly Tritone and the Major and Minor 6ths.

Musical Aids to Memorize Intervals

A great musical aid to use for the rising major 6th is the "NBC" motif. For West Side Story, the canonical mnemonic for the tritone is  Maria .

Some good tunes for helping students to memorise intervals include the NBC motif for a major 6th and Maria from West Side Story for a tritone.


Disclaimer:

I’m a fellow sax player and have more or less never blown into a clarinet.

As you probably know a clarinet does not have an octave key (it has a key which makes the clarinet jump to the fifth of the octave/twelfth instead).

Because of that, you shouldn’t expect fingerings between saxophone and clarinet to be related at all.

Other than that, I’m guessing your embouchure would be useful (at least in the medium — clarinets have a crazy range), as would your general dexterity and, obviously, your knowledge of music.

My sister in law was playing sax, but needed to switch to clarinet to be accepted in our wind orchestra, since the sax was well covered but we needed clarinets.

She used about six months before she felt good enough to start in the orchestra

(her instructor felt she was ready sooner).

Given that most of the reed players I've worked with bring sax (tenor/alto/soprano) and a clarinet and often a flute, leads me to say it won't be too much of a problem.

SOME of the fingering is the same, and the embouchure is similar.

Since you have musical knowledge from playing piano as well, it will be quite an enjoyable, straightforward job.

I'm often surprised when a sax player does not also play a clarinet.

Practice long tones on just the mouthpiece and barrel with a tuner at first.

You should produce a C# (concert).

Your embouchure should be firmer, but don't bite.

The chin should be stretched flat at all times and the jaw should never move.

Basically: corners in, top lip stretched down, chin flat.

The "smile" embouchure should be avoided, as should any upward muscle movement.

(Think "in" and "down").Once

you are able to produce a steady tone consistently, start using the clarinet.

When you start working on clarinet, first stay in the low register, without using the register key.

Start on open "G" and work your fingers one at a time all the way down the clarinet so you can get a feel for where the holes are.

After a few weeks, you might be ready to start using the register key.

An easy way to practice your tone here is to practice 12th exercises, fingering the nots in the chalumeau register and simply adding the register key.

Try the exercises here: http://www.clarinetcloset.com/upperregister.html

There are many other useful resources on this website as well.

Good luck!

I played tenor sax for years in junior high and high school band.

I learned several instruments in the interim, one of them being clarinet.

It was probably the easiest to transition to from saxophone, as the fingering and the embouchure are both pretty similar.

The mouthpiece is smaller, and so your embouchure will need to be a bit firmer/tighter than you're used to.

Given your long history with music in general, the learning curve shouldn't be terribly sharp.

I've only played Alto Sax

but I've played clarinet for a while, so

I might be able to help.

It was really easy to learn saxophone with all my years of clarinet practice, so I figure the other way around is the same, too.

You should have no problems making sound because saxophones and clarinets have about the same mouthpiece: very few differences.

However the fingerings are COMPLETELY different, and you'll need to adjust.

Also, the octave key on clarinet is really a twelfth key.

Hope this helped.

I played the clarinet first and had a go on the saxophone.

I found the saxophone a little more difficult to control because I needed to relax much more.

It's all about the embouchure.

One little quirk is that the lower register of a B flat clarinet plays exactly the same notes as an alto sax with the same fingerings.

But the notes have different names!

So three fingers down is called G on a sax and C on a B flat clarinet but are actually the same note.

So sometimes I play sax parts on a clarinet, needing to think like sax.

It works OK until you go above the B/E and open the speaker key, at which point confusion reigns!

My dad (who passed away a few years ago at age 100) played so-called C=Melody Sax from before I was born till he was 90.

At which point he decided to switch to Clarinet.

He found the idea of a transposing instrument a bit daunting at first, but otherwise had no difficulties at all.

The switch from overblowing at the octave to overblowing at the 12th didn't faze him, nor did adjusting the embouchure.

I'm guessing you'll have no problems at all, especially since the Tenor and the clarinet both have the same transposition.

(Well, sort of.)

Clarinet and sax use basically the same playing technique.

The 'similar but different' fingerings are a very minor issue, don't get hung up on it.

You'll be OK.

Go for it, as generations of woodwind players have before you!

In my case I've played clarinet for about 6 years and although I'm still playing it.

In my jazz class my instructor had me move to tenor sax

and I gotta say it is confusing bc eventho the notes are the same and some of the fingerings are in fact the same.

The confusion comes when you try to play a note say for example concert B flat.

On the Clairnet its six fingers down with a alternative key while on the tenor sax it's only the middle finger down on your left hand.

For mouth position wise it is a lot different.

On the Clairnet you tight the corners of your mouth to play while on tenor you need to drop your jaw.

Without dropping your jaw the notes will play as though you are pressing the octave eventho

you are not.

It takes a lot of practice and learning a whole different way to play

Question: I currently play tenor sax but would like to pick up clarinet in the near future. How difficult would learning to play Clarinet be, given my experience as a tenor and long time piano player? How much will my knowledge of Sax help?

Playing Sax and Clarinet

A saxophone player should have little difficulty learning the clarinet as the technique is basically the same. Many reed instrument players play a number of instruments. Moreover, a musician will find learning a new instrument easier than a person with no musical background.

It is generally agreed that learning the clarinet having already learnt the saxophone shouldn't be much of a problem.


"Beat" as proposed just now seems wrong since it would hardly do for off-beat notes.

"Note column" would be the technical term employed in the music typesetter LilyPond, but I don't really know whether it has some origin in actual music terminology, and it obviously refers to the visual arrangement primarily.

"Musical moment" might be another choice but strictly speaking those form a continuum.

stem?

Are you sure you want to have 2 rectangles for the double stems split since it's held across a beat?

I'd consider the pair to be one,

ummm, "note set".

I just call them "note set"s.

But that's just a term I came up with, not something standard.

A beat is probably the best term since you are more referring to a duration then the actual notes being used.

Sound is as good as any.

That's till someone writes a rest.

Then I'm in trouble...

Going with the MIDI theme, that some of the comments refer to, how about "event"?

For formal, technical purposes (e.g. when discussing musical audiation and other aspects of musical cognition) the terms "acoustic event" or "notated event" or "vertical event" is pretty much standard terminology within psychology of music for referring broadly to any individual single tone or simultaneosly experienced combination of tones (i.e. an individual chord) within a passage or composition.

An acoustic event can also include a silence.

Really useful all-inclusive terms, (though not yet in musicians' common parlance)!

So, I'd use the term "notated event" (or the more generalized "vertical event") to fill in the blank in the OP's question.

It depends on whether you're asking for MUSIC nomenclature, or music NOTATION nomenclature.

If it's music, I might say "sound" for each thingy.

If it's notation, I might say "event" for each thingy.

i.e. a note event, a score event, etc.

Question: Take a passage like this:   Fill in the blank: Each of these boxes denote a  ______  Is there a single general term for these that's better than  note or chord ? Or maybe there's a term for "anything that has a duration" that also encompasses rests? It seems like enough of a fundamental concept that it should have a name.

Is there a general term for a single note or a chord?

Beat, sound, event, acoustic event, notated event, note column and musical moment are all suggestions for describing a single note or chord.

There are range of terms that may apply in this context, including "event", "beat", "sound" or "note column".

The term "beat" may be applicable in this context.

"Sound" may be a perfectly acceptable term in this case.

Some terms that could be used include "note column" or "musical moment".


This is very often called musique concrète, or avant-garde as a broader term.

The technique you are mentioning is also referred to as ready-made or found object (objet trouvé in French).

A ready-made is an object/sound/whatever that already existed without any artistic context, which is then turned into art by giving it that artistic concept.

Two

relatively well-known examples are Revolution 9 by the Beatles, and Several Species of Small Furry Animals Gathered Together in a Cave and Grooving with a Pict by Pink Floyd

(yes, that is the title of a song).

In Revolution 9 , you'll notice that the sounds aren't actually aligned to a musical rhythm per se.

This is usually the case with musique concrète:

you throw all rules about music overboard, and create what you think sounds good.

In Several Species (...) , the sounds are not actually natural; they're all created by Roger Waters tapping/slapping his own body in various places, making weird sounds with his voice, and speeding all of this up quite drastically.

In this song, everything is aligned rhythmically, so it's a good example of how far you can go with this kind of sound

: you could even adapt the pitch of each sound to create whatever melody you like.

Anything is possible with this kind of stuff, as long as you're imaginative and creative enough.

Links : Revolution 9 Several Species Wikipedia page for Found Object

You can call it in various ways, depending on the style of production / performance.

It can be called Found Object if you are using sounds like you mentioned without performing it.

It can be called Experimental, if you are improvising it - sampling it live.

You can call it Experimental Electronic if you are using your computer / digital sampler.

You can call it ambient, References: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Found_object_(music) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_music

You could call it "Industrial Music".

John Cage, Phillip Glass and even Rassahn Roland Kirk (beating on metal chairs to accentuate his enthusiasm...") used this concept quite a bit.

In the RPM community we refer to this as Spoon Dropping.

While not a term for this genre as a whole, this thread would be incomplete unless someone mentioned the practice of sampling .

Hip-hop and electronic musicians (as well as those in other genres) often sample sounds from other music, lines from TV shows and viral videos, and environmental sounds like rain and car horns.

Sometimes the sounds are autotuned and/or edited to have a certain melody, and other times they are left as-is and the interest comes from how the new song recontextualizes the sampled content.

Wikipedia has a good article.

Sampling has spawned many debates about authorship and originality, and the way that hip-hop artists borrow samples from each other (often without giving explicit credit) has been used as a metaphor for the internet and open-source practices as a whole.

See remix culture and Cory Doctorow, Information Doesn't Want to Be Free .

Question: Is there a term for music composed of everyday sounds (animal calls, cars honking, etc.) that are timed just right to sound like music together? (I hope this isn't off-topic here)

Is there a term for music composed of everyday sounds?

Music composed from everyday sounds is very often called musique concrète, or avant-garde as a broader term. The technique is also referred to as  ready-made  or  found object  (objet trouvé in French). It can be called Experimental, if you are improvising it - sampling it live.  You could call it "Industrial Music". In the RPM community it is referred to as Spoon Dropping.

There are numerous terms that can be used to describe this concept, including "musique concrète", "found object", "experimental" or "industrial music".


Yes it is the dominant chord.

The third is sharpened to G# to make a major chord, which gives a stronger cadence when moving V-i.

This is why the Harmonic Minor has a sharpened seventh degree, to create the sharpened third in the dominant chord (or leading note in the scale, whichever way you want to think about it).

In common-practice harmony, the strong, major dominant chord helps define the key, so the Harmonic Minor scale, with its sharpened seventh is used.

(The major V chord of the Harmonic Minor helps the harmony to function, hence the name.)

However, if one is not using common-practice harmony, for instance in a lot of rock, pop, jazz and folk music, it is perfectly acceptable to use the Natural Minor, in which case chord V is minor, and the key is defined less strongly by any cadences moving from v-i.

It is correct to a certain extent.

You are absolutely right that the 'natural' A minor scale has no sharps in it, and the v chord would be an E minor.

However, minor scales come in several 'flavors'.

There is the natural minor, harmonic minor, and melodic minor.

The harmonic minor is the same as the minor scale with the 7th raised by a semi-tone.

Ergo, the A minor harmonic scale is A,B,C,D,E,F,G#,A - which as you can see provides the G# that is present in the E major chord.

The harmonic minor is quite common and thus it can be said that the dominant V (upper case is important here)

chord for A minor is E major.

When people refer to a “minor scale”, they don’t always think of the natural minor scale .

Quite often, they think of the harmonic minor scale , which is similar to the natural scale with the seventh degree raised by a semitone.

As the seventh degree is the third of the dominant chord, the dominant chord is major in harmonic minor scales.

For example, the A harmonic minor scale is A

B C D E F G# and the dominant chord is E G# B , i.e. E major.

The point of any dominant chord is to lead back to the tonic chord.

The best way to do this is by using the leading tone (Natural 7th in major, raised 7th in minor).

Because of how the natural minor scale is formulated, the leading tone is omitted from the scale.

This however does not change the fact that the leading tone gives a very strong pull to the tonic.

This gave rise to the other two minor scales the other posts have alluded to.

Regardless of whether you are in major key or minor key dominant chords will contain the leading tone whether it is the 3rd of the chord (V) or the root of the chord (viio).

To do this in minor the 7th must be altered and because of this alteration the parallel major and minor keys will share the same dominant chords because of how the chords are built.

So yes E major is a dominant chord of A minor.

It's probably more often the V because it has that

G#.

That comes from both the harmonic and the melodic minors.

Sometimes Eminor is the V and it is used in lots of songs.

Yes, it originates from the natural minor (or in some cases the melodic).

It isn't so decisive, but still pushes towards I, which is the job of any V chord.

The notes of the dominant chord of a minor is E/G#/B. E - G# is a Major third while E - B is a perfect fifth.

This makes the chord Major.

I think you are getting confused by what it means for a scale to minor / Major and what it means for a chord to minor / Major.

A Major Chord is one with a Major third and a perfect fifth.

This can happen in both minor and Major keys and is not fixed to what key you are in.

E7 is the Dominant of A minor.

E major is almost correct but, you are missing the minor 7.

The major third and the minor 7 of every dominant chord make the interval of a tritone.

The major key has two dominant chords: V (G) and vii (Bdim).

Both of these are dominant to the Cmajor chord (tonic) and also have a dominant function to the A minor chord which is also a tonic chord and contains the same chord tones as a C6.

Additionally, there are secondary dominant chords, these are found outside the key.

The secondary dominant for the A minor chord is Emajor.

A natural minor scale has these notes: A, B, C, D, E, F, G

Therefore the A natural minor has this chord progression: I - AmII - BdimIII - CIV - DmV - EmVI - FVII- G

However for an A harmonic minor scale which has these notes: A, B, C, D, E, F, G# has this chord progression: I - AmII - BdimIII - C#5IV - DmV - EVI

- FVII - G#dim

Although in many cases they would prefer this chord progression: I - AmII - BdimIII - C#5IV - DmV - E7VI

- FVII - G#dim

Question: I read somewhere that Emajor is the dominant (V) chord in A minor. Is this correct? If so, why is it not Eminor, since the A minor scale has no sharps or flats in it?

Is Emajor the dominant chord in the key of A minor?

E major is the dominant chord of A minor. Sometimes E minor is the V and it is used in lots of songs.

E major is indeed the dominant of A minor, and the third of the dominant is sharped to produce a stronger cadence when moving to the tonic. However, E minor is still used sometimes in the key of A minor.

This is correct that E major is the dominant of A minor.

The third in the E major is sharpened to provide a stronger cadence when moving to the tonic.

Sometimes E minor is still used in the key of A minor.


orthodox: adherence to accepted norms Is playing Bach like Glenn Gould orthodox or not?

Some will swear by what he does with Bach and probably say yes, while others will cry out loud "Nooooooo"!

I think answering your question about using the pedal with Bach faces the same dilemma: since Bach isn't there to tell you what he would like to have heard when transcribing his harpsichord or organ pieces to the piano, it is a matter of interpretation deemed to change somewhat with the culture and your own sensibility.

More importantly, what is deemed as an acceptable interpretation will vary with the piece, the instrument it was composed for, and what people have gotten to accept over time.

A few examples: Prelude 1: Many will play it with the pedal on, only changing it every couple of measures.

Since all notes within that measure build on one simple harmony, it does not change the main intent of the piece.

It doesn't muddy things out too much or prevent you from hearing a second or third voice that isn't there to start with.

So you can say using the pedal two measures at a time for that piece is orthodox as in "accepted by a large part of the community today"

A fugue: Silences are as important as the notes themselves to define the melody in this form and using the pedal for too long will generally extend notes or link some voices together in a way that Bach clearly did not want.

Press the pedal to help yourself linking one voice and disregard the complexity of the other voices and you will likely create an interpretation that doesn't respect the intent of the composer and isn't deemed orthodox.

Use it parsimoniously to make some transitions clearer in one of the voices without muddying the rest and preserving the symmetry between the voices, and people will likely consider that you are making a good use of the piano to enhance the original work of Bach, making your interpretation "orthodox" by most standards.

To finish, I will take one of my favorite piece of Bach at the present time: a transcription or a prelude by Siloti interpreted by Gillels here .

That piece is conventionally played twice, once letting the right hand lead the melody, the second time letting the chords resonate.

It is absolutely delicious and both versions are completely different, something that wasn't Bach's original intent, that is only possible on a piano, and that is yet widely accepted today as "the" right (orthodox) interpretation of that piece.

So there you have it

: I believe using the pedal for Bach can definitely be considered orthodox but there is a context to it.

Based on the recordings and concerts I've heard over the years, in the modern era, it is very common and not at all ridiculed to use pedals lightly to enhance the melodic lines and help out the legato.

There are some, like Simone Dinnerstein, who make heavy use of the pedal, but she has many fans in her own right, and she does have some really great interpretations of Bach.

My personal interpretation is that since you're playing Bach on the piano-- a very different instrument than the harpsichord-- you should concentrate on making it sound good on the piano.

Realize that changing instruments requires adjustments as you face a different set of instrumental constraints.

For example, the carillon is an instrument in which you cannot choose precisely how long the notes sustain; yet, amongst carillonneurs Bach is a perennial favorite and frankly incredibly awesome-sounding, despite not being able to be as "detached" as the harpsichord.

Well, the pedals suffer the same problem as the bellows of an accordion: they apply to all voices equally.

So their use for effect gets in the way of polyphonic articulation.

As an example, there does not seem to be a musical problem with using the sustain pedal in the Prelude #1 in the Well-Tempered Clavier, but you can't really make coherent use of it in the following Fugue #1.

Now both form one unit.

The question is whether you want to be performing this unit in two different execution styles.

In the end, that is an artistic choice.

The first rule of Bach: Everyone thinks that the way that they learned to play it is the best way.

Show 25 people 8 bars of bach and you could get 25 different answers on how to play it.

I think there's a certain amount of validity in learning to play it two ways - first, from a historically relevant context, and second, using whatever interpretation you feel is best (based on listening to different recordings, experimenting, and any existing standards established by modern musicians.)

If you're learning from the perspective of "I need this for an audition piece", then find out who you're going to be auditioning for and listen to their recordings, noticing any patterns of choice that they may take.

This applies to pedals, grace notes, and any other things that you may notice.

I play Bach on both my harpsichord and my piano.

They are very different instruments.

Trying to copy the sound of a harpsichord with piano or vise-versa is folly.

One must simply try to produce a musical interpretation with the tool at hand (pun intended).

As we have no recordings of Bach playing anything, we are left with academic reasoning of scholars and our own common sense in the moment (in which we must consider the acoustic, the audience, the instrument, and all other variables) in order to arrive at a reasonable choice.

In practice, I use no pedal, some, or quite a bit on piano.....

depending on these variables.

There is no definitive answer then.

(The same is true for temperament.....

I use an unequal temperament at home on both piano and harpsichord.....

but the last public performance with the harpsichord (as continuo with orchestra)

the musicians struggled with period tuning, so I was forced to alter the instrument to equal temperament.

Everyone was happier with the sharp thirds and homogenized quality key to key of et....

so who am I to argue for historical accuracy in that setting?)

Question: It is my understanding that Bach's keyboard works were written for the harpsichord, and thus no (damper) pedal is used while playing Bach on the harpsichord.  On the piano however, I have heard recordings of concert pianists using no pedal whatsoever and others who do seem to use the pedal (albeit rather conservatively). Is it orthodox to play Bach's keyboard works with a pedal or should I abstain from using it?

Is it orthodox to use the pedal when playing Bach on the piano?

Answering the question about using the pedal with Bach faces the dilemma: since Bach isn't there to tell you what he would like to have heard when transcribing his harpsichord or organ pieces to the piano, it is a matter of interpretation deemed to change somewhat with the culture and your own sensibility.  Nowadays using the pedal is considered orthodox and many concert pianists use it, for example Simone Dinnerstein.  Since you're playing Bach on the piano-- a very different instrument than the harpsichord-- you should concentrate on making it sound good on the piano.

The answer to this question will be subjective and depend on your own tastes and what you think sounds good. However, it is generally agreed that using the pedal when playing Bach on the piano is fairly orthodox.

The answer to this question will be subjective and depend on your own taste.

Using the pedal when playing Bach on the piano can probably be considered orthodox.

It is probably best to focus on making the piece sound good on the piano, whatever that might mean to you individually.


Although the two terms are often conflated, and although there are plenty of situations where the difference isn't noticeable, the intended difference is that portamento is a relatively quick pitch slide between all or most of the notes during a melody or melody section.

The pitch slide tends to come only at the very end of the note, more or less during the articulation change into the next pitch.

A glissando is a far more deliberate slide that generally lasts for a significant part of the duration of the initial pitch on its way to the new pitch.

In short, portamento is a relatively subtle effect that tends to apply to the overall singing style while glissando tends to be a more dramatic pitch shifting that is usually only done between two notes where it is explicitly notated.

Irrespective of singing, a glissando indicates that specific notes (whether specified or not) should be played or performed.

For example, if there is a perfect-fifth leap with a port.

indication, the performer should play/sing all of the chromatic notes in between unless otherwise indicated.

A portamento indicates that no specific pitches are necessary and may include semi or quarter tones as well.

A glissando is more gestural and is often larger than a portamento.

Glissando is a discrete portamento whereas portamento is a continuous glissando.

In singing, Portamento is a style, Glissando a technique.

Neither are likely to be heard as a distinct chromatic (or otherwise) scale.

On a harp, Glissando is a scale.

On trombone it's a continuous smear.

The terms mean different things in different contexts.

Glissando is going through intermediate pitches musically.

Portamento "carries" one pitch to another pitch: there is no interruption in tone and style and no "musical concept" of intermediate notes even though the execution might not be able to switch pitches instantly.

It's pretty much the same as a slur over a larger interval.

If you map this to a violin, it would a slur across two notes on the same string, played with the same finger but shifting position.

Monti's "Czárdás" starts with a violin passage all on one string, with large legato lines.

There is no word of "glissando" in the actual score if memory serves me right

: the instruction was only "sul G".

Various interpretations show a wide variety of executions for the large jumps, some are really exuberant glissandi, some are actually more like portamento.

The latter is quite trickier to pull off well and smoothly.

The basic difference is that there is no "musical time" spent on a portamento.

When using "Czardas" as an example for portamento identity, it's important to note that the interpretive portion of the piece is heavily rubato, disregarding time/tempo and leaving much to expression.

A clear definition of portamento (as I perform it, attacking a note and sliding to another with no discernable voicings in between,and almost immediately following a stroke) will add that much more to your expression.

Question: What is the difference between portamento and glissando while singing?

What is the difference between portamento and glissando?

In singing, Portamento is a style, Glissando a technique. In short, portamento is a relatively subtle effect that tends to apply to the overall singing style while glissando tends to be a more dramatic pitch shifting that is usually only done between two notes where it is explicitly notated. Glissando is a discrete portamento whereas portamento is a continuous glissando.

The two terms will mean different things in different contexts. For example, in singing, portamento is considered a style whilst glissando is considered a technique. Furthermore, glissando is often considered more brief and gestural whereas portamento is longer. Glissand could also involved sounding discrete notes whereas portamento will be a continuous sound from one note to another.

Glissando is considered to be more gestural and momentary whereas portamento is longer and considered more of a style.

Glissando sounds discrete notes whereas portamento is a continuous movement from one note to another.

In singing, portamento is a style whilst glissando is a technique.


My son plays saxophone and his band teacher is very careful about giving instructions for home practice.

He hasn't said anything about risks coming from toothpaste or mouthwash.

Also this sax forum stresses getting rid of the food particles but doesn't warn about damage from the cleaning substances: http://forum.saxontheweb.net/showthread.php?7159-Proper-Reed-Care-and-Cleaning

My son's band teacher told me that the most important things to maximize the life of a reed are to soak it for a few minutes before playing, and to handle it carefully.

How about if you make sure to rinse your mouth thoroughly after brushing?

I don't think this is a big deal.

I don't think that brushing/using mouthwash is necessary,

just washing out your mouth to get the food out of your mouth should be enough.

In fact, it's sometimes recommended to soak your reed in mouthwash if it starts to smell bad.

As long as you aren't using a VERY sugary/basic substance, it should be fine.

Mouthwash contains alcohol, right?

That makes me worry that alcohol vapor in my breath may break down the glue that holds the pads in place over time.

Maybe a way round this would be to wash 15-20 minutes in advance of playing so the alcohol can evaporate.

Also, if any of the residual abrasive in toothpaste gets into your instrument and builds up...

it can't be good,

right?

Thoroughly rinsing out your mouth with water several times before playing is probably a good idea in the case of both mouthwash and toothpaste.

All that being said, I do not know, I'm just voicing my fears, and I'm going to have to do more research.

I'd like to contribute, that for double reed instruments you are recommended to brush your teeth before playing.

It is not in any way to prevent chemical reactions, but to avoid blowing remainders of your meal into the instrument (so more physical reasons).

I never heard of any damage to reed, pad glue (which would be sealing wax in most cases I know of) or instrument by alcohol / tooth paste / mouthwash, and given the amount of air one dilutes that chemistry with

, I can't imagine the concentration is significant.

Not sure if the chemicals would damage the instrument, but for brass instruments which use metal mouthpieces it has never been a problem for me.

Incidentally I have found I play better when I brush my teeth, or maybe it just feels better to be clean.

Sweet drinks are definitely a no-no while I play though.

Question: Since I started playing the saxophone, I've always been told that you are to never play the saxophone if you have eaten recently. I was told the reason for this was that (if any) the sugar on your teeth would damage the mouthpiece and reed.  This makes sense to me, so every time, before I play, I brush my teeth. However, I started to wonder if that was an equally bad idea.  Is toothpaste and/or mouthwash bad for the reed or mouthpiece?

Is it bad to play wind instruments with clean teeth?

Brushing your teeth is recommended before playing reed instruments as any sugar can damage the reed. If you are concermed the chemicals in toothpaste will also damage the read, rinsing the mouth several times with water after brushing is a good idea.

It is generally considered that it isn't a problem to play saxophone immediately after brushing your teeth or using mouthwash.


The temperament on some ukuleles is not perfectly equal.

I don't know if it depends on strings or on the instrument itself, but it means that in some cases (at some frequencies) the distance between two neighbor frets differs from semitone.

Moreover, these distances can also somehow depend on the current frequency of open string -

that is, the different overtones can be presented in various cases.

It can be heard especially when compare C-string with the others.

To prevent this, never tune your C-string, held on the 4-th fret, to E-string.

This will cause a dissonance between C and E open strings.

The simplest way is to tune all strings with help of tuner.

If you don't have one, you can download the APTuner program (for Windows).

However, if you can hear some intervals besides unison, the result of tuning open C-string to any other should be much better as well.

As for myself, I use the third fret of A-string and so tune C-string with octave.

I can't speak to your particular model of ukulele, but I'm going to hazard a guess that your problem is similar to one that I've had in the past.

On my ukulele (a Fluke), there are small screws in the ends of the tuning pins that control the tension of the tuning pin.

If this screw is too loose, then the tension of the string will eventually unroll the pin, and the string will loose tension, causing it to go flat.

I've even seen it to the point where the pin is incapable of holding any tension whatsoever, and the string just sits there flopping loosely.

The solution is rather simple: find a small screwdriver, and gently torque the screw until the pin is able to hold a tension.

Be careful here: you aren't assembling furniture, and the screw does not need to go in as tightly as you can make it.

A quarter turn might even be enough.

If you overtighten it, it will be difficult to turn the tuning pin -- do not force it!

Just loosen the screw a bit, and you'll be fine.

You have to find a balance for the screw, between being too tight and too loose.

You can just barely see the screws in the following image, as small silver dots at the outside edge of the black tuners:

I can't find your model, so don't know how relevant this is.

I have had various ukes of varying price, and an inability to be tuned correctly across all strings seems to be a common factor of the cheap ones; or at least a highly variable ability; I presume because they don't bother checking machine head quality or intonation but just knock them out at speed.

If you got it from a shop it is probably worth taking it back and getting them to either demonstrate that it can be set up correctly, or to replace it - even if it's cheap it should be tunable or it is not fit for purpose.

Another factor is possibly the strings; I have before accidentally tuned a string far too sharp on a ukulele, and it was completely impossible to tune that single string afterwards; it needed to be replaced.

This can happen if you are using the strings it came with if the uke was knocking around a shop for a while being abused by customers.

I also bought a cheap uke for a godson that had an appallingly stretched string out of the box, so clearly something went wrong at the factory.

So, to answer your question, no, it shouldn't happen, although it does on cheap ones.

If it's the strings, a new set will sort you out.

If it's the machine head slipping or the intonation, you'll have to return it.

The string might be sticking in the nut slot.

I've found a bit of chapstick in the nut slot can free things up.

Or maybe the slot needs to be widened a bit.

A few possibilities come to mind If the string is new or never been tuned up to pitch before then it might not have bedded in yet - nylon strings can take a good few days to settle down.

The string might not be tied on properly and be slipping against the tuning peg.

The string is faulty

The tuning peg is faulty (or badly adjusted as per Celeb Hines answer) If it doesn't settle down after a reasonable bedding in period I would take it back to the shop.

Also can't help but notice that it's the C string that's giving trouble.

This is the ukulele equivalent of the guitar G string which is notorious for being the hardest string to get in tune correctly.

much has been written on the subject.

Question: I'm having some troubles trying to tune the C string on my ukulele (the biggest of all the 4). I happen to have no issues with the other ones, but this takes so much time to to be tuned and it won't stay in tune for a lot. Is it normal?  My ukulele is a 30E, Mahalo, and it has been my 3rd day with it. All the other strings seem to have settled, but the C string is so annoying.

difficulties tuning C string on ukulele

Inability to tune all the strings is a common problem found on cheap ukeles.

It is generally agreed that, whilst the C string should easily detune, it is a lot more common on cheaper ukuleles.


Composing music is always a balance between including the information needed for the performer to realize your ideas, and leaving enough up to the performer to not stifle the music 1 or insult their intelligence.

For guitar, this is especially tricky because there are (for most of its range) multiple ways to play any given note, and a variety of techniques to achieve certain things.

So you'll see a variety of levels of detail in the notation.

Classical guitar music tends to leave off as much as possible, I think to respect the player's intelligence.

If the composer wants a specific voicing, this is usually done by giving the position number--the fret at which your first (index) finger resides--given in roman numerals.

At this point, there will only be one way to do things.

A number by itself means to just camp your hand there, and a number preceded by a "B" means to barre.

A number with a "C" means to place the capo at that fret, and then after that you can move the hand freely or even barre further up the neck, so there might be multiple symbols in play at once.

My biggest complaint about modern avant garde music is how composers, I suppose in an effort to do completely original things, will sometimes write absurdly specific things into the sheet music.

Things I've actually seen include:

Note durations given in time elapsed, with absurd levels of precision (as opposed to the normal relative note durations plus a tempo indication)

An indication for a violinist to bow at a very specific measured distance from the bridge (as opposed to just sul tasto or sul ponticello and letting the player find what they think sounds best) Instruction for wind players to use the wrong fingers.

Not to play with an alternate fingering (which is more reasonable, but still pretty dubious in most situations), but to hold the instrument wrong.

I still have no idea what the point of this was.

The end result is that the poor performers are thinking so hard about the stupid things they're being asked to do that they can't focus on actually playing music , and the result is just dead, awkward sound.

It will have the notes of let's say a b minor chord and the position will be indicated with Roman Numerals.

You would see a whole slew of notes that fit the B minor chord and you would see an indication of position seven and know it is the minor barre on fret seven.

A barre is usually notated above the staff with the letter C (for capotasto ) or B (for barre ) with the fret number in roman numerals.

Scores vary as to how much fingering information they contain.

There may be none, in which case the player uses his own judgment and experience.

That applies especially to scores that aren't specifically arranged for guitar.

Notation like CII or BIV is commonly used to mark points where a barre is needed (or suggested) to play that combination of notes.

A horizontal line might be added to mark the length of such fingering.

Other notations may be used as well, such as numbers in circles to suggest a string.

Numbers without circles indicate left hand finger use.

Roman numeral without C or B usually means 'position' rather than barre.

Books normally have a preface explaining the notation.

A barre is also indicated if you are told to use fingers 1 2 3 1 1 for a particular chord or arpeggio.

There certainly is an element of 'if you want'.

Barre notation is part of the fingering help aimed at the student.

Advanced players may be prefer to start with an unmarked score that they can annotate with their own preferences.

I just want to make sure sure,

if it's a minor chord/major chord, do you >play a major/minor chord?

This question is different from the barre question, which has been well answered above.

So it's worth noting that barre notation has nothing to do with what notes/chords you play.

It only has to do with where and how on the guitar you play them.

If the chord is a minor chord, CV is simply suggesting you play that chord as a barre chord in 5th position (perhaps because you need to go there to play a high first string note, or because it makes an easier transition to or from other notes).

The barre is usually shown by a Roman numeral above the bar/s.

There really is no need for C or B as well, because the RN means nothing else.

Never seen lower case, because the barre sign only means 'play from this fret'.

There is, however, a half- or part-barre sign, which means, as suggested, only barre some strings.

It is C with a vertical line through it, like a cut-time sign.

There is nothing telling whether the chord is major or minor, except the dots themselves, which are self-explanatory, and the direction the piece is moving, sonically.

Usually a good clue in itself.

Question: How are these barre chords notated on sheet music? Do you just do a barre chord if you want?  I just want to make sure sure, if it's a minor chord/major chord, do you play a major/minor chord?

I'm totally new to classical guitar, I see people playing barre chords

Composing music is always a balance between including the information needed for the performer to realize your ideas, and leaving enough up to the performer to not stifle the music 1  or insult their intelligence.  For guitar, this is especially tricky because there are (for most of its range) multiple ways to play any given note, and a variety of techniques to achieve certain things. Classical guitar music tends to leave off as much as possible, I think to respect the player's intelligence. If the composer wants a specific voicing, this is usually done by giving the position number--the fret at which your first (index) finger resides--given in roman numerals.  A number by itself means to just camp your hand there, and a number preceded by a "B" means to barre. A number with a "C" means to place the capo at that fret, and then after that you can move the hand freely or even barre further up the neck, so there might be multiple symbols in play at once.

For guitar, there are multiple ways to play any given note, and a variety of techniques to achieve certain things. Classical guitar music tends to leave off as much as possible in order to respect the player's intelligence. If the composer wants a specific voicing, this is usually done by giving the position number. A number by itself means to just camp your hand there, a number preceded by a "B" means to barre. After that, at this point, there will only be one way to do things.

A barre is usually notated above the staff with the letter C or B


Use a music clip.

There are two kinds.

When I first started playing piano, I was using one of these:

You put the clip around the top of the book, which holds it flat.

Problem is, it doesn't work well for large books which are too thick to fit the clip, and when you're playing something at the beginning or end of the book the two sides become unbalanced.

It would often fall off in those cases.

Several years later my piano teacher saw me using one of those and gave me this to use instead: This kind of metal clip is so much better.

It works for books of all thicknesses, and is able to hold the book more securely.

Do note that it could damage the cover of the book, especially if it is thick and has a glossy cover.

But this is a price worth paying for not having to deal with the inconvenience of a plastic clip.

My favorite method is to use clothespins to clip the edges of the book to a music stand.

If the dimensions of either the book or the stand don't allow that, I use the clothespins to clip a ruler or a similarly sized piece of wood to the front of the book to keep it open.

If the book is stapled together and not too thick, bending it backwards a few times also helps.

But with the really thick books, that will just break the binding, and I don't want to damage my books like that.

I've had books re-bound with a spiral binding through a local print shop.

The binding is less durable in that it's easier for pages to rip out with this binding, but it allows the pages to stay flat.

If you have a lot of books, this may be prohibitively expensive.

The "standard" method is: Lay the spine flat on a table and fold each cover down.

Fold down 1 or more pages from the front and 1 or more pages from the back.

Continue folding from each side until you get to the middle.

This way does not break the binding.

If you aint got any of that on the hand you could use an other (heavy) book and put it on the edge of the book that is supposed to be open.

I cut the glue binding off the music book, ripping it on a table saw, and punch holes in the pages to fit them in a three-ring binder.

Cut out each page as close as possible at the binding with a sharp blade.

Punch holes for a three ringed binder with a hole puncher.

Put the pages in sheet protectors, then insert into binders.

Time consuming but best results.

If you want to have the book but it should open easy.

Take it to a copier/printer shop.

He will have a machine that can cut through alot of paper in one time.

Give him the book he should cut the book at the spine 2mm in to the paper, then the back that is now exposed hold it firmly in place that the book pages should be all the same, not one page should stick out.

There a special glue that when it dries its elastically.

Smear the glue on the spine, when its dry: voila, here's your book.

When you open the book it's like separate pages, but its being held together by the glue.

I hope I was a help.

What I often do for this is just continually bend and crease the the book backwards until it stays.

Open to the pages that you are reading from.

Bend both sides of the book back

so the ends of the book are behind the spine.

Slide your hand along the spine, creasing it with your hand.

You may have to do this a few times for it to work.

This does not cause any damage to the book; source:

I do this for all my books.

An alternative to keeping the book open would be to find a flat-bed scanner and print out the pages you are working with.

Then, simply line up the papers however works best on your stand.

Question: You know, many sheet music books are quite springy and would rather close than stay open on the music stand while practising. How do you keep them open while allowing to turn the pages easily?

How to keep music books open?

There are special clips, called music clips, to use for keeping music books open. Two different kinds are available. They could damage the book cover but they do keep the book open.

Use a music clip. There are two kinds. When I first started playing piano, I was using one of these: You put the clip around the top of the book, which holds it flat. Problem is, it doesn't work well for large books which are too thick to fit the clip.


Bradd has mentioned the two places where the string is most likely to be auidibly hitting the strings.

Another couple of suggestions I have for reducing the direct 'left hand' noise made by the string where it's fretted - Work on having your left hand 'think ahead', so that you're not rushing to fret the note just before you play it; instead, the relevant finger has got there well before time.

a low action at the nut will reduce the amount of click for the positions near the nut.

Again as Bradd says, low action at the high frets will make it more likely for the string to clatter against the frets at the end of the neck, so you may want to raise the bridge saddles a little, as well as focusing on playing less hard (with your right hand).

The latter may mean you need to turn your amp up a bit too, so you can play gently and let the amp do the work.

As No'am Newman mentions in a comment, bass clanks aren't a bad thing in themselves -

I harness them in a couple of ways:

- accenting strong notes in a bar with a bit of right hand 'clank' - setting my bass up so that the string hits the high frets briefly at the start of each note.

coupled with distortion, this gives a great snorty rock sound.

Of course if you don't want clanks, that's fine too.

Also, bear in mind that not all the clanks and clicks you hear acoustically will actually make it into your signal chain.

You can reduce a lot of noises by turning down the tone on the bass.

There are two likely causes for this, depending on where the strings are clicking.

If they click directly under your fingers, from the force of your fingertips striking the frets, then work on reducing the tension in your fretting hand .

Proper fretting requires very little tension or force.

Keeping it minimal will reduce percussive noises and will also reduce fatigue and the likelihood of injury.

If the strings click or buzz against the neck farther from your fingers, then the problem might still be tension, but in your plucking hand instead of your fretting hand.

When playing fast, loud, or dynamic music it is easy to over-pick which can make the strings slap or buzz against the strings.

Low action or low neck relief will exaggerate this noise, so you might want to adjust your bass setup in addition to easing off the picking hand.

From an instrument maker's point of view: aside from how you play, the setup of the bass makes a difference.

There's always going to be some amplitude of string vibration that will buzz somewhere; it's a matter of taste what that amplitude is.

The lower the action, the easier it is to fret and the less problems with intonation, but the easier it is to buzz.

The higher the action, the less buzzing, but the more effort and possible intonation problems.

Of course, you want your action to be regular: no high or low frets, nut and bridge appropriate, etc.

Get it checked out if you find differences between different fingered notes.

Topo pre-empted my first thought - turn down the treble on the amp or guitar.

Those clicks would make it seem like you're hammering on too hard with the fretting fingers.

Hammer-ons are a regular part of guitar and bass playing, to be able to play legato, but also so you can drink your pint while still playing the bass line in a gig.

Hammer-ons don't need to be sledge-hammer-ons, though.

The note will still play when you press down less harshly.

Try all sorts of different attack modes, and a lot of the click will disappear.

Of course, sometimes you'll want it, so go back to your original mode of playing.

Another cause may be the strings are too low, and are catching on the next fret or three, although often, this will manifest itself in a rattle as well.

You may also be pulling the string up away from the finger board before letting go - sort of mini bow and arrow style.

That's a common way to play when you're slapping and popping - it's the pop.

A slap is also percussive in a different way, when you hit the string down onto the finger board.

Again, that's percussive, and will produce a click, albeit a different one.

This type of sound is solvable by either playing softer with the playing hand (not hitting the strings so hard) or doing some EQing.

If your bass has a treble control, turn it down.

Same with the amp or any pedals.

But the best solution for things like this is to solve it at the hand and not gloss over it with effects.

Adjusting your playing style for a given situation will not only open up your bass for new possibilities, but make you a more versatile player.

You can then use the clanky sound to accent other notes without sacrificing treble in your normal tone.

I used to have the same issue, hitting the strings far, far too hard and always getting the clank.

I've since lowered my action and learned to play a lot softer.

I can now get that clank without too much extra effort and play fast lines with soft strikes of the fingers, which is way easier than trying to hit hard during a fast passage.

I'm with Tim, I think you're squeezing too hard.

Try this, place your finger on the string and press very, very gently until the string just touches the fretboard behind the fret.

Keep playing the string with your right (I presume) hand all this time.

Notice the left hand pressure you needed when the note first comes out clear.

That the most pressure you need to exert, even when paying fast.

If you keep squeezing too hard or too fast, you will at best tire quickly, at worst risk hand strains or injury and speaking as someone who has had hand surgery, I don't recommend it.

Question: I picked up the bass a few months ago, and I've noticed that when I'm playing something, the strings make loud clicky sounds when they hit the fret. This happens especially when I'm trying to play something fast, and when I jump between strings. How can I prevent this from happening? What could I be doing wrong?

Bass guitar: how to avoid sound when string hits fret

If you hear clicks when playing the bass, the first thing to do is turn down the treble on the amp or guitar. The clicks may be caused by hammering on too hard, in which case press down less harshly. Another cause may be the strings are too low and are catching on the fret. The player may also be pulling the strings aways from the finger board or slapping them down onto the finger board.

Hammer-ons are a regular part of guitar and bass playing, to be able to play legato. They are also handy for playing the bass line in a gig. Hammer-ons don't need to be sledge-hammer-ons, though. Try all sorts of different attack modes, and a lot of the click will disappear. Of course, sometimes you'll want it, so go back to your original mode of playing. The click is also a common way to play when you're slapping and popping - it's the pop. The pop is a percussive sound made when you hit the string down onto the finger board.


A keyboard with only white keys.

How do you know which is actually C?

But to the answer.

Yes, if a song is purely diatonic (using only the notes from its scale, with no extra # or b.

It can be played in any key out of the 12.

Also, minor tunes will work similarly.

The problem is that some pieces use extra notes that are not from the scale.

For example, in, say, D major, it may modulate to A, and in doing so, use a G# note.

Non diatonic.

Trying to transpose that into C, you'd be looking for F#, which you won't find amongst the white keys.

For most pieces, no, even if the piece is in C major.

Some chords, like 7th chords, contain accidentals (requiring black keys).

An example of a piece in C Major with black keys is Symphony No. 1 in C Major by Beethoven: it starts off with a C7 chord, C E G B♭ .

With white keys only, namely a purely diatonic instrument, you are restricted to playing modal songs exclusively.

For the Major mode, that is only an impediment with modulation or intermediate notes present.

For church modes (of which strict Major mode is one), that works as well.

For current-day uses of Minor mode (in its pure form also a church mode), you'll rarely make things fit well since there tend at least to be traces of Harmonic Minor in there, leaving the white-key tonality.

Folk songs are usually good material for going modal.

Greensleeves works reasonably well in Dorian (white keys only starting with D) even though some phrases definitely shift character, but trying to pick a good mode for "Henry Martin" is trickier than it would look.

So generally, you'll likely end up with problems if your whole ensemble is bound to white keys: you are likely going to have to "backdate" songs uncompromisingly, giving them a flavor different from what they were written with.

At least once you go beyond "Major mode".

Theoretically, no.

Even if a song is in C Major, it may have the occasional alteration.

Often, a C Major song includes a Bb (think of the C7 chord); that usually comes from a modulation, short as it may be, but sometimes that happens.

Many a song modulate from major to minor.

It is a harmonic device to build attention or tension.

However, your white-keys only keyboard is a diatonic instrument, just like a harmonica or a bagpipe.

This means that there are many songs you can play, and you may be able to play more by transposing them - but occasionally you'll find one that doesn't fit.

Yes, absolutely.

In Equal Temperament, all major scales are mathematically equivalent, in terms of their notes' interrelationships (frequency ratios).

Outside of Equal Temperament, this might not be the case.

This video provides examples of different temperaments from Bach's time.

You could play any song that used ONLY the notes of the majot scale.

But only very simple tunes are so tightly restricted. '

In C' allows more than just white notes!

If you only have the notes of the C major scale available, you are already unable to play every song that's in C major, because 'in C major' does not mean 'using only the notes of the C major scale'.

So, for that reason, having only the notes in the C major scale does not allow you to play a transposed version of every song in a major key.

It does, however, to play a transposed version of every song that sticks to the notes of a major scale.

Question: Let's say we have a song in a major key. My understanding is that performing different songs in different major keys just makes the song either higher or lower in pitch. And that's just about the only difference (correct me if I'm wrong).  So let's say for example I just have a keyboard that has white keys (ie C major). Could I theoretically play any song out there? (assuming that whatever I want to play is in some other major key).

Can any song in a major key be performed in C major?

Performing a song in a major key in C major, that means using white keys only, and this restricts you to playing modal songs. For the Major mode, that is only an impediment with modulation or intermediate notes present.  For current-day uses of Minor mode (in its pure form also a church mode), you'll rarely make things fit well since there tend at least to be traces of Harmonic Minor in there, leaving the white-key tonality. Folk songs are usually good material for going modal. Greensleeves works reasonably well in Dorian (white keys only starting with D) even though some phrases definitely shift character, but trying to pick a good mode for "Henry Martin" is trickier than it would look. So generally, you'll likely end up with problems if your whole ensemble is bound to white keys: you are likely going to have to "backdate" songs uncompromisingly, giving them a flavor different from what they were written with.

With white keys only, you are restricted to playing modal songs exclusively. Folk songs are usually good material for going modal. Greensleeves works reasonably well in Dorian, but trying to pick a good mode for "Henry Martin" is trickier than it would look. At least once you go beyond "Major mode", you'll likely end up with problems if your whole ensemble is bound to white keys. You are likely going to have to "backdate" songs uncompromisingly.


An indication of with pedal or con pedale or pedal ad lib. is a way of expressing that pedaling for a given passage is up to the discretion of the performer.

If there are other pedaling indications, then those indications supersede the original indication at the appropriate time in the music.

If not, then the pedaling is understood to be at the player's discretion throughout the piece.

In terms of figuring out exactly how to pedal is exactly your problem.

As a performer, you need to make choices.

You can make choices that fall in line with convention, recordings you have heard, or advice you get from other performers.

However, when composers notate with pedal , it is understood that they're accepting of a bit of flexibility (or are simply to lazy to write out specific pedaling).

Hope that helps.

The pedal will sustain any notes played after it's pressed.

If those notes combine to make a chord, which maybe can't be held with fingers, then that's the main reason for using the pedal.

When the harmony changes, it will sound pretty awful if the last chord sound continues, and bleeds into the next.

Thus, a change of pedal will be needed at that point.

Ears will tell, if knowledge of chordal theory won't.

'With pedal' instructs you to use the pedal with discretion to achieve a legato effect.

It doesn't instruct you to push it down and leave it down!

It doesn't instruct you to over-use it, blurring the harmony.

You will make much use of the technique known as 'changing the pedal' - lifting it as you play a new note or chord then 'catching' them by immediately depressing it again.

General rule - even if the instruction is 'with pedal'

, you're probably using it too much!

Schumann gives such instruction a lot.

The genre and period of the piece you are playing matter.

Normally, you change pedal by the same judgment as you do normally.

If there were no "with pedal" instruction, how will you plan the use of pedal?

With "with pedal" instruction, it stresses the role of pedal, but it does not mean you have to use pedal everywhere.

Usually, when the chord changes, you raise the pedal upon playing the first note, and quickly hit pedal afterwards.

When dry effect or clear articulation is intended, you do not use pedal there.

If you have further questions, consult anyone with reasonable piano playing experience.

Hope this helps.

A basic rule of thumb, or should I say foot, is to lift and restep at all changes of harmony.

Now, this sounds technical but it's not that complicated

: It's a matter of watching the lowest bass note in the music.

(It actually should be done by ear.)

Take a look at a copy of Beethoven's Fur Elise.

The first, lowest-sounding bass note is an 'A' you'd want to step the pedal down and hold it until the low 'E' arrives in the second measure.

At the split second that you strike the 'E' lift the pedal

WHILE YOUR FINGER IS HOLDING

THE 'E" down and then step back down again.

The changing of the bass notes from 'A' to 'E' are changes in harmony, so the trick is to get rid of the old harmony sound by lifting the pedal and stepping back down for the new harmonic structure.

I call it 'taking out the trash' - if the piano sounds blurry, murky and underwater, it's time to lift and QUICKLY restep the damper pedal.

Now, when you get to the bridge, there are more harmonic changes happening more quickly than previously; so you would lift and restep for the 'C' bass then the 'G' then the 'A' and the 'E'.

During the following octave 'E's', the pedal should be held down for all of the 'E's' because they're all part of the same harmonic structure.

The repeating, chromatic D# E D# E D# E could go either way, depending on your type of piano (electric or acoustic), the reverberation rate of the room you're in

and it could simply be a matter of personal taste.

The same goes for the opening theme, there are chromatic D#'s to E's that I would pedal if playing an electronic piano but would not if on an acoustic piano.

Quite simple, in this situation, I think you should go with the flow...

Although I would keep the pedal on and release it at my discretion.

Just remind yourself what the pedal does: it creates a legato effect for the notes played for the period it is held, creating near-silence upon release.

I said "feel there needs to be a breath" on my last edit.

I in fact meant "whenever you feel it is suitable".

Sorry for any misunderstanding...

Question: I am playing a piano piece that tells me to use the pedal (it says ( with pedal ), but it does not tell me when I need to stop, nor when to release and reapply. The piece has double bar lines four measures later, but I feel like it is too soon to stop there. The only other logical place is 50+ measures later, but areas in between there do not seem to require it. Should I stop at the double bar lines or at the next section?

When do I stop pedaling?

When to stop pedalling on the piano depends on many things. The genre and period of the piece you are playing matter.  Schumann gives such instruction a lot. Usually, when the chord changes, you raise the pedal upon playing the first note, and quickly hit pedal afterwards. When dry effect or clear articulation is intended, you do not use pedal there. A teacher or experienced pianist would be able to provide more help.

Schumann gives such instruction a lot. The genre and period of the piece you are playing matter. Usually, when the chord changes, you raise the pedal upon playing the first note, and quickly hit pedal afterwards. When dry effect or clear articulation is intended, you do not use pedal there.