Slash chords examples in songs?

cowsgomoo

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2012
Messages
478
Reaction score
979
It seems as if people interpreted this thread as asking what slash chords are! as opposed to being able to hear what they are.

It seems that apart from the C\G & D\F#, that guitarists don't really play slash chords that often. For example, how come the --5x777x-- OR --55777X-- shape isn't utilised that often?
my guess is because frequently the subtlety of many of these voicings is almost completely lost within many ensemble scenarios.. if your bass player is supplying the lower part of the slash chord, and/or your pianist is doing something similar, you have to decide whether you twisting your hand into an unfeasibly difficult and contorted shape in order to insert an almost inaudible inversion is really worth your effort
 

To Need a Woman

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
314
Reaction score
38
my guess is because frequently the subtlety of many of these voicings is almost completely lost within many ensemble scenarios.. if your bass player is supplying the lower part of the slash chord, and/or your pianist is doing something similar, you have to decide whether you twisting your hand into an unfeasibly difficult and contorted shape in order to insert an almost inaudible inversion is really worth your effort
But it's still essential training for the ear. A competent guitarist should be able to tell what type of slash chord he's hearing - whether it's the 3rd in the bass, the 2nd, the 5th, etc. It's an essential skill for all pianists, as well as solo jazz guitarists.

Being an Elton John fan, I've had no choice but to incorporate major chord shapes such as -5x777x- into my guitar playing.
 

freebyrd 69

Premium Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2011
Messages
12,853
Reaction score
23,743
But it's still essential training for the ear. A competent guitarist should be able to tell what type of slash chord he's hearing - whether it's the 3rd in the bass, the 2nd, the 5th, etc. It's an essential skill for all pianists, as well as solo jazz guitarists.

Being an Elton John fan, I've had no choice but to incorporate major chord shapes such as -5x777x- into my guitar playing.
A competent guitarist can make the sound....doesn't have to know all of the technical bulls#!t. :laugh2:

Ya think Hendrix could tell ya whether he was playing the 5th root of major 10th chord? :laugh2: NOT.
 

To Need a Woman

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
314
Reaction score
38
A competent guitarist can make the sound....doesn't have to know all of the technical bulls#!t. :laugh2:

Ya think Hendrix could tell ya whether he was playing the 5th root of major 10th chord? :laugh2: NOT.
Hendrix wasn't that good :laugh2: - it was his image, his looks, & perahps that he was one of the first or something. He was fast and load I'll admit! Other than that, he had is repertoire of tricks which he was limited to. He was a one trick poney as far as I could tell. I'm guessing he didn't even play that many slash chords.

Your ear, and natural ability can only get you so far. The real good players know their theory. It doesn't mean they've to go around talking about it. Guys like Steve Stevens, Andy Timmons, EJ and Rick Graham are all miles better than Hendrix.

Hendrix is about the equivalent of Pete Townshend.
 

JonR

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2010
Messages
2,889
Reaction score
2,573
Hendrix wasn't that good :laugh2: - it was his image, his looks, & perahps that he was one of the first or something. He was fast and load I'll admit! Other than that, he had is repertoire of tricks which he was limited to. He was a one trick poney as far as I could tell. I'm guessing he didn't even play that many slash chords.

Your ear, and natural ability can only get you so far. The real good players know their theory. It doesn't mean they've to go around talking about it. Guys like Steve Stevens, Andy Timmons, EJ and Rick Graham are all miles better than Hendrix.

Hendrix is about the equivalent of Pete Townshend.
So how come Hendrix is revered more widely and in a whole different way than the post-Hendrix relative nonentities you say are "miles better"?

You seem to think that "real good players" are defined by technical skill and theoretical knowledge alone. The former is certainly essential for a great musician, the latter less so, but there's one harder-to-define element more important than either, and that's musicality.

I'd agree that Hendrix (in his short career) maybe didn't reach the heights of technical skill or theoretical knowledge of those you mention (and probably many others you or I could name). But so what? That sort of thing is only of importance to a nasty little guitarist ghetto, where shredders gather to admire themselves.

There are two reasons why Hendrix retains the reputation (in the broader musical sphere) that he does:

1. Innovation. All the great guitarists of the 1960s knew the game was up when Hendrix arrived.
Naturally, all that meant was that the skills and imagination of folk like Clapton, Page, Beck and Townshend were as yet rudimentary. Hendrix showed just what the electric guitar - given the contemporary advances in amp and FX technology - was truly capable of. Before him, pop guitar playing ("rock" didn't yet exist) was still monochrome 2-D, and the best players were looking backwards to blues heroes, with no idea of what the future could hold. Hendrix showed the electric guitar in 3-D full colour. The others crawled, walked or (at their best) ran. Hendrix flew.

2. Musical imagination. He was not only a technical wizard (streets ahead of his contemporaries), but his sounds were effortlessly musical too. It wasn't just loud and fast for the sake of it. His ear was better than anyone else in pop, with the possible exception of McCartney and Brian Wilson. (Obviously we're excluding "jazz" from this debate...;)) The guitar - and its attendant FX and amp - were merely tools to try to express his musical ideas; and you could tell that, even with his supreme command of those tools, his thinking was ahead of that.

Point #1 explains his place in history. Point #2 is why he's not just a museum piece, ie, why his music still lives, and why he is still admired, even though we can all point to later guitarists who could play rings round him (technically if not imaginatively).

I'm not saying he was perfect. The solo on Purple Haze is a ham-fisted disaster, sounding like he was playing with gloves on. (With hindsight it seems amazing it was chosen for release, without a re-take, but times were different then; you make a half-way decent take of an extraordinary-sounding song, at a time when "let it all hang out" was an excitingly revolutionary concept, and pop was still ephemeral; and you move on. Wind Cries Mary was made in 20 minutes as an after-thought. Sometimes the carefree approach strikes gold, sometimes not. You can't win em all. No one was supposed to be listening to those records after a few months anyway.)

Better players than you or I still marvel at how perfect his rendition of Little Wing, Wind Cries Mary, or All Along the Watchtower are, how impossible it's been to improve on them. (And many have tried, certainly with Little Wing, because its beauty is seductive. But nobody has managed Hendrix's sensitivity of touch and tonal control.)

None of this means you have to LIKE his music! ;) I don't like Mozart or Beethoven (I have slightly more patience with the latter). But I wouldn't deny their greatness, nor claim later composers (who I prefer) are better. I simply accept that my own musical sensibility is not equipped to understand Mozart and Beethoven. The fact I don't "get" their music is my problem.

OK, rant over. Apologies for no slash chord content in this post...
 

freebyrd 69

Premium Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2011
Messages
12,853
Reaction score
23,743
Hendrix wasn't that good :laugh2: - it was his image, his looks, & perahps that he was one of the first or something. He was fast and load I'll admit! Other than that, he had is repertoire of tricks which he was limited to. He was a one trick poney as far as I could tell. I'm guessing he didn't even play that many slash chords.

Your ear, and natural ability can only get you so far. The real good players know their theory. It doesn't mean they've to go around talking about it. Guys like Steve Stevens, Andy Timmons, EJ and Rick Graham are all miles better than Hendrix.

Hendrix is about the equivalent of Pete Townshend.
No need for further discussion, as we are MILES apart on any kind of agreement. I am 47 years old and couldn't tell you who the hell Steve Stevens and Andy Timmons even are. I also took a poll at work.....zero for 11 on anyone that recognized those names, and I stopped trying after that. :laugh2:. BTW, 11 for 11 on Hendrix.

It just drives me crazy when you "theory" guys chime in with stuff like this. Makes no sense....to anyone but you "theory" guys. :thumb:
 

JonR

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2010
Messages
2,889
Reaction score
2,573
Hendrix is about the equivalent of Pete Townshend.
Just to add - I more or less agree with this. Both were seminal influences on everyone that followed. Two of the handful of true inventors of the music we call "rock". (The others would be Jimmy Page and ... er ... maybe an honorary mention for Eric Clapton. Can't think of anyone else...)
If any rock guitarists deserve to be called geniuses, Hendrix and Townshend would be up there, Page alongside them. Possibly Keith Richards.

That's not to say plenty of others didn't come along later to stand on their shoulders. "Steve Stevens, Andy Timmons, EJ and Rick Graham" - fine players though I'm sure they are - would be among those countless lesser figures.

Purely IMHO, of course. :)
 

JonR

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2010
Messages
2,889
Reaction score
2,573
No need for further discussion, as we are MILES apart on any kind of agreement. I am 47 years old and couldn't tell you who the hell Steve Stevens and Andy Timmons even are. I also took a poll at work.....zero for 11 on anyone that recognized those names, and I stopped trying after that. :laugh2:. BTW, 11 for 11 on Hendrix.

It just drives me crazy when you "theory" guys chime in with stuff like this. Makes no sense....to anyone but you "theory" guys. :thumb:
Well, speaking as a "theory guy" it makes no sense to me either.
But there's no accounting for taste.;)
 

To Need a Woman

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
314
Reaction score
38
Two of the handful of true inventors of the music we call "rock". (The others would be Jimmy Page and ... er ... maybe an honorary mention for Eric Clapton. Can't think of anyone else...)
So Clapton steals the attention from Townshend? He's far bigger more of a household name.
 

JonR

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2010
Messages
2,889
Reaction score
2,573
So Clapton steals the attention from Townshend? He's far bigger more of a household name.
FWIW, speaking for the UK, Eric is a little bigger as a household name than Pete, but I doubt there's much in it. The Who are certainly a more famous band than anything Eric's been involved in, purely by virtue of their longevity. (Not that being a household name has much to do with musical importance...)

If you're talking about the inventors of the genre we know as "Rock" (as distinct from the "rock'n'roll" if the 1950s), then they would comprise the following - in no particular order:

The Rolling Stones (blues, sex, rebellion, songwriting)
The Who ("maximum R&B", off-the-wall improvisation, songwriting)
Eric Clapton (blues, volume, LPs and distortion, guitar virtuosity)
Jimmy Page (the session man's dispassionate thievery, folk influence, prog instincts)
Jim Marshall (amp design, with Townshend as consultant)
Jimi Hendrix (blues, sex, virtuosity on amps and FX as well as guitar, psychedelia, prog instincts)
Pink Floyd (psychedelia, songwriting, prog)

It was all done in the four years from 1964 to 1967. From then it was just building on all their innovations. ("Led" mainly by Zep of course.)

It's significant that all except one are British. (And some would want to add Peter Green and/or Jeff Beck too, for their creative extensions from the blues into psychedelia. It even took a Brit to discover and promote Hendrix, whose rhythm section were British.)

Rock'n'roll is obviously an American genre, but - as with the Beatles - it took the distance provided by this side of the pond (our fuzzy objectivity) to bring all the necessary influences together without any kind of cultural prejudice: no sense that you couldn't mix blues with Tamla, soul and country (as the Stones did); or blues, Tamla, James Brown and the Beach Boys (as the Who did); or blues, folk and gospel as Led Zep did. And then turn it all up to 11, thanks to Mr Marshall!

I'm not saying none of it has been improved on since - certainly standards of guitar playing and musicianship in general have risen exponentially since then. But the creative innovation of the mid-60s was astonishing in retrospect: everything just came together at the right time.

(Sorry, I know this has nothing to do with slash chords... :rolleyes:)
 

Thumpalumpacus

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2010
Messages
76,197
Reaction score
187,616
There's an Amin/F in the bridge to Rush's "Fly by Night" -- and in fact, if you want to learn about slash chords, Lifeson is a great place to start. "Red Barchetta", "Free Will" ... I could go on ...

As for Jimi being "one-trick pony", I just gotta laugh. One listen to Axis: Bold as Love would put that idea to rest.
 


Latest Threads



Top