Talk:Kite Guitar translations by Kite Giedraitis: Difference between revisions
Greensleeves chord progression comment |
|||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
I don't think there needs to be any IVm at all. There are many variations of the song, including ones with half the chords, just going Im - bVII - bVI - V without the second variations on each. But to include the very nice more-complex chord progression, I still find it better to use Im - bIII - bVII - Vm - Im - bVI - V / for the opening, no IVm. I don't mind the IVm as a version, but it doesn't translate as well, and I don't find it as satisfying or traditional. If we drop the IVm, I think everything will go smoother. --[[User:Wolftune|Wolftune]] ([[User talk:Wolftune|talk]]) 21:20, 27 December 2019 (UTC) | I don't think there needs to be any IVm at all. There are many variations of the song, including ones with half the chords, just going Im - bVII - bVI - V without the second variations on each. But to include the very nice more-complex chord progression, I still find it better to use Im - bIII - bVII - Vm - Im - bVI - V / for the opening, no IVm. I don't mind the IVm as a version, but it doesn't translate as well, and I don't find it as satisfying or traditional. If we drop the IVm, I think everything will go smoother. --[[User:Wolftune|Wolftune]] ([[User talk:Wolftune|talk]]) 21:20, 27 December 2019 (UTC) | ||
Updated thoughts: | |||
The simpler 4-chord progression avoids most issues. Some of the variations come from commas being tempered out. The embellishments get complex. | |||
One 4-chord variation I like: I^m - V^m - ^bVIv - Vv. But the ^bVIIv that could be used as a variation to V^m, I only find it smooth when arriving to it from the ^bIII variation in the 1st quarter of the phrase. In other words, I^m / - ^bVIIv sounds weird, whereas either of: I^m - ^bIII - ^bVIIv - V^m or maybe swap the last two for I^m - ^bIII - V^m - ^bVIIv. By contrast, the I^m - (plain) bVIIv - ^bVIv - Vv sounds good too. But that doesn't blend well with V^m as a variation to the bVIIv. A surprising variation sounds okay to me: I^m - ^bIIIv - bVIIv - vV^m - ^bVIv - I^m - Vv / — except the plain bVIIv sounds weird to me after some time playing with the ^bVII and V^m (even though earlier the plain bVIIv sounded fine). | |||
Also, I didn't like the Vv,^7 initially at all. I preferred either a regular Vv7 (perhaps with high-3 to avoid the prominence of the 7) or the more traditional Vv with no 7. There's no need for the 7 in that it's not part of the melody. | |||
As I was even typing this updated comment, my mind shifted. I can see how even though it seems less traditional, the IV^m works when it is clearly a variation off of ^bVIIv. And the Vv,^7 started sounding okay enough when I was getting used to ^bVIIv instead of plain bVIIv. So, several variations can work, but not in any combination. | |||
I do think a beginners' version without all the variations of chords would be worth doing as it could focus on inversions and melody incorporation to make the whole arrangement work nicely. The simple I^m - bVIIv - ^bVIv - Vv is trivially easy and the melody variations around that are pretty doable. --[[User:Wolftune|Wolftune]] ([[User talk:Wolftune|talk]]) 22:01, 27 December 2019 (UTC) | |||