Talk:Song Translations by Kite Giedraitis to The Kite Guitar

From Xenharmonic Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Note to self: Possible future translations

Good in Bed - Dua Lipa (splits a m3 into 4, instead of 3)
Do You - Spoon (splits a M2 into 3, instead of 2)
Make Me Feel - Janelle Monáe (splits a M2 into 4, instead of 2)
see Stephen W's video TallKite (talk) 08:07, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Monospaced Font for Guitar Tabs

To get a monospaced font, enclose your text in these tags: < tt > and < /tt > (but without the spaces). Inside the tags, every line MUST start with a space, even empty lines. TallKite (talk) 07:22, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

This is not quite correct, you can use indentation by one space for each line of a code box (including empty lines), or enclosing the whole code block with pre tags. the tt tag and the code tag are both used for inline code sections. Maybe this should be explained a bit more on some help page.
Best regards --Xenwolf (talk) 16:04, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks!TallKite (talk)


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. --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. --Wolftune (talk) 22:01, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

UPDATE: After playing more, I'm convinced that the whole thing works smoothly enough, with or without all the embellishments, including even the IV^m. The chords in total are clearer when written as though the song were in the relative major, the full list is: Iv, vII^m, vIII^m, vIIIv, IVv, Vv, vVI^m — super straightforward. The full order for the first half using that reference is: vVI^m - Iv - Vv - vIII^m - IVv - vII^m - vIIIv

also, I can play functional version with inversions and melody interwoven with chords and it works fine on 6-strings without lots of challenges. --Wolftune (talk) 22:32, 28 December 2019 (UTC)