The Brazil Series

It can’t be easy: to be a painter and be called Bob Dylan. If one exhibits one’s pictures, most of the visitors will be fans of the musician Bob Dylan who probably show up mainly because they love his songs, or to find hidden references to Visions of Johanna. Then there are the curious ones, who just want to see how a rock singer and an icon paints. And lastly those who malevolently claim that if it hadn’t said “Dylan” over the door, no gallery would ever have exhibited them, and nobody would have cared anyway.

And perhaps they’re right — we’ll never know, since there isn’t a single person in existence in that segment of the population where people go to art exhibitions who will be able to see it without having Like a Rolling Stone or Just Like a Woman playing on their internal sound system, in some way or another.

In any case, when Statens Museum for Kunst (the National Gallery of Denmark) contacted Dylan one and a half years ago after his exhibition in Chemnitz (his first ever) to suggest that the exhibition was shown in Denmark as well, it was a delightful surprise when the answer was “yes”, and an even greater surprise when it turned out to be forty brand-new painting instead. The pictures are all based on sketches made during travels in Brazil.

The simple reality

Both as a series and individually, the paintings use powerful visual tools. Dylan is a fearless colorist who has obviously taken some inspiration from Gauguin’s and van Gogh’s colors. He chooses sharply outlined motifs, he tends to place the persons in his pictures at the very front of the frame, close to the viewer, and facial features are frequently painted strongly marked. Most of the characters are painted with an almost cartoonish line, with black outlines around figures, and facial expressions that are just indicated with quick lines.

The motifs are just as clear-cut, and seemingly simple: stylized versions of everyday situations.

And this is where one sees a glimpse of the singer, the sly Jokerman, behind the pictures. Fair enough, Dylan has said, in conncection with the exhibition: “If I could have expressed the same in a song, I would have written a song instead.” And if one is looking for the painted version of one’s favorite song, one has come to the wrong place. But still, there is a way of negotiating between form and contents in the pictures which one recognizes from the singer and musician Dylan.

For if the simple, figurative style and the clear-cut motifs makes one think that there is a correspondingly simple meaning in the paintings, one has been fooled. The best paintings are those which venture towards the absurd: The naked woman in Bamboo Road, who attacks a bamboo grove with a sword; another naked woman in Revelations, who reveals herself to a statue of an angel while she is reading from a book in front of her, which spills over with red colour; or the overdimensioned, grinning ventriloquist’s dummy who forces the woman in the picture half ways out of the canvas, in a way which we normally see only in bad amateur holiday snapshots.

It is as if Dylan is saying: “it looks simple, but it isn’t”. Or: “You think you know what you’re seeing, but you don’t.” Or perhaps rather: “You think you know what you’re seeing, and that may be so, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that you understand what’s going on.” Reality, however trivial it may appear, is not something one just grasps.

The world that Dylan exhibits, isn’t a particularly nice place. Many of the paintings are operating in the borderland of morals. Here are corrupt politicians, self-assured mafia bosses, gang wars, poverty, murder, sexual promiscuity, and gluttony. Some of the depraved persons in these pictures look almost content, but other than that, there isn’t much joy in the Brazil Series. A Religious Couple seem to be filled up with anything but humble religious sentiment. The workers in The Vineyard at first sight seem to be smiling, but the mood in the picture is ominous. The most aesthetically pleasing pictures are a pair of paintings with motifs from the slum quarters outside of Rio, the so called favelas, which gives the pure aesthetical enjoyment a touch of the miserable.

But there is no condemnation or pointed fingers from Dylan. He presents a section of reality — not as it really is, but with the artist’s emphases and omissions — and leaves it to the viewer to make up his own mind.

If the purpose of art is to communicate a perspective on reality, I would claim that Dylan at the moment is a greater artist as a painter, film maker, and radio host than in his traditional role as a stage artist. And if part of this purpose is to set some thoughts in motion, create some images for the viewer to elaborate further, then he succeeds quite well in Brazil Series. And then it may not matter so much if the experts find technical flaws or the critics claim that “If it wasn’t Dylan, nobody would care.”

“Why don’t you also block …?”

I receive a lot of suggestions of other countries to boycott. Turkey, North Korea, Sudan, etc. So why don’t I also block them?
1. This is not a crusade against every injustice in the world. It is a contribution to the cultural boycott of Israel because of its treatment of Gaza and the Palestinians, as explained previously. That other regimes are also corrupt, racist, and oppressive should not be used as an argument against such a reaction, or to alleviate the burden of guilt of the Israeli regime.
2. Different issues call for different means. I have very few visitors from any of the countries that have been suggested. I have severe doubts that anyone in Somalia would even notice it if they were blocked from a site about Bob Dylan.
3. Quite a few have voiced concern for the many Dylan fans in Israel who are against the current state of affairs and who are now said — erroneously, it should be added — to be deprieved of the opportunity to sing Masters of War in protest against Netanyahu, and quite a few Israeli Dylan fans have called me a hypocritical asshole, but none, as far as I remember, have combined the two: the outcries of injustice towards the good Israeli Dylan fans have come from people who have no interest whatsover in Dylan and his music, not from those who want to use Dylan songs against the regime.
It is my hope that for those unfortunate few, the solidarity with the oppressed will be greater than the inconvenience of being barred from the site, just as it was for the few white anti-apartheid authors in South Africa who because of the boycott were deprieved of the contact with the western culture to which they felt themselves to belong.

Update: I came across this article by Lawrence Davidson, Professor of history at West Chester University, who lines up the arguments for and against a boycott much better than I could ever do.

*

The comments to this post are being moderated. I will not let through posts with the sole or main purpose (1) to tell me that I’m an idiot (no need to restate the obvious), or (2) to duplicate any of the “facts” in the comments to the previous post.

Anti-Hamas

I thought I was going to take a break from this now, but there is one more thing I need to state more clearly, and thanks to all who have reminded me of this (and I’m not being sarcastic here):

Everything I’ve said about truth, propaganda, and predetermined morals could and should be used against the Hamas, as well as against simplistic, populist slogan truths from the Left. I’ve always been uncomfortable — to say the least — with banners and flags, of any colour or political orientation, because they by nature simplify a message and transform it into the same kind of Truth as I polemicize against in my previous post. I prefer a reasoned discussion where arguments are allowed to meet, and in this respect, the Left in the west are just as culpable as anyone else. I happen to think that the underlying analysis is stronger on the left side, but when it comes to presenting it, there is still a lot to be desired.

If I appear to be insensitive to fact, or even to censor it through unfair moderation of comments, this is again for the same reason: I simply don’t have time to respond to all the comments in the way I would like (and I’ve learned over these past days that I have to weigh my words very carefully — more carefully than I’ve done so far — and weighing words takes a helluvalotof time). I don’t either have time to read all the links and watch all the youtube videos I’ve been sent. That doesn’t mean I don’t care. The character of the comments as a whole is still of such a kind that it requires moderation, and for the time being, it is on hold — my apologies to those who feel they have been silenced.

What I polemicise against is not fact and the willingness to work towards finding out what actually happened, but against the uncritical acceptance of one truth as the only possible. This was the overwhelming and unexpected impression I got from all the mails I received in the first few days, but my criticism goes just as much in the other direction.

I’m deeply concerned with the islamist elements in the IHH and the ties to the BBP. I’m also aware that the events are being used and abused in destructive ways e.g. in Turkey. I’m disillusioned by the uncritical willingness of the Left to embrace elements and actions that should have been opposed; just because they too are against the common Greater Enemy doesn’t make them more acceptable. This was the case in the events surrounding the Cartoon crisis, and I also think the various leftist and humanitarian organizations that took part in the flotilla ought to have chosen their friends more wisely. Even the Left — or rather: especially the left — should be more clear and outspoken against islamist tendencies: they are not just uneasy but bad bed-fellows.

All this weakens the efficaciousness of the Flotilla. However, it does not lessen the need to do something about the situation in Gaza and the responsibility of Israel in this matter.  Lifting the naval blockade entirely may not be the solution at the moment; if Mahmoud Abbas says that this would play into the hands of Hamas and strengthen them, that’s an opinion I respect. What he is saying is not that everything is fine as it is, though. The siege should be eased, border crossings should be opened, more goods should be allowed in, etc., everything in ways that can’t be construed as a victory for Hamas.

Edit: According to Chief PLO negotiator Saeb Ereket, who accompanied Abbas on his US visit, the report that Abbas was in favour of a continued blockade is “yet another disinformation attempt aimed at distorting facts and deflecting Israel’s responsibility to end the illegal and inhuman siege on Gaza.” I don’t know what game Abbas is playing; I don’t know what was actually said during that meeting.

This should be the main objective: to get to a situation where Gaza is controlled neither by Hamas nor by Israel, so that living conditions can be improved for the inhabitants of Gaza.

My stance still remains, that Israel, as the stronger power, has the greater responsibility, and that the current policy is not the way to honour that responsibility. As Desmond Tutu has said: “If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.” This is equally true whether one sees Hamas or Israel in the oppressor’s position.

*

The comments to this post are being moderated. I will not let through posts with the sole or main purpose (1) to tell me that I’m an idiot (no need to restate the obvious), or (2) to duplicate any of the “facts” in the comments to the previous post.

Cultural Boycott – some reflections

A week ago, I started my cultural boycott of Israel, in direct response to, but not caused only by, the events surrounding the murders (or war crimes) on the Freedom Flotilla. These are some reflections on the boycott itself and on the reactions it has caused.

What is a cultural boycott, and is it fair?

I consider my blockade as part of a cultural boycott of the same kind as that against South Africa in the 80s. As such it is a gesture which some people will feel is hurting them unjustly.

On an individual level, that is entirely true: why should all the good-hearted, friendly citizens of Israel, those who have never voted for Netanyahu and who are against the blockade of Gaza and feel sorry for the citizens of Gaza – why should they be punished for the transgressions of their Government and the IDF?

But this misses the fundamental character of a cultural boycott: Unlike trade embargos or disinvestment it is not meant to hurt the economy, or to pressurize or punish individuals through the means of market economy (“we have something you need, but we won’t give it to you”). Rather, it is a symbolic gesture, aimed to send a signal: “judging by your behaviour, as a group, by watching the actions of the people you are represented by, we can’t regard you as decent people. We can do without that contact. It’s up to you to give us a reason to want talk with you.”

This is the perspective in which I see the boycott: as an explicit act of non-communication. The way you let yourselves be represented as a collective (and, I must add, present and re-present yourselves, again and again) I don’t want to talk with you, just as I didn’t want to help the schoolyard bully with his homework, even when he hadn’t done anything to me directly.

It has been said that a boycott of this kind is based on a fundamental trust in the people one wants to reach and influence. The comparison with South Africa is illustrative: the apartheid rulers were – or wanted to be – an integrated part of international society, and they wanted to be seen as decent people, by themselves and others. That’s why the boycott worked.

As far as I can tell, the same can be said about the people of Israel: they want to be met as decent people. I hope that’s true.

Reactions from Israelis

So far, I’ve received lots of emails from Israeli citizens in response to the boycott. It has been a depressing read.

There are two trends in these mails.

First, there is the hoard of mails with the main or – usually – only message: “go fuck with dogs you mother faker”, “you are a pig and a dog”, “your children will be sick”, “ISRAELRAPEDYOURASS”, “Go to the hell, idiot!!!”, “Good day to you, Adolf”, “bloody antichrist” (which I found oddly amusing, coming from Israel. Could have been a Christian Israeli, of course), and “you nazi pig. we know where you live”. These are exact quotations, and just a small selection

A large portion of them also seem to know exactly how much – or should I say: how little – I know about the true situation, that I only know what I’ve seen on CNN and other brainwashed media.

Quite a few tell me – openly or indirectly – that the reactions against Israel in general and the boycott in specific are anti-semitic, that the boycott is a hostile assault or even an act of violence.

Apart from that, I’ve received exactly one mail from an Israeli who supports the boycott, and exactly one blog comment from an Israeli who disagrees strongly withe me but still supports the boycott. Other than those two, not a single person so far has in any way acknowledged that Israel has done anything that is worth reacting to (at least without [qua|nul]lifying it with one of the two continuations: “…but we were right!”, or “…but others are just as bad.”).

Secondly, almost without exception, every single mail I have received has offered to educate me about the Truth, taking for granted that I only know what the pro-Palestinian media have fed me and the rest of the world, and that not a word of it is true.

This extreme focus on One Single, Indivisible and Indisputable Truth is so universal in the pool of messages that it looks like an obsession.

If there is only room for one Truth of this kind in one’s world, it must be difficult to accept any statement which conflicts with the truth one has accepted. Hence the notions that “We are Right, everyone else is Wrong”, and, consequently: “The whole world is against us”, that usually accompany the lessons in Truth (if not in these exact words).

This, and not the unbridled hatred that pours off of a lot of the mails, is the most depressing part of the reading experience. It’s so consistent that it’s scary: I’ve been met with hundreds of mouths lip-syncing different words to the same track. The intros vary from “get the facts right, you asshole” to “I can understand your anger, but let me tell you how it really is”, but the song is the same in mail after mail:

The ’so called humanitarian workers’ on the Freedom Flotilla were terrorists (which is proven by a picture showing one of them holding a knife) and Israel had the right to do what it did (forgetting that, no, according to international agreements, Israel did not have the right to do what it did: it was “an illegal act of war”); there is no need for humanitarian aid in Gaza (proven by a certain Gaza Restaurant Menu, by pictures of fruit stands in Gaza marketplaces, and by reference to how many trucks of goods Israel sends or lets through every day).

So what is truth, then? And what is a fact?

This is not the place to go into that whole question, neither the philosophical aspects nor the practical ones. (But let me mention that I’ve spent some time in my academic life discussing the question “If history is a construction (and it is hard to argue otherwise), why do facts matter?”, with the explicit goal of arguing that Holocaust denial is not only stupid and immoral, but also destructive, even for those of us who are fortunate not to have first- or second-hand knowledge of the events that are being denied.)

With remarkable consistency, the “Truth” that I’ve been offered is either of a propagandistic or rhetorical nature, or strongly open to interpretation, which a priori defies the notion of an undisputable Truth. Here are some recurring ways in which Truth is revealed:

Pictures.

A picture can lie more than a thousand words. The media know that, and so does every governmental propaganda machine in the world. What is not in the picture? What are the circumstances of the picture? Is it at all genuine? I once took two pictures of a lecture hall, one showing it to be near-empty, the other crammed with people. All it took was a different angle.

Experience.

“Have you ever been to Israel? Didn’t think so.” “Since you do not live in threat all your life, you do not deserve to speak out loud.”

If that’s your opinion, then so be it. I don’t see any reason in such a standpoint, and I choose to disregard it. As Rohan phrased it in one of the comments: “Would I have need to have been in Germany in 1938 to condemn Kristall night?”

Words.

A lot can be done with words – they are powerful tools. There is a huge difference between a peace activist and a so-called peace activist; this so-called peace activist may have donated to a so-called ’charity’ organization with ’alleged’ ties to Hamas, and is thus a muslim fundamentalist terrorist, and voilà: a flotilla of peace activists is transformed into an armada of terrorists. And what do terrorists carry on their ships, if not weapons and ill intentions?

All this is done with words, quite innocent little changes, a seed of suspicion sowed here (’alleged’, ’so-called’), a quick generalization there, and suddenly a ludicrous statement such as “The fact that only 9 Jihad activists [were killed] is proof to the IDF soldiers’ restraint”, acquires a shade of the reasonable (and to some, it parades as the Truth).

An example

I’m not going to go through the whole arsenal of rhetorics, but limit myself to the question of the legality of the Israeli interception, as an example.

  • What is the status of the conflict between Israel and Gaza/Hamas? Is it what the lawyers call an IAC (“International Armed Conflict”), or is it a NIAC (“Non-International Armed Conflict”)?
  • Does it matter for the the legality of the actions if it is an IAC or a NIAC?
  • Is Gaza occupied by Israel or not?
  • Is the blockade of Gaza legal or not?
  • Can a blockade, if legal, be enforced in international waters?
  • The general agreement among experts in international law is that the conflict is a NIAC, because Israel has never declared war on Gaza (To do that, it would have to recognize Gaza as a state, in which case the Geneva Convention would apply, which ironically would have sharpened the demands on how Israel treats both the civilian population of Gaza and the Palestinian prisoners, and improved the conditions for both).

    Furthermore, that this distinction matters, since the regulations in the various naval war agreements (none of which, as far as I’ve been able to check it, Israel have signed) about intercepting ships apply only to nations at war, engaged in an IAC.

    Furthermore, that Gaza is de facto occupied; this is not determined by the physical presence of soldiers, but by the actual control over the area and its inhabitants.

    Furthermore, that for a blockade to be legal, it must be determined as legal by the UN Security Council under Section 42. This is not the case: the blockade of Gaza is unilateral, undisclosed, and – as far as merchants have been able to infer from the goods that have been denied into the region – encompasses items (sage, vinegar, etc.) which under no circumstance can be considered as contraband, but which make the blockade serve as a collective punishment — explicitly regulated aginst in the various regulations. For ths and other reasons, the blockade has never been accepted by the UN.

    Lastly, the right to blockade does not extend to international waters, where any vessel can travel freely. Craig Murray, former UK Ambassador, sums it up concisely:

    Because the incident took place on the high seas does not mean however that international law is the only applicable law. The Law of the Sea is quite plain that, when an incident takes place on a ship on the high seas (outside anybody’s territorial waters) the applicable law is that of the flag state of the ship on which the incident occurred. In legal terms, the Turkish ship was Turkish territory.

    There are therefore two clear legal possibilities.

    Possibility one is that the Israeli commandos were acting on behalf of the government of Israel in killing the activists on the ships. In that case Israel is in a position of war with Turkey, and the act falls under international jurisdiction as a war crime.

    Possibility two is that, if the killings were not authorised Israeli military action, they were acts of murder under Turkish jurisdiction. If Israel does not consider itself in a position of war with Turkey, then it must hand over the commandos involved for trial in Turkey under Turkish law.

    Now, it is possible to come to the opposite conclusion and construe the blockade of Gaza as a legal act of warfare, to cut-and-paste from different naval war agreements (none of which Israel has signed) to legitimize the interception and the use of violence, etc.

    None of the versions are the Truth. “Fact” is simply not a relevant term in this matter. Interpretation is not just a possibility but a necessity.

    Interpretation is not about twisting and turning the truth, corrupting facts; it’s about exposing your own facts to those of other people. I.e. to interact with other interpretations.

    If you think the sun is yellow, but the whole world says: “The sun’s not yellow, it’s chicken,” you have three options: you can say “The whole world has gone mad!”, you can say “The whole world is lying!”, or you can ask yourself: “What do all those people mean by that?” and then ask the world the same question. In either case, it would be wise not to put too much hope in communication with that other world if you keep insisting that the sun is yellow, even though that’s how it looks to you.

    Besides, the world is not denying that the sun is yellow. The Gaza/Flotilla issue is not a matter of denying the obvious. It’s about different interpretations, against different standards.

    Judging and communicating

    I don’t suggest that every citizen of Israel should roll over and play dead and surrender all their power to any bypasser, or some kind of pseudo-leftist, emotional crap like that – I’m fully aware that that’s not how things work.

    But it would pay off to be aware that the twisting of truth (presented as The Truth) and bending of rules that the international community to an increasing degree perceives in the leaders you (and I’m speaking to the Israelis now) are represented by, makes you all, as a group, come through as a bunch of liars, to put it bluntly.

    But even more importantly, the outside world sees you making decisions of a kind which can only be legitimized by a standard of ethics and morals which is predetermined: which starts out with a fixed scale of valuation of people: that some people by default have greater rights than others. That’s a standard which is detestable to me, whether it is grounded in a racist ideology, such as the German nazis, or in a self-imposed division into Us and Them, Good and Evil, True and False, as I perceive behind the automatic accusations of antisemitism/-zionism that erupt every time anyone criticizes anything Israel does.

    Dylanchords is all about communication, about the empowering potential of music and language, the means that are available to all human beings of empowerment and growth through cultural interaction. Music and poetry are stylized ways of handling the patterns of tension and relief, of bodily reactions and physical encounter. Through these means, we can extend the possible world, for ourselves and for others.

    Now, this is serious business: exposing other people to a transformed world calls for righteousness and honesty from both the giver (in my case: Dylan and, concerning the website, myself) and the receiver (myself, the visitors). There is an individual responsibility in there, of safeguarding and cultivating that will to empower the other and thereby gain in strength oneself.

    I know of few regimes since apartheid South Africa that have combined physical power with a dishonest use of language to the degree that Israel’s rulers do and have done for as long as I can remember. When I have to put up with their patent lies (the ’Gaza Restaurant Menu’, for example), their immoral rhetoric and their consistent abuse of logical fallacies, in their official statements, in news reports, in blog commentaries, in private mails, etc., they are distorting the language I use and through which I perceive the world. That’s a game I don’t want to play in: I don’t want to communicate with people who – either directly or indirectly through the people they have elected and, judging from the responses so far, wholeheartedly support – are polluting and corrupting language.

    Friendly advice

    Many have asked me: “Well, Dr. Adolf Smartass, tell us, what should we do then?” I sense a sarcastic undertone the way the question is formulated, but nevertheless:

    1. Stop looking at the world in black and white.
    2. Stop equating truth with right.
    3. Stop arguing for the lesser evil. Remember that, as Hannah Arendt said, “those who choose the lesser evil very quickly forget that they choose evil.”
    4. Stop assuming that anyone who disagrees with you is against you.
    5. Stop calling anyone who disagrees with you an “antisemite”, “pig”, “dog”, “nazi”, “Hitler”, “Goebbels”, etc. If the “Antisemite” card is played every time someone criticizes something Israel has done, it looses its force, also in the situations when it should be played. Yes, there are antisemitic traits in some of the Hamas documents, and there is a lot of it in populist propaganda in muslim countries and elsewhere, but that doesn’t mean that everything the Hamas says is antisemitic, nor that every criticism of Israel by definition is a cancerous outgrowth of an antisemitic ideology.
    6. You have a great cultural heritage. Don’t waste that on self-pity and anger.

    We are what we do, and should be judged by that. It’s not the other way around: that we can do according to what we are judged – by ourselves or others – to be.

    *

    Note: The comments to this post will be moderated. I will not let through posts with the sole or main purpose (1) to tell me that I’m an idiot (no need to restate the obvious), or (2) to duplicate any of the “facts” in the comments to the previous post.

    Neighbourhood Bully indeed

    I’m too enraged to write anything coherent, but beginning yesterday, I’m running my own private boycott of the state of Israel and anything/-one associated with it, and I urge everyone to do the same.

    A fascist, belligerent regime is not justifiable by any past, no matter how cruel and injust it has been. A rotten childhood does not justify being an asshole.

    At the same time, I lament my own belated reaction: why is it that Israel may kill thousands of semi-dark-skinned Achmeds and Muhammeds without anyone raising a brow, but when a couple of Swedish authors are drawn physically into the firing line, the world gets on its feet?

    It’s sickening.

    Update: When news of the cultural boycott was publicized on an Israeli news site, the comment section virtually exploded. I decided that it was probably a good idea to turn off automatic publication of comments. I’ve now gone through the whole thing, and decided to let it all through. It’s not pretty, but quite interesting.


    One correction of terminology: In one of the comments, I refer to the soldiers who boarded the Flotilla as “pirates”. I’ve learned that piracy is not the correct term, since that only applies to civilians acting on their own behalf. Since this was a nation’s armed forces, who acted on behalf of their country, the correct term is “an illegal act of war”. Changing the terminology may change the associations the words bring with them, but it does not change the contents of the statement.

    St Stallman: A Hero of the Highest Order

    “I’m not God — I’m just a saint.”

    Richard M. Stallman

    The Phoenix > News Features > Tilting at Windows

    Richard M. Stallman is a legendary figure without whom the world would have looked very different, and one of those few whose initials — RMS — is a concept, on a par with JFK and LBJ.

    Within certain circles, that is. Outside of those circles, most people have never heard of him.

    Back in the 70s he was a super-hacker at MIT, deeply involved in and committed to the creative movement where program code was shared freely, making everyone involved better coders thanks to the community.

    In the 80s, when the commercial potential in computers and software started to rear its ugly head and most of the good hackers left for commercial companies, RMS stayed true to his ideals and laid the foundation of GNU (a recursive acronym for “GNU not Unix”) which later merged with the Linux kernel.

    Bruce Perens, another open source legend, is cited in the article as claiming that RMS’s contribution to the world of software is worth $1 trillion. (Which tools or formulae he uses to determine the monetary value of something which is patently and fundamentally free, eludes me, but at least it makes for a good headline.)

    Anyway, RMS happens to be one of my idols, but enough proselytizing. If you want to know more, read the article or go to his site, stallman.org.

    What I wanted to comment upon in the lengthy profile was this quote:

    “What we need,” he says, “is enough people not to be outright cowards, and we can win.”

    “We can win”

    Now, RMS may have an IQ “up in the range where trying to measure it starts to get silly,” in the words of Eric J Raymond, yet another colourful open source profile. But this is where Stallman is wrong. “We can win”. Yeah, sure.

    He is wrong, but I don’t hold that against him. There are different ways of being wrong, and RMS is wrong in the right way.

    It’s quite simple: if “we” are the people who fight the influence of corporate power and who acknowledge and resist the drive towards that power: the power over people and people’s minds that comes from controlling the economy, then “we” can never win as long as software has any importance in and influence over people’s lives.

    There are plenty of people runnning around and saying “We can win”, sometimes with the addition “…, if only [we had more people | someone would give us what we deserve | the government wasn’t such a bunch of corrupt idiots | etc.]”; sometimes with the implied meaning “We demand to win!” — and sometimes without any ostensible substance at all.

    There have also been apocalyptic prophets around, foreboding the collapse of the system, for as long as there has been a system that can collapse; and moralists calling for change and repentance for as long as there has been anything to change and repent. Lunatics. The ones who end up in the margins of Monty Python movies. The ones who have no message except doomsday and moralism, and (as “we” tend to suspect) who take pleasure in pricking our bad conscience once in a while.

    Stallman is different, and that’s why he can be completely wrong and it’s still quite ok.

    The Harry Potter boycott

    First of all: he knows what he’s talking about, he is intelligent and well-argued. Even when he is pushing ridiculous cases it is virtually impossible not to agree with him.

    His boycott of J. K. Rowling is a case in point: by mistake, fourteen copies of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince had been sold from a Canadian supermarket a couple of days before the official release date. Oh horror! Rowling and her publishers used the copyright and trade secret legislation as a lever and manged to have a court order issued which prevented these fourteen buyers from reading their own books.

    One lawyer stated: “There is no human right to read.” That is a statement with some heavy ramifications, some of them pointing quite directly to nazi-Germany, but even there, the limitations imposed on the public had to do with which books it was legal to acquire, not with limiting your right to read a book it was legal to own. Stallman drily comments:

    Any official, judge, or legislator who is not outraged by this position does not deserve to be in office.

    And he promptly launched his own Harry Potter boycott, urging others to do the same. He would only lift the boycott under certain conditions:

    On what conditions should we end this boycott? Forgiveness is called for when someone recognizes what he did wrong and acts accordingly. I think we should forgive Rowling (or her publisher) when she (it)

    1. Recognizes that this injunction was wrong.
    2. Promises not to do anything like it again.
    3. Calls for changes in the law so that nobody can get such an injunction again, and to establish a clear and firm “human right to read”.

    I’m sure Rowling and her publisher have spent many sleepless nights worrying about the consequences of this boycott. They must also certainly have felt it as a blow to their wallets. Yeah, right.

    The boycott appears as slightly ridiculous — not because Stallman is wrong regarding the substance of his argument, but because it is presented in all earnesty.

    But that’s also where it transcends the ridiculous and turns back on the reader (this reader in any case): the initial giggle over little David taking on J.K. Goliath Inc. easily turns into hysteric laughter (literarily speaking; don’t worry — I’m not turning mad), because it is so right and yet so impossible.

    It is hysterical (literally, but again literarily) to pick a fight with the big corporations, because of course money doesn’t talk, it swears, buys presidencies, twists the law, and protects itself. But Stallman’s pathetic little boycott highlights the difference between lawful and just, between power and right.

    Not utopism

    And the saint is he who disregards power because he is right. Who can look the forces of the secular machinery squarely in the eye, because he has principles of a higher order to fall back on.

    This brings us to the second reason why he is wrong in an acceptable way: he has integrity and commitment — he actually lives by his own principles, and thereby, in his own weird way, demonstrates that it is possible. He doesn’t have a mobile phone; he doesn’t browse the web but downloads the html pages with wget and reads them in his email reader; his only computer is an uncomfortably small Chinese netbook, not because it’s best, but because it can run with a non-proprietary BIOS.

    To most of us, his way seems exaggerated and crazy, like a dinosaur from the paleolithic eighties. Some of the open source prophets even hold that his stubborn inflexible attitude is detrimental to the cause. These are the ones who’d like to see open source as a strong contender in the marketplace rather than as a beacon for freedom.

    Stallman’s position is the latter, and nobody upholds it more strongly than him.

    What about us cowards?

    Why aren’t we all like St Stallman, then? Surely, that would make the world a better place to be, if we weren’t such outright cowards? Better not only for those we help, but in the end for ourselves as well, since we win the aggregated help of the rest of humankind (in addition to the warm glow of complacency, should we harbour such emotions in such a wonderful world).

    It has to do with many things, but cowardice is not one of them.

    It has more to do with the Prisoners’s Dilemma: the simplified description, in the form of a game-theoretical scenario, of situations where acting egoistically will always be the most favourable option, regardless of what the other “players” do, even though it would be more favourable for all if everybody acted un-egoistically.

    Pollution, global warming, equal distribution of goods — these are all real-world examples of the prisoners’ dilemma: for me (and you) the sacrifices involved in living an eco-friendly life through and through are high, and the benefits will only come once everyone changes their lifestyle — which is to say: never, since the sacrifices involved … etc.

    Now that we’re in the religious sphere, here’s what my wife, who is a church minister, once said on the matter, in a sermon on one of the texts where the crowds in Galilee persecuted Jesus in their boats to hear some Truth:

    Here’s a truth: “Every two seconds, a child dies of hunger.” And we can’t hear it, because if we really could hear the full extent of that statement, we would all have rushed out of our churches, gotten into our boats and rowed, not in order to persecute God as we’d like him to be, but to live by the words that God’s will is not done with bibles and good intentions, but with bread and by creating a society where nobody is left in the ditch. But we can’t.

    We can’t, because when moral obligation, the quest for redemption, or just an overwhelming empathy enters the prisoners’ dilemma, there is a chance that insanity lies just around the corner.

    What “we” really need

    So, not wanting to give up the benefits of a better proprietary program in favour of a less functional free one is not cowardice. It’s the other way around: hacking away on a sub-par computer in impractical ways because one’s principles dictates it, is to show courage — but a courage verging on stupidity because it’s a lost battle. It’s the stuff epic legends are made of, but in the real world David very rarely beats Goliath.

    And yet, “we”– the rest of us who aren’t saints — probably need them, not for their actions but for the stories. We need those epic legends: the Joan of Arc, the bunch who went out Saving Private Ryan, the loners and lunatics who go to battle against all odds and hopes.

    What “we” need is someone who is willing (or compelled; for us it doesn’t matter which) to fight that fight, even though we know that it can’t be won. We know that — they hopefully know it too, although it’s hard to tell, because part of the fight is to believe in victory.

    We need someone to remind us that even though it is not human-kindly possible for all of us to do what’s best, it is possible, at least for one of those human beings who make up society, to act in such a way. One is enough to make a difference if that one is everyone.

    Or to put in differently: we need the actions that define and move the outer limits of the discourse: that define what it is possible to do or think. That’s what Jesus, Joan of Arc and RMS have in common.

    The fallen saint

    At the end of the article, Stallman is quoted with a modified version of his statement:

    “If we fight,” he says, “at least there’s a chance we might win.”

    Perhaps he isn’t a saint after all, just a windmill-fighting madman. But that’s fine, I can live with it. Quijote is a myth-making character too.

    Guitar in Two Weeks, day 12: Chords, chords, chords

    This lesson is all theory, but it’s theory that you’re going to have use for more often than any other theory item so far. It answers two questions: “What the … does F#m9-5 and E+ mean?”, and “I made up this great chord, but now I want to write it down before I forget it. But what do I call it?”

    You could of course call it Gerald, or write down the fingering, but if you want a piano player to know what you mean you might as well give it the correct name.

    What’s (in) a chord?

    So far, we’ve treated a chord mainly as a way to place the fingers on the fretboard, with some consideration given to the most important tone, the fundamental tone or keynote.

    But we should define it more precisely:

    A chord is a selection of tones which are perceived as a unity and not just as several notes sounding at the same time.

    This sounds almost obvious to someone who is used to the guitar, where the default is to think not of single tones but of groups of tones: chords, that is. In that sense, we’re more fortunate than the pianists, not to mention the poor violinists and flutenists (ha ha), who hardly ever get to play more than one tone at a time. This may also be seen as yet another explanation of why tones — even the keynote sometimes — can be left out of a chord: as long as we perceive them as a unit, that takes precedence over which tones we actually hear.

    On the other hand, a guitarist may easily forget that the chords he (and since one of the comments has revealed that there is actually a woman following these lessons, I’ll deviate from my not-pc principle and add “/she”) is playing actually consist of single tones.

    Let’s revisit the scale, which we presented in an earlier lesson, and do a quick recap of some major points.

       -----------------------------------------
       -----------------------------------0--1--
       -----------------------0--1--2--3--------
       --------0--1--2--3--4--------------------
       --3--4-----------------------------------
       -----------------------------------------
            c#    eb       f#    ab    bb
         c     d     e  f     g     a     b  c'
       prime  2nd  3rd  4th  5th   6th   7th octave

    I’ve marked the three most important tones in red and shaded the least prominent ones: the accidentals, as they are called (these are the black keys on the piano, but since pianists tend to think they rule the universe, I’ve done the opposite of what they do) (ha ha).

    You may recognize the four highlighed tones as the keynote/prime, the third, the fifth, and the octave, which is nothing more than a displaced prime, so to speak (meaning: it’s the same tone, only sounding higher).

    These three notes are the core of a chord. Actually, it’s more than that: it’s virtually the definition of a chord. If you see “G”, that doesn’t just mean “g and some extra tones”, it means “g b d”, i.e. the first, third, and fifth note of a G major scale.

    The difference between the major and minor third is what decides the most fundamental character of a chord: whether it is major or minor. C-e-g is a C major chord, c-e flat-g is C minor. Don’t confuse these two ways of using “major” and “minor”, though. E.g. the C minor chord contains two thirds: one minor (c–eb) and one major third (eb–g).

    A note about note names: western music is based on a scale of seven steps. The note names (c, d, e, etc.) refer to these steps. In C major, all the steps have simple names. In a key like E flat major, some of the basic names are modified to indicate that they are lowered: e flat (or Eb), f, g, Ab, Bb, C, D, Eb), but the alphabetic sequence is still the same. Thus, the fifth above D# is called A# (d-e-f-g-a), not Bb, and the major third above G# (should you ever need to play such a note) is B sharp (B#). If you object: “But that’s a C! Why use such a stupid name as B# when I already know a much simpler name?”, you’re not the first. I still recommend to do so: it preserves the integrity of the system.

    Intervals: more than a peeing opportunity

    The building blocks of chords are intervals. Whereas a chord is a group of tones perceived as a unity, an interval is simply the distance between two notes (or: two notes at a certain distance; the word can be used both about the distance in a more abstract sense and about the note pair).

    A fundamental feature of our (i.e. the western) tonal system is that some intervals come in one flavour, others in two. There is only one fifth above any given tone:

    C  ->  G
    F# ->  C#
    Eb ->  Bb etc.

    But there are two thirds and two sixths, which are called “major” and “minor”:

    Thirds: major and minor
    =======================
    C  ->   E         C  ->  Eb
    F# ->   A#        F# ->  A, etc.
    
    Sixths: major and minor
    =======================
    C  ->  A    and   C  ->  Ab
    F# ->  D#   and   F# ->  D, etc.

    The same goes for seconds and sevenths:  C–>D is a major second, C–>Db a minor second.

    What, then, about an interval such as C-->G#? According to what I’ve said about note names, it must be a fifth, because “C” and “G” are scale steps a fifth apart?

    Well, it is a fifth, but for fifths, fourths, octaves, and primes, any deviation from the pure form is considered such a violent intervention that it is not called a “major fifth”, but an “augmented fifth”: it is not a natural form — something has been done to it (cf. the kinds of augmentation that most spam folders are full of). Likewise, the interval C-->Gb is called a diminished fifth, not a minor fifth.

    Another peculiarity about intervals is the notion of inversion. There is a special relationship between thirds and sixths, and between seconds and sevenths: the major version of one corresponds to the minor version of the other. E.g., C-->E is a major third, and E-->C is a minor sixth, etc.

    This is a knowledge that may come in handy once it’s time to figure out exactly which tones to play if the chord chart says “F#m7-5”. We’ll return to this below.

    The stack of thirds

    The three notes of a simple chord, e.g. the C E G of C major, could then be seen as a stack of thirds. This stack can be built higher:

    A   13th
    G
    F   11th
    E
    D   9th
    C
    Bb  7th
    A
    G   5th
    F
    E   3rd
    D
    C   prime

    There is no point in going higher, since with the 15th, we are back at C again.

    What’s in a (chord) name?

    This full stack of thirds is the key to all the note names you will ever meet (at least those that follow the standard way of writing chords).

    Rule #1 is that

    a single number (e.g. 11) indicates the last member of the stack to be included, not just a single tone: C11 consists of the all the tones in the stack, up to the eleventh.

    This might easily lead to some monstruous chords that one can perhaps play on a piano but which are more difficult on a guitar with only six strings. We therefore need Rule #2:

    Feel free to leave out the fifth (it’s there anyway, as an overtone, remember?), and you may also leave out the third, since in a chord like C11, it’s not the major/minor character of the original chord that is the important thing, but the colouring that all the added notes give.

    Rule #3 has to do with the seventh. In the table above, I’ve written Bb, although that note doesn’t belong in the C major scale — B does. So why is it Bb and not B? That’s just the way it is:

    the seventh is always the minor seventh unless otherwise noted. For all other intervals, one uses the “proper” note as it appears in the scale (i.e. D, not D#, A, not Ab).

    But what if you need, say, a d# or some other tone that doesn’t belong to the scale? Enter Rule #4:

    If the chord includes tones that are not part of the basic scale, this is indicated with “+” or “-” (or “#” and “b”) before the step in question.

    E.g. Dm7-5 does not mean Dm2 (7-5=2), or “Dm-with-everything-from-seven-to-five” but a Dm with the seventh added and the fifth diminished: d-f-ab-c (xx0111 on the guitar).

    And finally rule #5:

    If you don’t want the whole stack up to, say, the 11th, but just add an F to the chord, use “add” instead: Cadd11 = C E G F.

    Since there are only seven different steps in the scale, the second is the same as the ninth, the fourth is the same as the eleventh etc. In chord names one will usually use the higher of these, except where the basic triad is altered;  e.g. C9 and not C2 (but Csus4 and Cm7-5).

    This is because they will usually be considered as parts of the “stack”, which begins at 7. If you write or see something like Cadd2, this will be an indication that you specifically want that extra tone to be close to the bass, and not “just” to be a colourful element high up in the sound spectrum. Compare the two chords Cadd2 = x30010 and Cadd9 = x32030 to hear what I mean.

    Symbol Name Example Meaning
    7 (minor) seventh x32310 the minor seventh is added to the root chord. Note that “minor” here refers to the tone on the seventh step (which can be both major and minor: Bb and B), not to the chord itself – cf. the “m7” chord below. Note also that “7” always refers to the minor seventh. If the major seventh is used, it has to be indicated with “maj7”.
    maj7 major seventh x32000 The major seventh is added to the root chord. Whereas the seventh chord usually has a dominant function, i.e. is used to lead back to the chord five steps lower (C7->F), the major seventh is rather a colouring of the chord, without this “driving” effect.
    m7 x35343 The (minor) seventh is added to the minor chord. Cf. the “7” chord above.
    m7-5 x34340 The fifth of the m7 chord is lowered by a semitone.
    9 ninth x32330 The ninth and the seventh are added to the root chord.
    11 11th x33333 The seventh, ninth and eleventh are added to the root chord. Since these three tones make up the chord on the tone one step below the root (for C: Bb), this chord usually functions as a conflation of these two chords. Another way of writing this, then, is as a Bb chord with a C in the bass: Bb/c.
    13 13th x35355 If the rules are followed, this chord contains all the notes in the scale, but that’s rarely the case. In fact, the 9th and 11th are usually omitted, so that what remains is a 7th chord with an added 13th. Since the 13th is the same tone as the 6th, one will sometimes see this chord written C7/6.
    7-9 x3232x A more jazzy chord
    7+9 x3234x The blues chord par exellence. Since it contains both the major and the minor third, the chord corresponds to the ambiguity of the third step in the blues scale. Since the extra tone really functions as a low third (=tenth) and not a raised second, I would have preferred the name 7-10. The raised ninth and the lowered tenth are of course the same tone on the guitar, but functionally they are different. Subtleties, subtleties!.
    add Any added tone that does not fall within the stack of thirds, upon which the rest of the system is based. Ex. Cadd9 = c e g d.
    x / +x Lowers/raises a scale step by a semitone (one fret). E.g. Cm7-5 and C7+9. Note: “+” does not mean that the 9th is added, but that it is raised.

    These are the main cases where the chord name relates directly to the stack of thirds. In addition, there are a number of special cases:

    Symbol Name Example Meaning
    + (aug) augmented x32110 The fifth is raised by a semitone (half step=one fret)
    o (dim) diminished x34242 A stack of minor thirds. Since all the intervals in the chord are equal, any of the tones can function as root. Thus: Co=Ebo=F#o=Ao. Hence, there only exists three different dim chords.
    6 sixth x35555 The sixth is added to the root chord.
    sus4 suspended fourth x33010 The third is temporarily “suspended”: raised to the fourth, and left there hanging in wait for a resolution back to the root chord. Thus, in a true sus4 chord, the third is not included. If that is the case, the chord would be called add11 or add4.
    sus2 x30010 Same as the previous, only that the third “hangs” below, on the second.
    5 “Power chord” x355xx A chord containing only the prime (the root) and the fifth. In other words: a chord without the third. Since the third is the tone that defines whether a chord is major or minor, the “power chord” is neutral in this respect.
    (iii) x35553 A chord in the third position, i.e. fingered so that it begins in the third fret: C(iii)=x35553. Thus, the contents of the chord is not changed, only its sonority.
    There is no uniform way to notate this.

    So how do I play it, then?

    One thing is knowing which tones are in a chord, another is to make that into a chord shape on the guitar.

    Any chord can be fingered in many different ways. “C” does not “mean” x32010 – that is just the simplest and usually most convenient way to finger it. To get from chord name to a chord, you have to know where the tones are positioned on the fretboard.

    We’ll start with a table of how to find the intervals on the guitar. I’ve indicated the most common chord symbols in which you will encouther the intervals. Remember that 9=2, 11=4, and 13=6.

                            | symbol | Up  |  Down
    ----------------------------------------------
    minor second/aug. prime |   -9   |  1  |  11
    major second            | 9 or 2 |  2  |  10
    minor third             |   +9   |  3  |   9
    major third             |        |  4  |   8
    fourth                  |  4/11  |  5  |   7
    aug. fourth/dim. fifth  | +11/-5 |  6  |   6
    fifth                   |        |  7  |   5
    aug. fifth/minor sixth  | +5/-6  |  8  |   4
    major sixth             |  6/13  |  9  |   3
    minor seventh           |    7   | 10  |   2
    major seventh           |  maj7  | 11  |   1
    octave                  |        | 12  |

    E.g. if you see a chord like F#9-5, you will need to go a ninth up from f#, which means two frets (i.e. find a tone which sounds like the tone two frets up but in a higher octave), and a diminished fifth, which means six frets up from f#.

    A few comments on the table:

    • +9 is given as the symbol for a minor third. As I wrote above, I’d have preferred this to be “-10” instead, but convention is against me here.
    • Also, there is nothing indicated for the major third and the fifth, since these are the standard tones in a chord.
    Going nine frets up doesn’t mean that you have to stay on the same string all the time: since the tones on the fifth fret are (mostly; except for the third string) the same as the next string open, getting from f# to the sixth above — nine frets — would mean:

    e'||-f'-|-f#'|-g'-|-g#'|-a'|-
    b ||-c'-|-c#'|-d'-|-d#'|-e'|-
    g ||-g#-|-a--|-bb-|-b--|-c'|-  etc.
    8 ||-9--|-e--|-f--|-f#-|-g-|-
    3 ||-4--|-5--|-6--|-7--|-8-|-
    E ||-F--|-F#-|-1--|-2--|-3-|-

    I’ve added a column for frets down as well. This goes back to what I said above about inversion: a major sixth up is equivalent to a minor third down: from C, you will get to A in both cases. Theoretically speaking this is a little cheating, but it may come in handy in practice.

    Let’s say you want to find out how to play F#m7-5. There are two ways to go about this (well, there are three, actually: you can also look it up online or in a book, but that’s not as much fun as figuring it out yourself, right? Right!)

    One is to start with the basic chord and make all the adjustments from there. F#m is played 244222. First we need to add the minor seventh (Rule #3). From the interval table above, we know that a minor seventh up from f# is the same as two frets or a whole tone down: an e. In practice, we have two “e”s within reach from a F#m chord: on the second string and on the fourth (Basic chord in red, seventh in blue):

    e'||-f'-|-f#'|-g'-|-g#'|-a'|-
    b ||-c'-|-c#'|-d'-|-d#'|-e'|-
    g ||-g#-|-a--|-bb-|-b--|-c'|-  etc.
    d ||-d#-|-e--|-f--|-f#-|-g-|-
    A ||-Bb-|-B--|-c--|-c#-|-d-|-
    E ||-F--|-F#-|-G--|-G#-|-A-|-

    In other words: the two options for F#m7 are 242222 and 244252 (or 242252, but that would give a little too much attention to that seventh: it’s only there to colour, not to take center stage).

    Now the next note: the “-5”. Either you go to the table above, find the diminished fifth and see that it’s six frets above the key note.

    Actually, as you can see, it’s six frets below too. The diminished fifth is special that way. One might imagine that this symmetry would make it particularly pleasant or something, but on the contrary: this interval (or to be more precise: the augmented fourth, which in modern tonality is exactly the same…) is the so called tritone, the “devil in music” (diabolus in musica).

    You should find that the tone we’re after is a c, and this time there is really only one option: on the fifth string:

    e'||-f'-|-f#'|-g'-|-g#'|-a'|-
    b ||-c'-|-c#'|-d'-|-d#'|-e'|-
    g ||-g#-|-a--|-bb-|-b--|-c'|-  etc.
    d ||-d#-|-e--|-f--|-f#-|-g-|-
    A ||-Bb-|-B--|-c--|-c#-|-d-|-
    E ||-F--|-F#-|-G--|-G#-|-A-|-

    It seems like we could use the first of the F#m7 variants 242222, and go for a very simple chord: 232222. But if you play that and agree with me that it sounds like shit, look at the second string: with the barre chord, we get a c# there, against the plain c of the 5th string. That actually gives us no other option than to use the e’ on the second string (5th fret) to avoid that clash. The chord we end up with, then, is 234252.

    It looks more intimidating than it actually is: it’s a barre chord where the other fingers fall quite easily and naturally in place. But is there an easier alternative?

    We might instead try to mark out all the tones we may use, and then pick the ones that makes for the best chord shape.

    As we now know, the tones we want are f#, a, c, and e. Here they are, including the open strings:

    e'||-f'-|-f#'|-g'-|-g#'|-a'|-
    b ||-c'-|-c#'|-d'-|-d#'|-e'|-
    g ||-g#-|-a--|-bb-|-b--|-c'|-  etc.
    d ||-d#-|-e--|-f--|-f#-|-g-|-
    A ||-Bb-|-B--|-c--|-c#-|-d-|-
    E ||-F--|-F#-|-G--|-G#-|-A-|-

    From this, it seems that we can actually get away with a much easier chord: we can use the open e’ on the first string, the open A on the fifth string, and the c, a, and e on the second to fourth strings. So far, that leaves us without the F# that defines the chord, but that’s ok, because very conveniently, there is one available on the sixth string, right where a bass string should be.

    We then end up with 202210. If you use your thumb, this is considerably easier to play than the barre-with-lots-of-fingers version we found earlier.

    You may recognize this as an Am chord with an added F# in the bass. Or you may look at it like a D7 with an added e, which is in fact a D9 chord. In other words: the same chord can be written F#m7-5, Am/f# (or to be absolutely correct: Am6/f#), or D9/e.
    Why not just pick one and stick with that? Because the function the chord has, decides if it is a D-type, A-type or F#-type chord.

    A third useful alternative is xx4555, which can easily be played with a half-barre.

    Using one of these two methods, you should be able to figure out any chord
    that is thrown at you.

    Open strings

    One last tip: There is always the chance that a complicated name is just a way of indicating the use of open strings. Take the chord Dadd4add9. It’s a D chord with an added 4th (g) and 9th (e). You may scratch your head for a while, until you realize that those two notes are the open first and third strings, and that if you play a regular C major chord (x32010) and move that shape two frets up (x54030) you have exactly what you’re looking for.

    You may remember this chord from “Boots of Spanish Leather” in lesson 10. There we called it Em9, which is a much simpler name. So why the long name? Again, it’s the function that decides. The simple test is: could you substitute it with the plain chord?
    “Boots…” is an interesting case, since Dylan has played it in two different ways: with the chord shapes x54030D7G, as in the album version, or x54030CG, in various live versions. In the first case, where the second chord is D7, it would be strange to replace “our” chord with a D, but in the second case, where it’s followed by a C, it makes perfect sense to regard it as a kind of D, since G, C, and D are the three main chords in G major. Ah — subtleties…

    For losers, cheaters, six-string abusers

    There may be times when you either can’t figure out exactly how to play Abm6-9, or — if you do figure it out — can’t play the result, or, if you’re at some singalong and you just got the chord book and the guitar placed in your hands because everybody knows that you’re such a good guitar player, you may simply not have the time to be bothered with chords like that — what do you do?

    You cheat.

    Here are three general hints to that end.

    (1) All chords, basically, go back to the three fundamental chords in a key (in C: C, G and F). Most frequent are the variations of the dominant step (G in this example), where the various “strange” chord alterations function merely as different ways of creating and sustaining tension before the return to the key note. This means that you can usually simply chop off from the end until you get to something that is easier to play: Gb+, E7+9, Dm7-5, Cadd9 then become Gb, E (or E7), Dm(7), C).

    This does not happen without loss: the extra stuff is there for a reason (e.g. E7+9, the quintessential blues chord, brings all those associations with it, which the plain chord doesn’t), but functionally the plain chord will usually do the job adequately.

    (2) Chords can be replaced with their relatives. When I was nine, before I had the finger strength to play barre chords, I discovered that I could replace most F chords with Dm or Am – one of those would usually work. Now I know that the reason why it works is that they both share two out of three chord tones with F, which often is enough. I don’t recommend this method, however (unless you’re nine). It is cheating, and the only person you’re fooling, in the long run, is yourself.

    (3) Some songs are consistently noted with chords like Ab, Eb, Bb etc. That is because they are played with those chords, as barre chords, and in those cases I’ve seen no reason to introduce a capo. The easiest way to avoid those barre chords, is to drop all the bs, and play E, B, A instead. This only works if all chords have a b attached to them, though. Other chords you’ll have to transpose based on the thorough knowledge of the outline of the fretboard that you’ll gain as you keep playing.

    *

    I intended to write something more about the circle of fifths and which chords belong together in families, but I think I’ll have to make space for that in a later post. Stay tuned.

    Also, thanks to all of you who have commented, either here or in private. Much appreciated! If something is not clear, don’t hesitate to ask. I would also like to hear if someone has actually been able to follow the lessons from day one and through to today, with no former knowledge in the fine art of guitar playing. It doesn’t have to having been done one lesson a day, but on the whole: I’d like to hear from someone who a while ago hadn’t played a single tone but who can now, say, Travis-pick some simple song. Somehow, I doubt that it is possible, but I’m all for being surprised!

    All the Lessons

    [catlist name=Lessons numberposts=150 order=asc orderby=date excludeposts=419]

    Guitar in Two Weeks, day 11: Fingerpicking II

    Today’s lesson will pick up from where the previous ended and take it further in two directions. And be warned: this lesson is probably the most advanced lesson in the whole series. As one commenter wrote, these songs are not easy to play.  They demonstrate some more advanced things you can do with fingerpicking once you have a grasp of the basic technique.

    The techniques we have been using so far are mostly just a more elaborate way to play the chords in a tune, but in principle, they might as well be strummed. Where fingerpicking shines, however, is in the ability to pick out melodies and little riffs.

    To this end, there are three techniques that come in handy, and one fundamental fact that is the precondition of it all. The precondition is the stable thumb bass that by now should have been etched so thoroughly into the physical memory of your right hand that you could play it in your sleep, without thinking. (This is not to say that the current lesson will be a waste of time for you if you haven’t het mastered it to perfection, only that that’s the foundation that the rest of the fingerpicking techniques rest upon.)

    The other side of this coin is the freedom of the other fingers to do just about anything they wish to, but mostly on the off-beats, between the steady pulse of the thumb. This gives the Travis picking style its particular syncopated feel, as we said last time, but it also has a certain melodic potential, which we will discuss today.

    The three techniques that build on this foundation are (1) the use of open strings and the fixed notes of the bass for melodic purposes, (2) the use of hammer-ons and pull-offs, and (3) the use of bass lines.

    Open strings

    Here is one of the most common patterns in the book (any book):

      E                      E
      :   .   .   .          :   .   .   .
    |-0---------------|    |-----------------|
    |-----------3-----|    |-----------3-----|
    |-------0---------| or |-------0-------0-|
    |-----2-------2---|    |-----2-------2---|
    |-----------------|    |-----------------|
    |-0-------0-------|    |-0-------0-------|

    I have marked out the bass on the one hand in blue and the core of the treble fill-in in red: as long as those tones are there, the rest is more random. Frequently, the ring finger chimes in on the first beat together with the thumb to emphasise the first beat, as in the first example, and/or the index finger returns on the last beat, as in the second example, giving the characteristic “boom chaka chaka chaka” rhythm.

    When played with a chord like E major, where the tones are fairly evenly distributed across the strings and the two bass strings reenforce each other — in this case by having the same tone an octave apart, in the case of G major, achieving almost the same effect with a fifth — the chordal character is emphasised, as well as the separation between bass and treble.

    But what if we apply the exact same pattern to the beginning of “Boots of Spanish leather” from last time? This is how it has frequently been played in Dylan’s live shows during the 2000s:

      Em9
      :   .   .   .     :   .   .   .
    |-----------------|-0---------------|
    |-----------3-----|-----------3-----|
    |-------0---------|-------0---------|
    |-----4-------4---|-----4-------4---|
    |-----------------|-----------------|
    |-0-------0-------|-0-------0-------|
    
      D7/f#             G       C/g
      :   .   .   .     :   .   .   .     :
    |-----------------|-----------3-----|-----
    |-1---------1-----|-0---------------|-----
    0-------2---------|-------0---------|-----
    |-----0-------0---|-----0-------0---|-----
    |-----------------|-----------------|-----
    |-2-------2-------|-3-------3-------|-3---

    The difference is huge. Here, the second bass string all of a sudden becomes a member of the treble group for a short while, and sets in motion a melody line which I have marked in red.

    The interesting thing is that this happens almost automatically — it simply grows out of the picking pattern itself. I am convinced that a lot of tunes have been “composed” this way: the guitar player is just fooling around with some chords and some variations of the basic pattern, and out of the doodling comes a melody.

    The true master of this style is Mississippi John Hurt. The following example is a little mean of me, because it take quite a lot of practice to get right, but it is a little gem, which by the way also illustrates a number of other features that are almost stylistic commonplaces in fingerpicking.

    Spike Driver Blues

    Hurt can be watched playing “Spike Driver Blues” in all its glory on this video:

    While you’re at it, please do youself the favour of watching this clip with Elizabeth Cotten playing her trademark song “Freight Train”:

    Not only does she play left-handed, with the guitar stringed normally, with the result that the bass strings are at the bottom, she also plays the whole damn thing with only two fingers. It twists my head watching it…

    Anyway, back to John Hurt. Here is what he is playing. The details may differ, since this is tabbed from a different version, but the essentials are the same. Again, I’ve highlighted the melody in red. The asterisks are repetition signs; the whole song consists of those measures repeated over and over again.

      :     .     .     .       :     .     .     .
    |-------------------------|-----------------1-------|
    |-------------------------|-------------3-----------|
    |-------------------------|-----------------------0-|
    |-------0-----------0-----|-------0-----------0-----|
    |-------------2-----------|-------------------------|
    |-3-----------------------|-3-----------3-----------|
    
        :     .     .     .       :     .     .     .
    ||--3-----------1-----------|-3---------3-------------|
    ||*-------------------------|-------------------0-----|
    ||--------------------------|-----------------3-------|
    ||--------0-----------0-----|-------0-----------0-----|
    ||*-------------------------|-------------------------|
    ||--3-----------3-----------|-3-----------3-----------|
    
      :     .     .     .       :     .     .     .
    |-------------------------|-------------------------|
    |-------------------------|-----------0-------0-----|
    |-0-----------------------|-----------------3-------|
    |-------2-----------2-----|-------2-----------0-----|
    |-------------------------|-------------------------|
    |-3-----------3-----------|-3-----------3-----------|
    
      :     .     .     .       :     .     .     .
    |-------------------------|-----1-------1-----0---1-|
    |-------------------------|-----------0-----3-------|
    |-0---------------0-----0-|-------------------------|
    |-------0-----------0-----|-------0-----------0-----|
    |-------------2-----------|-------------------------|
    |-3-----------------------|-3-----------3-----------|
    
      :     .     .     .       :     .     .     .
    |-------------------------|-----3-------3-----0---3-|
    |-------------------------|-----------0-----3-------|
    |-----0-----0-----0-----0-|-------------------------|
    |-------0-----------0-----|-------0-----------0-----|
    |-------------2-----------|-------------------------|
    |-3-----------------------|-3-----------3-----------|
    
      :     .     .     .       :     .     .     .
    |-------------------------|-----------3-------0-------||
    |-------------------------|-----------------3--------*||
    |-----------0-----0-----0-|---------------------------||
    |-------0-----------0-----|-------0-----------0-------||
    |-------------2-----------|--------------------------*||
    |-3-----------------------|-3-----------3-------------||

    There are several things worth mentioning about this song.

    • The whole song is basically a G chord (fingered with the long, ring, and little fingers), with small variations.
    • The melody of the song is basically what is highlighted in red, although he sings it in the floating, talk-like blues style which is almost impossible to imitate unless you thoroughly know the idiom. Besides, it is even more difficult to sing freely and at the same time keep the fixed instrumental.
    • The three licks at the end of lines three to five are the main contents of the song, both as it is sung and as it is played. They all consist of the same kind of playing around (with) open strings that I’ve been alluding to.
    • Notice the bass pattern: where nothing much happens (the first measure of each line), all three bass strings are involved, but in the measures where the melody is played out, the bass pattern is simplified to just two strings. This may be because it is easier to play it that way, but also because enough is going on, musically, anyway, so that extra variation is not really necessary.
    • In some of the “filler” measures, the index finger fills in the off-beats. This is not necessary, it’s just filler, to keep the motion going.
    • Finally, the part that really stand out in all this are the two measures in line three, where the bass tone on the second and fourth beat changes from d to e.

    When I say that it is mean of me to present this song, it is because the melody does not just come out of the picking pattern: there is a whole lot to do, especially in the third measure from the end, where the little finger has to jump quite quickly from the first to the second string. The typical thing to do in this style would be to mask that move by shifting one of the notes a half-beat to either side, and let some other finger play something else in the meantime, thereby giving the melody a chance to blend more fully in with the picking pattern. Here, the little finger has to leave a note which might in principle still be sounding for a while longer, in order to get to its new position. Shame on you, Mississippi John, for making something so seemingly simple so difficult to play! (but damn, is it nice when it works!)

    Julia

    A version of the technique of using open strings is to simply use the notes that are in the chord. John Lennon’s “Julia” is a great example of this. Again, it is slightly mean to use this song as an example, because it is not quite easy to play it. Or rather: there is one chord in it that ruins it all, and sadly that chord is used a lot. But the rest is very simple, and it is a good illustration.

    You can find a full tab of it here.

    The difficult chord is F9 (131213), which moves on to Fm7 (131114). I find it almost impossible to play that and get clear tones all the way; it is one of the hardest chords to play, and you need to apply quite a lot of force. Luckily, the capo is a saver here. Lennon plays it capoed at the second fret. The capo has one great side-effect that I haven’t mentioned yet: it lowers the string, which makes it easier to press down.

    Most of the chord changes can be done very smoothly, by just moving one or two fingers at the time. C is played x32013, alternating with 3x2013: the ring finger moves between the fifth and the sixth strings. It may take a while to getting used to, but it is a very useful technique to master.

    From C, move the ring finger from the fifth to the third string (2nd fret), and you have Am7 (002213).

    Then, move the index finger from the second to the fifth string and let go of the ring finger, and you get Em (022003).

    And finally: long finger from fourth to sixth string to get to G 320003 (Lennon plays it with the ring finger on the second string: 320033 — do whatever you like).

    The rest is mostly a matter of barre technique and finger stamina: finger the chords, let the right hand pick the same pattern throughout, and you have one of the greatest Lennon songs in your repertory! If you want more of the same, “Dear Prudence” is a possible choice.

    Hammer-ons and pull-offs

    Once you have the basic distribution of thumb strokes on the beats, other fingers off-beat worked into your fingers, the next step is to break down that distribution again, but this time using the left hand. The right hand picking pattern should be a fixed grid, but the left hand can play melodies too, and it is not bound by the grid.

    Let’s start softly. Play this, using the standard pattern:

      :   .   .   .     :   .   .   .
    |-----------------|-----------------|
    |-----------0-----|---0-------0-----|
    |---------------0-|-------0-------0-|
    |-----0-------0---|-----0-------0---|
    |-----------------|-----------------|
    |-3-------3-------|-3-------3-------|

    Then, without changing anything in what the right hand plays, hammer on the long finger on the second stroke on the d string, and continue with another hammer-on to the third fret, like this:

      :   .   .   .     :   .   .   .
    |-----------------|-----------------|
    |-----------0-----|---0-------0-----|
    |---------------0-|-------0-------0-|
    |-----0-------0h2-|-----2h3-----3---|
    |-----------------|-----------------|
    |-3-------3-------|-3-------3-------|

    The important thing is to let the hammer-on’ed tone come in at exactly the same time as the index finger tone. I’m not talking mathematical precision here, but musical: they should belong to the same rhythmic event.

    I know that I found it quite difficult to play that with some kind of fluency. I kept thinking or feeling, Hey, that spot is taken, by someone over there on the other hand”. Again, the secret is to be so automatized in the right hand that that takes care of itself. Be biblical: “Let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth.”

    What you have just played is the “G–G6–G7 figure” that Dylan used all the time in his acoustic days, this time fingerpicking style. A song which uses that figure is “Percy’s Song”

    Percy’s Song

    For the record: it’s not because I think it’s a very successful song; in fact, it’s folksy topical song-writing at its worst. I don’t know where one would get 99 years behind bars for a traffic accident, and I resent the idea of a personal plea to the judge as a way to alter a sentence. But it’s a beautiful tune Dylan has nicked, and — what’s important here — it presents some nice guitar finesses, so let’s have a closer look at it.

    If you have been a good student and practiced you pickin’ patterns, the song really shouldn’t present any problems at all. The basic pattern is played straightforwardly in the intro:

      :   .   .   .     :   .   .   .
    |---------------0-|---------------0-|
    |-----1-----------|-----1-----------|
    |-----------0-----|-----------0-----|
    |-----2-------2---|-----2-------2---|
    |-3---------------|-3---------------|
    |---------3-------|---------3-------|
    
      :   .   .   .     :   .   .   .
    |-----------------|-----------------|
    |-----1---------1-|-----------------|
    |-----------0-----|-----------------|
    |-----2-------2---|-----2-------2---|
    |-3---------------|-3---------------|
    |---------3-------|---------3-------|
                                 Bad . . .

    We recognize the alternating thumb pattern for the C chord, where the ring finger switches between the fifth and sixth strings; we recognize the right-hand pattern, which is the same as in Boots of Spanish Leather; and we may note the room for variation: in the third measure, the last note is played on the second string instead of the first. In other words: as long as the thumb is rock solid, do as you please. (Well, in this case, the basic rhythm — ba pa ba-da ba-da in layman’s terms — is essential too, but which notes are played at “ba” or “da” is of less importance.)

    The chord changes to F in the first line, but the right-hand pattern remains the same:

      C
      :   .   .   .     :   .   .   .
    |---------------0-|-----------------|
    |-----1-----------|-----1-----------|
    |-----------0-----|-----------0-----|
    |-----2-------2---|-----2-------2---|
    |-3---------------|-3---------------|
    |---------3-------|---------3-------|
      news,       bad   news    come to
       F                 C
       :   .   .   .     :   .   .   .
    |-----------------|-----------------|
    |-----1-----------|-----1-----------|
    |-----------2---0-|-----------0-----|
    |-----3-------3---|-----2-------2---|
    |-----------------|-3---------------|
    |-1-------1-------|---------3-------|
      me      where I   sleep

    Notice how the chord changes are treated differently: In the transition from C to F, I’ve left out the last half-beat, so that there is time to change chords. Going from F back to C again, on the other hand, I’ve indicated that the C comes in one half-beat too early, so as to fit in with the picking pattern.

    This is one of the places where the thumb-F shines, as opposed to the barre-F: it is easier to lift one finger off the board — in this case the long finger — than to move the whole hand, as would have been the case with the barre shape. Thumb-F also makes all the fingers available for hammer-ons, which is a great thing to take advantage of.

    I could have left out that last note in the F measure as well, but if I highlight some notes again, it will become clear what it’s doing there:

      C
      :   .   .   .     :   .   .   .
    |---------------0-|-----------------|
    |-----1-----------|-----1-----------|
    |-----------0-----|-----------0-----|
    |-----2-------2---|-----2-------2---|
    |-3---------------|-3---------------|
    |---------3-------|---------3-------|
      news,       bad   news    come to
       F                 C
       :   .   .   .     :   .   .   .
    |-----------------|-----------------|
    |-----1-----------|-----1-----------|
    |-----------2---0-|-----------0-----|
    |-----3-------3---|-----2-------2---|
    |-----------------|-3---------------|
    |-1-------1-------|---------3-------|
      me      where I   sleep

    The highlighted notes are in fact a rudimentary outline of the melody of the song.

    Then follows the G-G6-G7 turn, twice:

      :   .   .   .     :   .   .   .
    |-----------------|-----------------|
    |-----------0-----|---0-------0-----|
    |---------------0-|-------0-------0-|
    |-----0-------0h2-|-----2h3-----3---|
    |-----------------|-----------------|
    |-3-------3-------|-3-------3-------|
      Turn,             turn,   turn a-
    
      :   .   .   .     :   .   .   .
    |-----------------|-----------------|
    |-----------0-----|---0-------0-----|
    |---------------0-|-------0-------0-|
    |-----0-------0h2-|-----2h3-----3---|
    |-----------------|-----------------|
    |-3-------3-------|-3-------3-------|
    gain                              sayin’

    The next line is vanilla C–F again; the below is just a suggestion — play any pattern you like:

      C
      :   .   .   .     :   .   .   .
    |---------------0-|-----------------|
    |-----1-----------|-----1-----------|
    |-----------0-----|-----------0-----|
    |-----2-------2---|-----2-------2---|
    |-3---------------|-3---------------|
    |---------3-------|---------3-------|
      one of      your  friends is in 
    
       F                 F
       :   .   .   .     :   .   .   .
    |-----------------|-----------------|
    |-----1----------1|-----1-----------|
    |-----------2-----|-----------2-----|
    |-----3-------3---|-----3-------3---|
    |-----------------|-----------------|
    |-1-------1-------|-1-------1-------|
      trou  -    ble    deep

    For the end of the verses, Dylan does something nasty, which is part of the reason — apart from the hammer-ons — that I’ve included this example here.

    The next chord is a Dm. As you may have noticed, I don’t care much for the D chords in standard tuning.

    Dylan starts off “correctly”, with the fourth string as the bass note. That also means that you will have to shift all the fingers one string down: temporarily, the index finger plays on the second string, the long finger on the first, and the ring finger is unemployed.

    But where to go next? Dylan does the illegal thing: he plays the next note on the sixth string. This is an E, a note which definitely doesn’t have any business in a D minor chord. And not only does he play it — he stays on it for the full next measure as well, for as long as the Dm lasts:

      Dm      /e        /e      /e
      :   .   .   .     :   .   .   .
    |-----1---------1-|-----------------|
    |-----------------|-----3---------1-|
    |-----2-----2-----|-----2-----2-----|
    |-0-----------0---|-------------0---|
    |-----------------|-----------------|
    |---------0-------|-0-------0-------|
              Turn, turn,       to the   
    
      F                 G
      :   .   .   .     :   .
    |-----------------|-----3---
    |-----1-----------|---------
    |-----------2---0-|---------
    |-----3-------3---|-----0---
    |-----------------|---------
    |-1-------1-------|-3-------
      rain    and the wind

    Now, why does he do this? This is not the place for extended dylanology, but it seems clear to me that this is not just a way to grab more strings in a cramped chords, but a way to create lines. Look at what happens in the bass further on: the E in Dm is followed by an F, rightfully belonging in the F chord, and the G, which is the goal of this passage. In other words: with a simple transgression of a fundamental rule of harmony, Dylan binds the passage together. “To live outside the law, you must be honest,” indeed. Who said Dylan is a bad musician?

    These last measures also contain the other reason why I wanted to include this example. Again, let me colorize the tab:

      Dm      /e        /e      /e
      :   .   .   .     :   .   .   .
    |-----1---------1-|-----------------|
    |-----------------|-----3---------1-|
    |-----2-----2-----|-----2-----2-----|
    |-0-----------0---|-------------0---|
    |-----------------|-----------------|
    |---------0-------|-0-------0-------|
              Turn, turn,       to the   
    
      F                 G
      :   .   .   .     :   .
    |-----------------|-----3---
    |-----1-----------|---------
    |-----------2---0-|---------
    |-----3-------3---|-----0---
    |-----------------|---------
    |-1-------1-------|-3-------
      rain    and the wind

    Again, what we are playing is an outline of the melody, picked out just by choosing the right strings from among the available ones. The right-hand picking pattern remains exactly the same.

    Barbara Allen and Seven Curses

    Just to mention a couple of song that belong in this category before we close down: “Barbara Allen”, a true gem which can be found on the so-called Gaslight Tape from the end of 1962. It is played in dropped D tuning, which is perfect for fingerpicking. It uses a straightforward picking pattern, but between the sung lines, there is this little, hypnotic figure:

      D                     Dsus4         D
      :   .   .   .     :   .   .   .     :   .   .   .
    |---------------0-|h2-----3-------2-|-----------------|
    |-----------------|-----------------|-----------------|
    |-----------2-----|---2-------2-----|-----------2-----| repeat
    |-----0-------0---|-----0-------0---|-----0-------0---| ad lib
    |-----------------|-----------------|-----------------|
    |-0-------0-------|-0-------0-------|-0-------0-------|

    Almost exactly the same figure is used on “Seven Curses”, another gem, from the Carnegie Hall Concert in Oct 1963 when Dylan was at the height, not only as a folksy solo artist, but also as a fingerpicker. It can be found on the Bootleg Series 1–3:

      :   .   .   .     :   .   .   .     :   .   .   .
    |---------------0-|h2-----3p2-----0-|h2------------(2)|
    |-----------------|-----------------|-----------------|
    |-----------------|---2-------2-----|----------(2)----|
    |-----0-------0---|-----0-------0---|-----0-------0---|
    |-----------------|-----------------|-----------------|
    |-0-------0-------|-0-------0-------|-0-------0-------|
    
      :   .   .   .
    |-----------------|
    |-----------------|
    |-----------------|
    |-----0-------0---|
    |-----------------|
    |-0-------0-------|

    Notice the bass: a steady alternation between strings 6 and 4, with no attempts to participate in whatever action the other strings have going, just steady as a bass drum, going boom-boom-boom-boom.

    I refer you to the tabs at Dylanchords for the rest [Barbara Allen] [Seven Curses].

    Suze

    A Dylan-based lesson on fingerpicking wouldn’t be complete without mentioning Suze: the strange tune that is all that remains from what in the liner notes to Bootleg Series 1–3 is presented as Dylan’s desire to make an album of instrumentals.

    You can find the song here.

    The only thing I intend to say about it is that it uses the techniques that we have talked about earlier: most notably the chords coming in “too early”; the hammer-ons in the F major and D7 chords (which means you have to use the thumb F), and other than that: just one of the standard picking patterns throughout.

    Bass runs: Blackbird

    I admit it: I made up this headline just to find a place to put Blackbird. Not that I think that there has to be justice in the world so that when Lennon has been credited (rightfully!) with a Beatles song, I have to let Paul have one too, but it is a great specimen of fingerpicking as well as a great song, so what can I do…?

    Luckily, there is an excellent tab of this song here, written by Todd Anagnostis.

    You will recognize the thumb pattern — don’t let it fool you that the second and fourth beats are on the third and not the fourth string: you should by no means play those notes with the index finger. For this song, the thumb controls the four lowest strings, so you can probably let the ring finger rest. (Symbolical, perhaps, since Paul is an eminent bass player, although his style is too saccharine for my diabetic tastes, and his eyes tell me: “Don’t ever trust this person”.)

    Now, all I have to do is to sit back and let you do the rest of the work. Ah, I need a drink now…

    All the Lessons

    [catlist name=Lessons numberposts=150 order=asc orderby=date excludeposts=419]

    Learn to Play the Guitar in Two Weeks, day 10: Fingerpicking I

    So far, we’ve been playing as if you only had one finger on the right hand (or two, like Bruce Langhorne). If plain strumming — whether with a plectrum or one of the fingers — is guitar playing’s equivalent to the pathetic one-button Mac mouse, fingerpicking is more like an advanced gaming mouse, or the vim editor, where the whole keyboard is available as “buttons”.

    Sure enough — you may get along fine with one button most of the time, but if God had intended us to strum, he wouldn’t have given us five fingers, now, would he? Anyway: we have them — it’s stupid not to be able to use them.

    A note on fingers and nails

    Before we start for real, a few words on hands and nails. First: nails or not?

    Guitarists have been quarreling about this since the early nineteenth century. I’m biased. I’ve been playing with nails since I was ten, and if I break one, it’s only marginally better than breaking the finger. In fact, that’s not just a very bad exaggeration: during my school days, when various activities which I have luckily put behind me since then, such as being outdoors, playing football, running around and falling, climbing in trees, etc. — all those things that make nails break — I developed a fairly good technique for playing without whichever finger had a broken nail at the moment.

    That is to say: playing with nails has its disadvantages. Broken nails is one, but there are others: you’ll have to keep up a certain level of nail care, you may be blessed with stiff nails which break easier or soft nails which don’t do much good anyway, etc.

    The advantage is sound: with a nail, you will get a both stronger and more distinct tone. That’s just about the only advantage there is, but it is substantial.

    It’s up to you. Give it a try, and decide for yourself what you prefer. Should you go the nail way, here are some points to remember:

    Nail care

    No matter what you do with the right hand, you should keep the nails on the left hand short, otherwise they will interfere with your playing. Not too short, though: they are not just attack weapons but protect your fingertips too, and if you keep them too short, you’ll open yourself to all kinds of infections. Besides, a little nail is good for support also when you play.

    As for the right hand, you will have to groom them. Even the smallest irregularity will develop into a broken nail before you know it, and what’s more, it will affect your sound.

    The nail should be like an extension of the finger: you don’t play with the nail, you play with the fingertip; the nail just gives the tone that little extra crisp attack at the end.

    To that end, you’ll need some tools: a nail file and some sandpaper.

    The file is for shaping, and that only. You want a gentle curve on the thumb side of the nail. That’s where you will touch the string — not centrally, but diagonally (“caressing” is a more appropriate word than “striking” for what the finger should do to the string). Most importantly: no sharp edges, but a smooth round curve.

    The sandpaper is for polishing. If you’re thinking that this is beginning to sound a little too girlish, think again. A smooth surface does wonders for your tone, and your nails will last longer without breaking. Highly recommended.

    The sandpaper should be of the micro-grits type. In Europe, sizes P800–1200 are fine; in the US the corresponding grit sizes (a word I didn’t know existed until today) are called 400–600.

    If this still doesn’t make sense, use your girl-/boyfriend as a test case: if you wouldn’t caress her with it, then it’s too coarse…

    Hand position

    I’ve mentioned before, concerning left-hand playing, that some of the techniques and practices that are taught in classical guitar playing don’t make much sense in the chord-based/strumming-based repertory that we’re dealing with here. But for the right hand, there is actually quite a lot that applies, i.e. that will give you a better technique if you take them into account.

    One is the position of the hand.

    • The fingers should attack the strings diagonally,
    • the wrist should be the part that is farthest away from the guitar,
    • and when you look down at the hand, the thumb should form an “X” against the other fingers, i.e. the three other fingers, not the thumb, should play into the palm of the hand.

    These are not unbreakable rules, but they will give your hand a greater mobility, and there are no disadvantages that I know of.

    update: Coming to think of it, there is one case where this doesn’t apply: palm muting. In some styles, the palm of the right hand should mute the bass strings, and then, obviously, the wrist can’t be too far from the bridge …

    First steps

    Let’s get to work. The first step is to mimic what we have already been doing with thumb or plectrum: separating the bass strings from the treble strings. I’ve emphasised how important this is in a previous post, but I’ll repeat it: all strings are not created equal: emphasise the bass strings on the strong beats and fill in with the trebles in between.

    It so happens that the hand is perfectly fitted to this distribution. As a rule of thumb — a metaphor which was never more fitting than here — the three bass strings are the domain of the thumb, whereas the index, long and ring fingers take care of one string each (the little finger is virtually never used).

    The first pattern we might try out is the simplest possible. It may not very interesting in the long run, but it may be a good way to let the fingers get used to their new roles.

    You can use any chord, of course. For these examples, I’ll use E.

      E
      :   .   .   .     :   .   .   .     
    |-----0-------0---|-----0-------0---|-           ring finger  
    |-----0-------0---|-----0-------0---|-           middle finger
    |-----1-------1---|-----1-------1---|- etc       index finger 
    |-----------------|-----------------|-        \               
    |-----------------|-----------------|-        |- thumb        
    |-0-------0-------|-0-------0-------|-        /               
    

    You should recognize the general pattern from lesson 8: thumb/bass on the strong beats, treble/other fingers in between. The only real difference is that now that the fingers have separate areas of dominion, you don’t have to move the hand around so much, and your aim will be more precise.

    That is: with practice it will be more precise. It does require more practice to move four fingers to the right spots than to throw away a shot in that general direction with a plectrum. So start with the simple pattern above and rehearse it until you’re in charge of your fingers and not the other way around.

    A note about redundancy

    If you think: “hey, that’s not an E — there is only one left-hand finger in use there, and I seem to remember that E uses three fingers: 022100”, that’s only part right. It is an E major chord, we just happen not to use two of the strings at the moment.

    If you then think: “Great! Then I can save some energy, as you’ve been telling me to all the time — there’s nothing like being lazy and a good student at the same time,” again you’re only part right. Yes, you should be lazy, but in this case, lazy means fingering the whole E major chord.

    That is so for two reasons. One is mental: even though there are cases — lots of cases, in fact — where you will not use the full chord, it will be much easier to just stick to the main chord shape instead of constantly having to think “Now, which strings am I playing? Which fingers can I leave out?” At a more advanced stage, you can start thinking like that (you may have to start thinking like that), but for now, let an E be an E and play it 022100.

    The other reason is even more important: true enough, in the example above, you are only using the index finger, but it shouldn’t remain that way. You will need those other strings eventually, for variation and — not to mention — for security: if you accidentally strike a wrong string, you might as well get a correct note out of it (i.e. a note which belongs in the chord).

    This may seem like a trivial matter to make a fuss about, but I still find it worth pointing out, especially since this is a text-only course where you will be playing from tabs. In some of the more advanced tabs (e.g. Suze (The Cough Song), there are certain details that look difficult if you don’t move the fingers in place until they are explicitly written out in the tab, whereas if you change the chords all at once, it will fall in place naturally.

    Some more basic patterns

    Even with the simple patterns, there is ample opportunity for variation. First,
    you should vary the bass string.

      E
      :   .   .   .            :   .   .   .     
    |-----0-------0---|      |-----0-------0---|-
    |-----0-------0---|      |-----0-------0---|-
    |-----1-------1---| and/ |-----1-------1---|- etc
    |---------2-------|  or  |-----------------|-
    |-----------------|      |---------2-------|-
    |-0---------------|      |-0---------------|-
    

    In patterns like this — actually, in all fingerpicking patterns — it is a good idea to keep in mind where the proper keynote is. Make a habit of thinking “E major: 6th string”; “C major: 5th string”, “A major: 5th string”, etc., and play that string on all the strong beats, as in these two examples, until you can do it without thinking. When you know what you’re doing, you are free to deviate from the norm, but until then: it’s a good habit to emphasise the correct string.

    The next step is to vary the other fingers as well.

      :   .   .   .     :   .   .   .    
    |---------0-------|---------0-------|
    |---------0-------|---------0-------|
    |-----1-------1---|-----1-------1---|
    |-----------------|-----------------|
    |-----------------|-2---------------|
    |-0---------------|-----------------|
    
    
      :   .   .   .     :   .   .   .    
    |-------------0---|-------------0---|
    |---------0-------|---------0-------|
    |-----1-----------|-----1-----------|
    |-----------------|-----------------|
    |-----------------|-2---------------|
    |-0---------------|-----------------|
    

    And a couple in triple time:

      :   .   .   .   .   .     :   .   .   .   .   .    
    |---------0-------0-------|---------0-------0-------|
    |---------0-------0-------|---------0-------0-------|
    |-----1-------1-------1---|-----1-------1-------1---|
    |-------------------------|-------------------------|
    |-------------------------|-------------------------|
    |-0-----------------------|-0-----------------------|
    
    
      :       .       .         :       .       .        
    |-------------0-----------|-------------0-----------|
    |---------0-------0-------|---------0-------0-------|
    |-----1---------------1---|-----1---------------1---|
    |-------------------------|-------------------------|
    |-------------------------|-2-----------------------|
    |-0-----------------------|-------------------------|
    
    The style in this last example is called arpeggio, meaning “harped”. It brings to my mind another snippet of classical guitar lore that I picked up, I think from Francisco Tárrega’s legendary guitar school: when playing arpeggio upwards, all the fingers should be positioned before the arpeggio starts, whereas going down, they should not.

    The Holy Grail of Fingerpicking: Travis style

    But hey — let’s not make any mistake about it: you’re here — we’re all here — in order to be able to play “Don’t Think Twice” or John Lennon’s “Julia”, right?

    (“Julia”, by the way, is one of two songs, ever, that have had the “girlfriend” effect in my case. At that time, I was too young and shy to take advantage of it, even though I fully understood the potential. The other case was “Tomorrow Night” off Dylan’s Good As I Been To You, but alas: I was soon to be divorced, but she wasn’t… In other words: in the end, your ability to impress girls depends more on you than on your guitar skills. My apologies for leading you on with the title of this series.)

    Right.

    The style that is used on the two mentioned songs and millions of others, frequently goes by the name of “Travis picking”, named after Merle Travis. For this true art of fingerpicking, there is one alfa and omega: a rock steady thumb. Everything else is just embellishment.

    We’ll stick with our E major chord. Now play:

      :   .   .   .     :   .   .   .    
    |-----------------|-----------------|
    |-----------------|-----------------| 
    |-----------------|-----------------|
    |-----2-------2---|-----2-------2---|
    |-----------------|-----------------|
    |-0-------0-------|-0-------0-------|
    

    etc, all with the thumb. Don’t you dare using the index finger for the fourth-string notes: the only thing that is important in fingerpicking is that you are able to keep that movement with your thumb, no matter what happens: if the roof falls down, if your future girlfriend suddenly leans over and kisses you, if the index finger plays some other tones — don’t break the thumb rhythm.

    The next step is to vary the thumb strokes:

      :   .   .   .     :   .   .   .    
    |-----------------|-----------------|
    |-----------------|-----------------| 
    |-----------------|-----------------|
    |-----2-------2---|-----2-------2---|
    |---------2-------|---------2-------|
    |-0---------------|-0---------------|
    

    When you say that’s easy enough, let’s add the other fingers:

      :   .   .   .     :   .   .   .    
    |-----------------|-----------------|
    |-----------0-----|-----------0-----| 
    |-------1-------1-|-------1-------1-|
    |-----2-------2---|-----2-------2---|
    |-----------------|-----------------|
    |-0-------0-------|-0-------0-------|
    

    You can add them one at the time if you wish, or in any order you wish, and in principle on any beat, but the main rule is that the beats are the thumb’s domain — the other fingers play between the beats, as in the example above.

    Remember to keep the fingers at the right strings (for now; later on you should free yourself from that too, and be able to play the patterns on any strings): all the “1”s above are played with the index finger, the second-string notes with the long finger, etc., but all the time, the thumb does its 9–5 job on the bass strings.

    Some further variations:

      :   .   .   .     :   .   .   .    
    |-0---------------|-0---------------|
    |-----------0-----|-----------0-----| 
    |-------1-------1-|-------1-------1-|
    |-----2-------2---|-----2-------2---|
    |-----------------|-----------------|
    |-0-------0-------|-0-------0-------|
    
      :   .   .   .     :   .   .   .    
    |-----------------|-----------------|
    |-----0-----------|-----0-----------| 
    |-----------1-----|-----------1---1-|
    |-----2-------2---|-----2-------2---|
    |-----------------|-----------------|
    |-0-------0-------|-0-------0-------|
    

    And with some variation in the bass as well:

      :   .   .   .     :   .   .   .    
    |-0---------------|-0---------------|
    |-----------0-----|-----------0-----| 
    |-------1-------1-|-------1-------1-|
    |-----2-------2---|-----2-------2---|
    |---------2-------|---------2-------|
    |-0---------------|-0---------------|
    
      :   .   .   .     :   .   .   .    
    |-----------------|-----------------|
    |-----0-----------|-----0-----------| 
    |-----------1-----|-----------1---1-|
    |-----2-------2---|-----2-------2---|
    |---------2-------|---------2-------|
    |-0---------------|-0---------------|
    

    There is a good video demonstrating this playing style at this page.

    The patterns are too many to list, but the ones I have written out above are the most common: with these under your belt, you have almost all that’s required to play everything from “Don’t Think Twice” to “Dear Prudence”, from “Suzanne” to Pink Floyd’s “Hey You”.

    All it takes is some practice.

    Boots of Spanish Leather

    To prove that I’m not lying, here’s a look at “Boots of Spanish Leather”.

    The chord shapes that are used in this song are:

    G 320003 use the long-, ring-, and little fingers
    C/g 3×2013 merely a variation on the previous chord
    Em9 054030 This is one of the trademark Dylan chords, and it’s much simpler than it looks and sounds: just a C major chord that is moved two frets up.
    D7/f# 200212 Another chord that looks more tricky than it is. Use the thumb and keep the index finger in place on the second string.
      G           C/g               G                 
      :   .   .   .     :   .   .   .     :   .   .   .   
    |-----------------|-----------------|-----------------|
    |-----0---------1-|-----1---------0-|-----0---------0-|
    |-----------0-----|-----------0-----|-----------0-----|
    |-----0-------2---|-----2-------0---|-----0-------0---|
    |-----------------|-----------------|-----------------|
    |-3-------3-------|-3-------3-------|-3-------3-------|
    
                                          Em9             
      :   .   .   .     :   .   .   .     :   .   .   .   
    |-----------------|-----------------|-----------------|
    |-----0-----------|-----0-----------|-----3-----------|
    |-----------0-----|-----------0-----|-----------0-----|
    |-----0-------0---|-----0-------0---|-----4-------4---|
    |-----------------|-----------------|-----------------|
    |-3-------3-------|-3-------3-------|-0-------0-------|
                                Oh, I'm   sailing   away
    
                        D7/f#       G                 C/g     
      :   .   .   .     :   .   .   .     :   .   .   .   
    |-----------------|-----------------|-----------------|
    |-----3-----------|-----1-----------|-----0---------1-|
    |-----------0-----|-----------0-----|-----------0-----|
    |-----4-------4---|-----0-------0---|-----0-------2---|
    |-----------------|-----------------|-----------------|
    |-0-------0-------|-2-------2-------|-3-------3-------|
                  my    own     true      love                                   
    
                  G                 Em9              
      :   .   .   .     :   .   .   .     :   .   .   .    
    |-----------------|-----------------|-----------------|
    |-----1---------0-|-----0-----------|-----3-----------|
    |-----------0-----|-----------0-----|-----------0-----|
    |-----2-------0---|-----0-------0---|-----4-------4---|
    |-----------------|-----------------|-----------------|
    |-3-------3-------|-3-------3-------|-0-------0-------|
                                    I'm a-sailing     a-   
    
      D7/f#       G                 C/g               G        
      :   .   .   .     :   .   .   .     :   .   .   .    
    |-----------------|-----------------|-----------------|
    |-----1-----------|-----0---------1-|-----1---------0-|
    |-----------0-----|-----------0-----|-----------0-----|
    |-----0-------0---|-----0-------0---|-----2-------0---|
    |-----------------|-----------------|-----------------|
    |-0-------2-------|-3-------3-------|-3-------3-------|
     way      in  the   morning                            
     
                        Em                        
      :   .   .   .     :   .   .   .     :   .   .   .   
    |-----------------|-----------------|-----------------|
    |-----0-----------|-----0---------0-|-----0-----------|
    |-----------0-----|-----------0-----|-----------0-----|
    |-----0-------0---|-----2-------2---|-----2-------0---|
    |-----------------|-----------------|-----------------|
    |-3-------3-------|-0-------0-------|-0-------0-------|
               Is there something I   can send you from a-
    
      C/g         G                 C/g               G       
      :   .   .   .     :   .   .   .     :   .   .   .   
    |-----------------|-----------------|-----------------|
    |-----1---------0-|-----0---------1-|-----1---------0-|
    |-----------0-----|-----------0-----|-----------0-----|
    |-----2-------0---|-----0-------2---|-----2-------0---|
    |-----------------|-----------------|-----------------|
    |-3-------3-------|-3-------3-------|-3-------3-------|
     cross   the   sea                                    
    
                        Em9               D7/f#       C/g           
      :   .   .   .     :   .   .   .     :   .   .   .    
    |-----------------|-----------------|-----------------|
    |-----0-----------|-----3-----------|-----1---------0-|
    |-----------0-----|-----------0-----|-----------0-----|
    |-----0-------0---|-----4-------0---|-----0-------0---|
    |-----------------|-----------------|-----------------|
    |-3-------3-------|-0-------0-------|-2-------2-------|
              From the place that         I'll      be     
    
                  G                             D7/f#   G
      :   .   .   .     :   .   .   .     :   .   .   .   
    |-----------------|-----------------|-----------------|
    |-----1---------0-|-----0---------0-|-------1-------0-|
    |-----------0-----|-----------0-----|---0-------0-----|
    |-----2-------0---|-----0-------0---|-----0-------0---|
    |-----------------|-----------------|-----------------|
    |-3-------3-------|-3-------3-------|-3-------2-------|
      landing
    
                     
      :   .   .   .     :   .   .   .
    |-----------------|-----------------|
    |-----0-----------|-----0-----------|
    |-----------0-----|-----------0-----|
    |-----0-------0---|-----0-------0---|
    |-----------------|-----------------|
    |-3-------3-------|-3-------3-------|
                                   No, there's...
    

    In principle, the whole song uses the same pattern:

      
    :   .   .   .    
    |----------------|    ring finger
    |----0---------0-|    middle finger
    |----------0-----|    index finger
    |----0-------0---| \
    |----------------| |- thumb  
    |3-------3-------| /
    

    Once you have the pattern in the fingers, the only thing that may present some difficulty here is some of the chord changes. Not that they are difficult, but they don’t happen where/when you’d expect them if you’re used to square four-by-four music.

    One of most prominent characteristics of the Travis picking style is the syncopation that almost automatically comes out of it: the thumb marks the rhythm, but it’s the other fingers that are heard, and they fall off the beat, most of the time.

    That syncopation is the origin of the style-specific trait of starting the measures a little too early. Look at the very first measures in the tab of “Boots”.

      G       C/g               G                 
      :   .   .   .     :   .   .   .     :   .   .   .   
    |-----------------|-----------------|-----------------|
    |-----0---------1-|-----1---------0-|-----0---------0-|
    |-----------0-----|-----------0-----|-----------0-----|
    |-----0-------2---|-----2-------0---|-----0-------0---|
    |-----------------|-----------------|-----------------|
    |-3-------3-------|-3-------3-------|-3-------3-------|
    

    The way I have written it here, it looks as if the C chord enters in the middle of the first measure. But that’s not really the way it is perceived. A simpler, strummed version of the same would rather look like this:

      G                 C/g               G                 
      :   .   .   .     :   .   .   .     :   .   
    |-----3-----3-3-3-|-----3-----3-3-3-|-----3---
    |-----0-----0-0-0-|-----1-----1-1-1-|-----0---
    |-----0-----0-0-0-|-----0-----0-0-0-|-----0---
    |-----0-------0---|-----2-------2---|-----0---
    |-----------------|-----------------|---------
    |-3-------3-------|-3-------3-------|-3-------
    

    But the Travis-picked version almost requires the more syncopated feel. One might say that the only place this is difficult, is on the paper: where to write down the chord changes. In the tab above, I’ve tried to write them in where they actually take place, not where they musically belong.

    All the Lessons

    [catlist name=Lessons numberposts=150 order=asc orderby=date excludeposts=419]

    Lessons: update

    Just a quick note to say that I haven’t abandoned the lessons series, I’ve just been having a Christmas and a headache.

    What remains are: Two days of fingerpicking glory, one more chord lesson covering the thousands of chords remaining; a brief look into open tunings (with an obvious focus on Blood on the Tracks); a batch of licks and tricks; and a final lesson summing up some things that might be worth a word or two in addition to what has already been said — tuning, chord family characters, etc.