Guitarists - Use Your Neck, Not Your Head!

Written by Joey Robichaux


Want to expand your versatility onrepparttar guitar? Don't use your head -- use your neck!

We're going to use a "G" chord and a G major pentatonic to illustrate how we can use 5 basic chord shapes to move up and downrepparttar 109876 neck ofrepparttar 109877 guitar.

These 5 basic chord shapes arerepparttar 109878 open forms (played atrepparttar 109879 end ofrepparttar 109880 neck nearrepparttar 109881 tuning pegs) ofrepparttar 109882 "G" chord,repparttar 109883 "E" chord,repparttar 109884 "D" chord,repparttar 109885 "C" chord, andrepparttar 109886 "A" chord. Of course, when we playrepparttar 109887 chord shapes in different positions,repparttar 109888 chord name will no longer be "E", "D", "C", or "A". In fact,repparttar 109889 chord will be a "G" chord every time we play it -- although we userepparttar 109890 fingerings normally associated withrepparttar 109891 open "E", "D", "C", and "A" chords.

Atrepparttar 109892 Beginning --repparttar 109893 "G" chord

We'll start withrepparttar 109894 basic open "G" chord. The chord form is:

--ooo- open

|||||| 1st fret

------

|x|||| 2nd fret

------

x||||x 3rd fret

------

The pentatonics in this form ofrepparttar 109895 chord are these:

E--0--3---------------------------------------------------------- B--------0--3---------------------------------------------------- G--------------0--2---------------------------------------------- D--------------------0--2---------------------------------------- A--------------------------0--2---------------------------------- E--------------------------------0--3----------------------------

Note thatrepparttar 109896 third fret onrepparttar 109897 two "E" strings andrepparttar 109898 second fret onrepparttar 109899 "A" string followrepparttar 109900 basic "G" chord form.

The following box demonstratesrepparttar 109901 tab above and showsrepparttar 109902 basic chord form. The "c" is a note inrepparttar 109903 chord form,repparttar 109904 "r" isrepparttar 109905 root note ofrepparttar 109906 chord, andrepparttar 109907 "x" arerepparttar 109908 extra notes that, when combined withrepparttar 109909 "c" and "r" notes, make uprepparttar 109910 pentatonic.

xxcccx open

|||||| 1st fret

------

|cxx|| 2nd fret

------

r|||xr 3rd fret

------

Second Stop onrepparttar 109911 Fretboard -repparttar 109912 "E" chord

To move downrepparttar 109913 fretboard, we're going to userepparttar 109914 barred form ofrepparttar 109915 "G" chord. This is basicallyrepparttar 109916 open "E" chord; however, played atrepparttar 109917 third fret it gives us a "G" chord. The chord form is:

------

xxxxxx 3rd fret

------

|||x|| 4th fret

------

|xx||| 5th fret

------

Note howrepparttar 109918 third fret ofrepparttar 109919 "c","r","x" pattern links these two chord forms, since they have notes in common.

The pentatonics in this form ofrepparttar 109920 chord are these:

E--3--5---------------------------------------------------------- B--------3--5---------------------------------------------------- G--------------2--4---------------------------------------------- D--------------------2--5---------------------------------------- A--------------------------2--5---------------------------------- E--------------------------------3--5----------------------------

Followingrepparttar 109921 same "c", "r", and "x" notation as above, here isrepparttar 109922 pentatonic pattern:

------

|xxx|| 2nd fret

------

c|||cr 3rd fret

------

|||c|| 4th fret

------

xcr||x 5th fret

------

Third Stop onrepparttar 109923 Fretboard -repparttar 109924 "D" chord

We'll slide on down a couple of frets torepparttar 109925 next position onrepparttar 109926 fretboard. We're now using a form similar torepparttar 109927 open "D" chord.

------

xxx||| 5th fret

------

|||||| 6th fret

------

|||x|x 7th fret

------

||||x| 8th fret

------

The fifth fret notes link this chord form torepparttar 109928 previous one.

The tab forrepparttar 109929 pentatonic of this form looks like:

E--5--7---------------------------------------------------------- B--------5--8---------------------------------------------------- G--------------4--7---------------------------------------------- D--------------------5--7---------------------------------------- A--------------------------5--7---------------------------------- E--------------------------------5--7----------------------------

2004 a Bad Year for Movies?

Written by Ryan Parsons


Here is a case in point- 2004 was a strange, if not bad, year for movies. Now, I'm not talking aboutrepparttar quality of films, they were probably right on par. But, Hollywood has been growing scared. Scared to create films that fall away from standard conventions and afraid to try films that may tilt a couple heads or raise a few brows. If it wasn't for a few HUGE films in 2004, including some that distributors were afraid of, everybody may have felt that Hollywood was losing us. However, it seems that Hollywood is willing to turn a cheek and come stronger than it ever has this century [never mind Lord ofrepparttar 109875 Rings] withrepparttar 109876 bringing in of 2005.

2004 Poor for Movies I can understand how it may be hard to fathom that Hollywood did not have one of its best years during 2004. Sure,repparttar 109877 film companies were still able to pull in film revenues with a little over nine billion, but ticket sales were actually DOWN by a startling two percent. Now, I know this doesn't sound like much, but it is! Forrepparttar 109878 year of 2004, distributors were planning on conqueringrepparttar 109879 box offices with films such as Troy, Alexander, The Whole Ten Yards, The Village and Van Helsing. However, all of these films flopped [Van Helsing is doing great with DVD though]. No matter how impressiverepparttar 109880 battles or sequences, audiences leftrepparttar 109881 theatres feeling unsatisfied. So what was wrong withrepparttar 109882 films? And who saved 2004?

Four ofrepparttar 109883 biggest hitters of 2004 came out of either CG animation or children's tales. Shrek 2 began with a bang and was able to gross somewhere just under $450 million in ticket sales. Then we had Pixar's The Incredibles, which proved that animated films with adult-style action and subject matter can still be successful [~$275 million gross]. Last ofrepparttar 109884 animations was Spider-Man 2 [the fights were almost entirely animated]. I can call this an animation asrepparttar 109885 fight scenes were well animated andrepparttar 109886 film seemed to run like a perfect animated comic [~$370 million gross]. Harry Potter andrepparttar 109887 Prisoner of Azkaban, based ofrepparttar 109888 'childrens' book [I beg to differ], couldn't lose with a darker atmosphere set up by Alfonso Cuaron [pulled in $250 million]. Obviously,repparttar 109889 four listed films were expected to do well inrepparttar 109890 theatres and all three performed gracefully. But what aboutrepparttar 109891 films that nobody wanted or were afraid to touch?

The two films that were handled like boiling water were Mel Gibson's Passion ofrepparttar 109892 Christ and Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11. Even though these films caused a lot of tension amidst their distributors [Einstein was pissed!],repparttar 109893 two films managed to pull just under a combined $500 million in ticket sales. So that would make five big blockbusters forrepparttar 109894 year; not nearly enough. While Passion and Fahrenheit were more than plesent surprises, what aboutrepparttar 109895 other films?

Cont'd on page 2 ==>
 
ImproveHomeLife.com © 2005
Terms of Use