# The Guitar and the Piano: Differences



## millionrainbows

These ideas are based on Pat Martino's The Nature of the Guitar. http://www.mtosmt.org/issues/mto.06.12.1/toc.12.1.html

I'l start posting ideas on this shortly, and this will give those interested a chance to read Guy Capuzzo's academic treatise 
Pat Martino's _The Nature of Guitar: _An Intersection of Jazz Theory and Neo-Riemannian Theory," which appears in Volume 12, Number 1, of Music Theory Online: The Online Journal of the Society for Music Theory.


----------



## Tikoo Tuba

Doesn't the guitarist rather enjoy open-string passing notes , perhaps even tuning the strings eccentrically to make playing easy and graceful . Tune a fish , eh ?


----------



## drmdjones

Having an open string note between two chords that are distant on the fingerboard is helpful, it covers the shift. This could be a passing tone or a chord tone. Don't know of anyone changing their tuning to achieve this.


----------



## dannyrichardson

I think there are some differences in the guitar and piano I found this to be helpful for people to new to the instruments.


----------



## drmdjones

Segovia once said that the piano is a monster that screams when you touch its teeth :O


----------



## Guest

dannyrichardson said:


> I think there are some differences in the guitar and piano I found this to be helpful for people to new to the instruments.


I absolutely disagree with that "keyboardkraze" fellow's assertion about why the piano is harder than guitar. Classical guitarists absolutely do very different things with each hand--they are just on a smaller scale. Not to mention having to form the notes simultaneously as we hit them. Since I have played both, I can say with certainty that classical guitar is every bit as hard as the piano, just in different ways.


----------



## millionrainbows

I started the thread to discuss _conceptual _differences, not physical differences. Oh, well, continue.


----------



## Roger Knox

drmdjones said:


> Segovia once said that the piano is a monster that screams when you touch its teeth :O


Ah, brutal! For non-monstrous piano music: Debussy's Preludes, Book I, Nos. 4-6; Satie's Gymnopedies and Gnossiennes; John Ireland's Amberley Wild Brooks; Gershwin, Three Preludes; and on and on ...


----------



## drmdjones

I agree completely with you and disagree completely with Segovia.


----------



## millionrainbows

Maestro Segovia's comments on the electric guitar, in a _Guitar Player_ interview, were unpublishable.


----------



## RICK RIEKERT

millionrainbows said:


> Maestro Segovia's comments on the electric guitar, in a _Guitar Player_ interview, were unpublishable.


When asked by Allan Kozinn in a 1978 interview for _Guitar Player_ whether he still felt that the electric guitar should not be considered an instrument, Segovia had only this to say: "The electric guitar destroys the delicious sound of the music. All the nuances of the poetry disappear." Segovia was resolutely opposed to amplification of the Spanish guitar on similar grounds, claiming it "…alters the beautiful sound of the guitar, nullifies it, renders it acid and metallic."


----------



## Larkenfield

RICK RIEKERT said:


> When asked by Allan Kozinn in a 1978 interview for _Guitar Player_ whether he still felt that the electric guitar should not be considered an instrument, Segovia had only this to say: "The electric guitar destroys the delicious sound of the music. All the nuances of the poetry disappear." Segovia was resolutely opposed to amplification of the Spanish guitar on similar grounds, claiming it "…alters the beautiful sound of the guitar, nullifies it, renders it acid and metallic."


 The same thing happened when Dylan went electric.  All the subtleties of his guitar playing went out the window, with some rare exceptions over the years, when he wasn't being amplified. The public was in shock at the time of the changeover, disappointed and angry.


----------



## norman bates

RICK RIEKERT said:


> When asked by Allan Kozinn in a 1978 interview for _Guitar Player_ whether he still felt that the electric guitar should not be considered an instrument, Segovia had only this to say: "The electric guitar destroys the delicious sound of the music. All the nuances of the poetry disappear." Segovia was resolutely opposed to amplification of the Spanish guitar on similar grounds, claiming it "…alters the beautiful sound of the guitar, nullifies it, renders it acid and metallic."


Segovia was certainly a great guitarist and his importance in the history of the instrument is huge, but that was just his taste. The taste of a musician who was notoriously very conservative.
Metallic doesn't mean bad, just different. And in my opinion is perfectly possible to achieve beautiful sounds out of a electric guitar:






(and this without mentioning the variety of timbres and different things that are not possible on a classical guitar).






(I suspect there are pianists who hate the sound of the electric piano, that I think it's gorgeous as Segovia hated the electric guitar)


----------



## Bwv 1080

Segovia supported Franco and hated modern music so his opinions are just that


----------



## drmdjones

I wonder if he liked the piano's timbre in the music of Albeniz and Granados. He certainly transcribed enough of it. My guess is that he felt it sounded better, more authentic, on the guitar. If this is the case I might have to agree with him.


----------



## Clouds Weep Snowflakes

Guitar and piano? I would be easier to compare the guitar to the violin, as both are instruments one needs to hold, what obviously doesn't apply to the piano...or maybe you're comparing the sounds rather than the playing itself?


----------



## drmdjones

Originally, a long, long time ago in a galaxy far away, the post regarded pitch structures idiomatic to each instrument rather than the instruments themselves.

I think a new post comparing the guitar to other string instruments would be a great idea. It would probably need to go in the Solo and Chamber Music sub-forum. I look forward to seeing it.


----------



## RICK RIEKERT

drmdjones said:


> I wonder if he liked the piano's timbre in the music of Albeniz and Granados. He certainly transcribed enough of it. My guess is that he felt it sounded better, more authentic, on the guitar. If this is the case I might have to agree with him.


Albéniz and Granados admired the guitar as aficionados, but only Albéniz grew up playing the guitar as well as the piano. Albéniz' friend, the painter Octave Maus, said "he wrote for the keyboard as if it were a guitar". Maus recalls that "when [Albéniz] heard one of his pieces performed by Tárrega on the guitar he observed: This is precisely as I had conceived it!".


----------



## millionrainbows

Here is what I'm getting at:

http://www.mtosmt.org/issues/mto.06.12.1/mto.06.12.1.capuzzo.pdf

Martino summarizes Example 1 as follows: "Unlike the piano, which uses a seven plusfive system of addition, the guitar uses multiplication. With [the aug triads and ø‡ chords] we coverall twelve notes of the chromatic scale by multiplying three times four"


----------



## dannyrichardson

This is interesting! I personally see a lot of similarities between the two.

Here's a great read on the two that's very educational!

https://keyboardkraze.com/is-the-piano-or-guitar-easier-to-learn-for-beginners/


----------



## drmdjones

millionrainbows said:


> Here is what I'm getting at:
> 
> http://www.mtosmt.org/issues/mto.06.12.1/mto.06.12.1.capuzzo.pdf
> 
> Martino summarizes Example 1 as follows: "Unlike the piano, which uses a seven plusfive system of addition, the guitar uses multiplication. With [the aug triads and ø‡ chords] we coverall twelve notes of the chromatic scale by multiplying three times four"


As a guitarist and theorist I would like to respond appropriately to this. Could you help me better understand exactly what it is you would like to discuss. Thanks.


----------



## millionrainbows

I'm just pointing out the inherent bias of our music system towards the piano, and wondering whether or not anyone else besides he & I see this. It's probably better that I quote Martino directly:


----------



## Bwv 1080

No disrespect to Pat, but I dont think theory is different for the guitar. The roots of music theory are first in choral music, not the piano. The piano just happens to be more convenient to illustrate ideas. Most of the paper deals with aspects of interval cycles, like the 3x4 cross product of diminished and augmented chords, that exist due to equal temperament, not the nature of the instrument


----------



## millionrainbows

Bwv 1080 said:


> No disrespect to Pat, but I dont think theory is different for the guitar. The roots of music theory are first in choral music, not the piano. The piano just happens to be more convenient to illustrate ideas.


I think that's misleading. I didn't say that the piano keyboard layout was the genesis of Western notation.
The piano keyboard came later, of course, but nonetheless its layout is perfectly suited to the letter names, and key signature system; i.e., the piano "exemplifies" diatonic concepts in a way that the guitar does not.



> Most of the paper deals with aspects of interval cycles, like the 3x4 cross product of diminished and augmented chords, that exist due to equal temperament, not the nature of the instrument


That's misleading as well. I would rather say:
"The paper deals with aspects of interval cycles, like the 3x4 cross product of diminished and augmented chords, that exist due to the division of the octave into twelve notes."

But since the piano serves the seven-note diatonic scale system, it cannot be said to represent the chromatic collection of twelve notes as idiomatically as the guitar does. 
In other words, the piano does not exhibit the "automatic mechanisms" of chromaticism that Martino speaks of, as clearly as the guitar does, but exhibits other mechanisms which are manifestations of its diatonic nature.

It needs to be a "given" that the piano is primarily a diatonic machine, and the guitar is a chromatic machine. If you're not willing to concede these basic features, we have nothing to discuss. Also, since I think Pat Martino has proven himself to be a complete master of jazz guitar, I will not concede my position.


----------



## Barbebleu

Dear Bwv 1080, get out while you can. You can't win. Stop posting on this thread and you'll feel a lot better for it. :lol:


----------



## millionrainbows

Barbebleu said:


> Dear Bwv 1080, get out while you can. You can't win. Stop posting on this thread and you'll feel a lot better for it. :lol:


I'm glad that you are so confident in the veracity of the ideas Pat Martino & myself have espoused, Barbebleu. :tiphat:


----------



## Bwv 1080

Some aspects of chromaticism are more idiomatic for guitar - say ascending or descending dim7 chords by half step, but others are not. Harmony with seconds is not idiomatic, but tone clusters are easy on the piano. The resonance of open strings also creates issues, less so for an electric guitarist like Pat, but is an issue for acoustic guitarists. A pianist can easily modulate from A major to Eb Major but Eb is problematic on the guitar as the most prominent open string partials lie outside the key.


----------



## millionrainbows

Bwv 1080 said:


> Some aspects of chromaticism are more idiomatic for guitar - say ascending or descending dim7 chords by half step, but others are not.


Okay, stop there! :lol:


----------



## millionrainbows

Bwv 1080 said:


> Harmony with seconds is not idiomatic, but tone clusters are easy on the piano. The resonance of open strings also creates issues, less so for an electric guitarist like Pat, but is an issue for acoustic guitarists. A pianist can easily modulate from A major to Eb Major but Eb is problematic on the guitar as the most prominent open string partials lie outside the key.


Look at it in terms of memorizing and moving chord inversions; a guitarist can move an inversion up chromatically, because he is dealing with one form. A pianist has different forms for his inversions, say from C to C#.

On the other hand, when a pianist learns all the chords and inversions and scales within a certain key, like G, then he only has to learn those singular forms. A root position C major is always 3 white notes, C-E-G.

On a guitar, those chords can be played in different positions, on different string combinations. That's more forms to memorize.

So from this, we can see that the piano's advantage kicks in when we are playing in one key, and within a certain "range" of keys (G maj root position is also 3 white notes, and so on).


----------



## Bwv 1080

Ok, but there is no bit of chromaticism that Pat ever did that some pianist did not do first

I dont think Bach or Liszt or Messiaen or whoever ever thought 'whoa, I cant deal with these black keys, they shackle my brain into thinking diatonically'


----------



## millionrainbows

Bwv 1080 said:


> Ok, but there is no bit of chromaticism that Pat ever did that some pianist did not do first
> 
> I dont think Bach or Liszt or Messiaen or whoever ever thought 'whoa, I cant deal with these black keys, they shackle my brain into thinking diatonically'


You seem to be "defending" the diatonic system. I'm not attacking it, I'm just saying that you should be aware of knowledge you have assimilated, and not take it as "given," but to question the most basic things. Guitarists have this ability because we are already somewhat "outside the box" because of our instrument and its different nature from the piano. Does that bother you?


----------



## tdc

I was reading a bit about La Monte Young last night, and his "dream chord" which contains the notes G, C, C#, D. I was glad I had a keyboard near by, that would have been a pain on guitar.


----------



## tdc

millionrainbows said:


> You seem to be "defending" the diatonic system. I'm not attacking it, I'm just saying that you should be aware of knowledge you have assimilated, and not take it as "given," but to question the most basic things. Guitarists have this ability because we are already somewhat "outside the box" because of our instrument and its different nature from the piano. Does that bother you?


I think it depends on the musician, it is more in the mind, the intuition and in the approach taken to learning music than in the instrument. Sure a genius like Martino can use the guitar to think outside the box, but most guitarists learn chord shapes and scales, and immediately start to box themselves in. That is why so many guitarists use similar chord voicings/progressions, and so many have a difficult time getting away from an over reliance on the pentatonic scale.


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund

tdc said:


> I was reading a bit about La Monte Young last night, and his "dream chord" which contains the notes G, C, C#, D. I was glad I had a keyboard near by, that would have been a pain on guitar.


Transpose it to Bb, Eb, E, F, or somewhere with an open string, otherwise it's a "nightmare chord"


----------



## Bwv 1080

tdc said:


> I was reading a bit about La Monte Young last night, and his "dream chord" which contains the notes G, C, C#, D. I was glad I had a keyboard near by, that would have been a pain on guitar.


Why? two open strings, its no problem. C and C# on 5th and 2nd string, then 4th and 3rd open

also a 3rd fret bar with G-C#-C-D


----------



## tdc

Bwv 1080 said:


> Why? two open strings, its no problem. C and C# on 5th and 2nd string, then 4th and 3rd open
> 
> also a 3rd fret bar with G-C#-C-D


The first way doesn't preserve the order of pitches low to high, therefore changes the quality of the chord C-D-G-C#, your second choice also does not preserve the order but could work if you barred across the two lowest strings on fret 3 and played the C# on the 3rd string fret 6 and D on the second string (barred on fret 3), but its still a lot easier to play it on a keyboard.


----------



## tdc

tdc said:


> The first way doesn't preserve the order of pitches low to high, therefore changes the quality of the chord C-D-G-C#, your second choice also does not preserve the order but could work if you barred across the two lowest strings on fret 3 and played the C# on the 3rd string fret 6 and D on the second string (barred on fret 3), but its still a lot easier to play it on a keyboard.


The keyboard also captures the tone-cluster quality of the chord, which couldn't be duplicated exactly on guitar without retuning the strings.


----------



## Bwv 1080

But everyone who has ever played a blues lick on a guitar already knows what root - 4th #4th 5th sounds like


----------



## tdc

Bwv 1080 said:


> But everyone who has ever played a blues lick on a guitar already knows what root - 4th #4th 5th sounds like


That is clever! You do have a point but the notes won't ring out simultaneously and have a different aural effect. It sounds particularly different if you stop the bend on the 5, which extinguishes the dissonance and creates a perfect 5th. Of course I've played the riff you are referring to, and playing those notes on guitar by bending the 4 in that context doesn't sound much like striking those notes on a piano to me, nor does it sound like an electrical transformer - the sonority that inspired Young's "dream chord".


----------



## Bwv 1080

anyway, your original point was well made. This thread is way over-stretching idiomatic idiosyncrasies of guitar and piano into some grand theory that ignored fact that Pat was part of either the first or maybe second generation of guitarists to think about pushing the boundaries of music, the instrument just wasnt that important before that. Everything Pat ever thought of had been well tread before by some pianist, completely unbound by ‘diatonic thinking’


----------



## millionrainbows

tdc said:


> That is clever! You do have a point but the notes won't ring out simultaneously and have a different aural effect. It sounds particularly different if you stop the bend on the 5, which extinguishes the dissonance and creates a perfect 5th. Of course I've played the riff you are referring to, and playing those notes on guitar by bending the 4 in that context doesn't sound much like striking those notes on a piano to me, nor does it sound like an electrical transformer - the sonority that inspired Young's "dream chord".


The 60-cycle hum is an extremely flat Bb note, about 48 cents flat, if I recall correctly.

La Monte's chord G-C-C#-D sounds like it is really anchored on the second note, C, because we hear fourths (G-C) as "root on top." So it could be C9#9. Is this from that Transformer Hum CD on Grammavision?


----------



## millionrainbows

Bwv 1080 said:


> anyway, your original point was well made. This thread is way over-stretching idiomatic idiosyncrasies of guitar and piano into some grand theory that ignored fact that Pat was part of either the first or maybe second generation of guitarists to think about pushing the boundaries of music, the instrument just wasnt that important before that. Everything Pat ever thought of had been well tread before by some pianist, completely unbound by 'diatonic thinking'


Well, not exactly "pianists" but musical thinkers, such as John Coltrane and Nicolas Slonimsky, who wrote his book Thesaurus of Scales & Melodic Patterns. Actually it was Pat Martino's teacher in Philadelphia, Dennis Sandole, who started all sorts of thinking about this, and also taught Coltrane.


----------



## tdc

millionrainbows said:


> The 60-cycle hum is an extremely flat Bb note, about 48 cents flat, if I recall correctly.
> 
> La Monte's chord G-C-C#-D sounds like it is really anchored on the second note, C, because we hear fourths (G-C) as "root on top." So it could be C9#9. Is this from that Transformer Hum CD on Grammavision?


I just got the chord spelling off of his wiki, which states he was influenced by droning sounds he heard in his environment, like the blowing wind and electrical transformers. The latter influencing that particular chord.


----------



## millionrainbows

Another advantage of the guitar is that it has 12 frets, and is layed out in a linear fashion (no black notes so to speak), and this makes it a model of the chromatic octave.

This means that purely theoretical modern (chromatic) concepts of octave division and intervallic projection and recurrence can map directly on to the guitar fingerboard. 

Ideas like division of the octave at the tritone, the projection of smaller recurring intervals (minor third stacks, giving diminished patterns) can be easily seen and transferred directly to the fingerboard.


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> Here is what I'm getting at:
> 
> http://www.mtosmt.org/issues/mto.06.12.1/mto.06.12.1.capuzzo.pdf
> 
> Martino summarizes Example 1 as follows: "Unlike the piano, which uses a seven plusfive system of addition, the guitar uses multiplication. With [the aug triads and ø‡ chords] we coverall twelve notes of the chromatic scale by multiplying three times four"


Tell you what, give us a summary in simple layman's terms of this thesis, given that many of us are not pianists or guitarists. Use audio and PDF score examples (Finale, MuseScore, YouTube...).


----------



## millionrainbows

TalkingHead said:


> Tell you what, give us a summary in simple layman's terms of this thesis, given that many of us are not pianists or guitarists. Use audio and PDF score examples (Finale, MuseScore, YouTube...).


I'm not sure if you want me to "prove" Martino's ideas, which I won't because I agree with them, or explain it further, which I could attempt, or show you examples (the fruits) of how he uses it, which are contained in his instructional videos. You need to know that this is a practical method, not just a theory or diatribe.

Martino got the genesis of this idea from his teacher in Philadelphia, guitarist Dennis Sandole. Sandole got the "lower any tone of a diminished seventh chord and you get a dom7" part of it from Schoenberg's Harmonielehre.

Basically, it gives the guitarist *4* stations of dim7s in order to generate dom7s. Move each station up by 1 and 2 half-steps and you have all 12 dom7 chords in a three-fret area, times *4.
*When worked-out and learned, this facilitates movement across the entire fingerboard.

About 22 minutes in, he discusses the dim7 as a "parental" form.


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> I'm not sure if you want me to "prove" Martino's ideas, which I won't because I agree with them, or explain it further, which I could attempt, or show you examples (the fruits) of how he uses it, which are contained in his instructional videos. You need to know that this is a practical method, not just a theory or diatribe.
> 
> Martino got the genesis of this idea from his teacher in Philadelphia, guitarist Dennis Sandole. Sandole got the "lower any tone of a diminished seventh chord and you get a dom7" part of it from Schoenberg's Harmonielehre.
> 
> Basically, it gives the guitarist *4* stations of dim7s in order to generate dom7s. Move each station up by 1 and 2 half-steps and you have all 12 dom7 chords in a three-fret area, times *4.
> *When worked-out and learned, this facilitates movement across the entire fingerboard.
> 
> About 22 minutes in, he discusses the dim7 as a "parental" form.


Thank you MR, just what I was hoping for.


----------

