Eb tuning / Chords Name debate

[ebe76]

Can someone tell me how many official guitar song book of Eb tuning songs are naming the chords 1/2 step down ??? There a convention to name the chords to the relative position it has in standard tuning.

So why not doing the same with EOF and CDLC ???

 

When songs are Eb tuning, is there a reason to name the chords in b or # ?

For ex : E chords position ( 079997 ) must be name E chords even if it s sound Eb or D#.

 

And it should be the same with capo song ! If you put a 3rd fret Capo, ( 022000 ) Chords should be named Em and not Gm.

[electricbird]

I was also looking into this, because I'm doing a beatles song at the moment in Eb, but whenever I load the gp or an xml file into EOF I get these "weird" chord names, and I just can't seem to get rid of them... tuning changes automatically upon loading the gp or xml files...

 

So how do I change this so I don't get these weird chord names no more? 

 

Found it, change tuning in EOF again to standard E tuning by changing it in 

 

track - pro guitar - set tuning : and there you change everything back to 0 (zero = E standard tuning)

 

Using the Rocksmit Custom Song Creator toolkit when creating your CDLC change the tuning to Eb, in that way your chord naming should stay the way it should be, so a (022000) is an Em instead of a Gm etc...

[raynebc]

The better option is to use the "Track>Pro guitar>Ignore tuning/capo" option for each desired track. Naming chords based on standard tuning instead of whatever tuning the arrangement is really in may be a common convention with guitarists, but it is musically inaccurate so that is not EOF's default behavior.

[ebe76]

One sure thing, no one use your both solution here :)

Got lot of Eb tuning CDLC, and no one even tried to change the chords name before posting.

They dont know howto, they dont care.... they got perfect pitch earing :) sorry, for this sarcastic point....

 

@@raynebc : Of course, it's musically inaccurate. I agree with you but we re not talking bout solfege here. and we re not playing piano or saxophone.

The debate is about why naming a chord on a charted tab ? to tell what note it sound ? of course not

But to help the guitarist. Just to tell you what standard position of hand and fret you have to use ? It's just a reminder for your hand position as every guitarist learn the position from standard E tuning.

If you want to help a guitarist to play a song by naming chords, better not naming a chord than putting all this # and b implied by Eb tuning on CDLC. Worse, all this confusion when reading a B or E which are in fact a C or F position.

 

Lot of CDLC are made from original song book tablature version of the song, which respect a chord naming convention.

Even Guitar Pro tablature community respect this convention. Old debate years ago restarting with EOF and Rocksmith now.

So if its technically possible in EOF, and so simple to do, why not respecting this convention ?

I mean, chords name should end in Rocksmith like it is from original transcription.

 

Last thing, maybe a "How to" in the tutorial section should be great to help CDLC maker with your solution.

[MVega]

The better option is to use the "Track>Pro guitar>Ignore tuning/capo" option for each desired track. Naming chords based on standard tuning instead of whatever tuning the arrangement is really in may be a common convention with guitarists, but it is musically inaccurate so that is not EOF's default behavior.

 

This would be inaccurate in musical notation, yes.

 

But we're working with tablature. And tablature merely provides a representation of where our fingers go on the fretboard. Because guitars can be tuned in many different ways (unlike other instruments), the actual note names are less important. 

 

Chords in tablature are not musical chords -- they're chord shapes. This allows them to be played anywhere on the neck -- if there's a capo or a barre chord, both of which replace the nut. It's the same with scales. It doesn't matter where you play them, the shape of the scale will stay the same.

 

Rocksmith got this one VERY wrong. It's totally confusing for most guitarists to be trying to play an E-shape chord and be told they're playing a D# (another thing I don't like -- I prefer to read in flats. That should be an Eb).

[raynebc]

I understand some people prefer that convention, but not everybody would necessarily want it forced on them, that's why EOF has it as an option. Shapes do change depending on the tuning. "A" chord shapes for example are extremely common for playing power chords in drop D tuning, and "A" and "Power chord" are two very different shapes. I may be willing to make that "ignore tuning/capo" setting enabled by default for each track (for new projects), but that's probably about it. Would that be fine?

[uthere1]

I understand some people prefer that convention, but not everybody would necessarily want it forced on them, that's why EOF has it as an option. Shapes do change depending on the tuning. "A" chord shapes for example are extremely common for playing power chords in drop D tuning, and "A" and "Power chord" are two very different shapes. I may be willing to make that "ignore tuning/capo" setting enabled by default for each track (for new projects), but that's probably about it. Would that be fine?

 

I think this would be the best option. There's no reason to completely remove the feature.

 

Do the official DLC in Eb change the chord names?

[ebe76]

I understand some people prefer that convention, but not everybody would necessarily want it forced on them, that's why EOF has it as an option.

 

That's why there is a debate.

I dont want to force anyone to do the contrary of what he wants.

But the question is : " do those people really choose this option ?, or do they know it was possible to change this option ?"

You should probably make a vote and ask to the CDLC community what they want ?

 

@Magna Charter : "Do the official DLC in Eb change the chord names?"

I will check that, but if it's no, i dont think If rocksmith is doing something wrong, that shoud be a good reason to do the same mistake.

 

Maybe there are oldschool people like me, playing for guitar for 25 years who learn with song book and chord naming convention and people who learn guitar with rocksmith.

If it's a choice of the rocksmith player community to do the contrary of the naming convention. That's life...

One sure thing, i will change the chords name by myself as i'm doing it too much those last time :)

[MVega]

When I tried the ignore capo option in Rocksmith, it displayed chord panes for every single chord. Not sure why.

 

The Rocksmith developers have other non-standard ways of doing things, starting with flipping the fretboard as the default and calling what every other guitarist in the world knows as the standard view (i.e., low E on the bottom) 'inverted.'

[raynebc]

I think this would be the best option.

OK, that's something I can do.

When I tried the ignore capo option in Rocksmith, it displayed chord panes for every single chord. Not sure why.

I was never able to reproduce this, and that feature does not do anything but change the chord name lookup behavior. It won't cause EOF to export chords as low density (chord boxes), it must have been a coincidence. If you can reproduce the problem, let me know.

[mrmaton]

Maybe there are oldschool people like me, playing for guitar for 25 years who learn with song book and chord naming convention and people who learn guitar with rocksmith.

If it's a choice of the rocksmith player community to do the contrary of the naming convention. That's life...

One sure thing, i will change the chords name by myself as i'm doing it too much those last time :)

This is my preferred method too.. And from back in the day....

This, taken from a 1991 edition of "Guitar Player" magazine talking about an Eb transcription written in E.

"Tuning: Though the tune was recorded in concert Eb, we notated the music in the key of E, which is how it looks on the fretboard."

Yes, I'm old school - my Eb chart has E standard chord names. :smile: