Naming: Barre or bar
So is it "Barre" or "Bar"? The name of the article should be the same as how they're named in article itself. -albrozdude 23:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- They are barre chords. Don't ask me why, they just are. Onsmelly 05:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- Personal attacks are a bad thing, but can I just say, that is an extremely stupid idea? That barre chords did not exist until the guitarist for a 1960s/1970s progressive art-rock band invented them? You have to be severely ignorant to be able to believe that. It's crazy. Barre chords have been around for centuries. I was just advising someone on the Talk page for "If I Fell" to become aware of musical history prior to rock/pop, and don't assume that everything The Beatles (or Jethro Tull) did was innovative genius. Some of it is absolutely standard. Such as barre chords.
It is Barre, but they are not named for Martin Barre.Kurasuke 02:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
CLARIFYING: Barre is just an old spelling (from middle English) of bar and means just what you think. Use the dictionary people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Impapa22 (talk • contribs) 22:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I think it's safe to say that it's not spelled "barré" at all, because that would change the pronunciation to "bar-AY," would it not? I'm going to remove it for now, but if anyone has some really compelling reason that it should be spelled that way, it can go back. DaddyTwoFoot (talk) 17:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Oddly, I've played guitar for a number of decades longer than wikis existed and going through my library of old guitar books and tabs, I can't find a single one that uses "barre" instead of "bar". From Arlen Roth to Hendrix to misc. Jazz and Classical books...All say "bar" not "barre".
Did somebody reinvent the language since the early 80s when I didn't need books anymore? I think there would be a compelling reason, based on general guitar literature (perhaps this is an English language thing) to not worry about the "é" and wonder why it isn't "Bar". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 07:52, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
A google book search for "'bar chord'" shows 1,190 results, "'barr chord'" 5 results, and "'barre chord'" 1,800. If one adds "guitar" outside the quotes the search shows 518, 4, and 1,460 results. This indicates that "barre" is about as to 3 times more common than "barr". Hyacinth (talk) 08:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- The book serach is useful for veryfing that the article is properly titled. As per WP:OR, it's not a proper reference for inclusion in the article. I have removed it. --Kvng (talk) 01:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Title on image
The image's title reads: "A barre chord (so-called "E Major shape"), with the index finger used to bar the strings." Is there any reason for that "so-called" there? (As far as I know, using "so-called" implies a negative context.)
I will change it for now. If it should actually have that "so-called" in there, then feel free to change it back for me.
- "So-called" meant "colloquially" since the "shape" is named for the open position chord and this may be confusing since you end up with the actual chord played and the "chord shape" and as you can imagine this is "guitar-player speak" that classical theorists look down upon. Hyacinth (talk) 17:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Could use some work
The article seems to be centred perhaps on one style of teaching or playing guitar rather than a general view, and this leads to some misleading statements. This article implies that barre chords are just more advanced variations of open chords. For example, where it treats barre chords as transpositions of the "original" open chords (and indeed, says that shifting open chords is the "primary purpose" of barre chords), or where open chords are called "standard", implying that barre chords are somehow non-standard. But this is not true. Barre chords are just chords which happen to involve a barre -- there's nothing non-standard about them. A barre is a general technique which is not limited to being used for barre chords (Wikipedia doesn't seem to have an article for the barre itself -- not that I expect it to). Open chords are not in any way more "original" or "standard" than barre chords, even if some first learn about barre chords in this way. For example, some set of notes may merely be desired to be played, and when using a barre chord is the best way to do it, behold, a barre chord is used. The primary purpose of the chord in this case is not to shift an open chord, but the primary purpose is to play that set of notes in an efficient way. Indeed, these claims in the article appear to be unsourced.Atethnekos (talk) 01:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
- And eating is only for pleasure and not sustenance. Sure, your POV makes sense once you can play both open and barre chords, but you don't start out lifting hundreds of pounds, you start out light. Barre chords are "original" or "standard" in comparison to barre chords in a few ways, actually. Barre chords are named for their open forms. Barre chords take more strength to play than their open forms. They are harder on the skin of the index finger.
- However, if you have a source or sources you can cite which show that transposing open chords is "not the 'primary' purpose" of barre chords, or provides an example of a barre chord which has no open equivalent, that would be great. Hyacinth (talk) 17:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)