I recently decided to take up guitar, something I have wanted to do for a long time, but never did until now. I knew it would be challenging to learn how to play the instrument, but I definitely didn’t expect some of the seemingly basic difficulties I’ve run into early on.
One of those difficulties was the A chord.
The A chord seems easy at first glance. You have to hold down the second, third, and fourth strings (B, G, and D, respectively) on the second fret. Doesn’t sound too hard, but for many guitar players, myself included, it’s a challenge.
Squeezing all three of those fingers on the same fret can be difficult in itself, then you’ve got to ward off the ever-dreaded fret buzz.
Most instructional sites and videos seem to prefer fingering the chord by placing the index finger on the fourth string, the middle finger on the third string, and the ring finger on the second string. That method causes the index finger on the fourth string to be all the way back next to the first fret, meaning you’ve got to press the string down extra hard to prevent fret buzz (especially on an acoustic).
Not satisfied with this method, I tried some other suggestions, including barring (to ‘barre’ means to hold down several strings on the same fret with one finger) all three of the strings, but I wasn’t a fan of having to avoid or mute the first string.
I finally found a workable solution in placing my ring finger on the second string, my middle finger on the fourth string, and sliding my index finger in between the two on the third string. Not only is this method the most comfortable one I came across, it also allows you to get all three fingers close to the front of the fret.
To see a demonstration of this fingering method, watch this video by Justin from www.justinguitar.com:
Hopefully this helps other beginning guitar players get past this early hurdle with ease.
Do you play an instrument? If so, did you encounter any challenges with seemingly basic skills early on?
If not, why not? There’s no time like the present.
It has always seemed to me that the penny is an extraneous piece of currency, and we might as well do away with it.
I have a plastic cup on my desk which holds my spare change, for those odd times when I need it.
Right now, there’s no silver to be found in the cup–I’ve used all of the nickels, dimes, and quarters. Only the pennies are left. I doubt I’ll ever use any of them.
Most vending machines won’t even accept the coin.
There just doesn’t seem to be any practical use for the penny.
When it comes to buying something at the store, people are usually more likely to hand over a set of bills to the cashier than count out the change. The exception to the tendency is when the cost is a convenient amount–something like $10.75, $3.05 or $5.30. Nickels, dimes, and quarters are easy enough to quickly count that people are actually likely to take the time to do so.
But pennies are more hassle than they’re worth for most consumers.
They cost more to make than they’re worth, too. In July 2006, the cost to mint a single penny was determined to be 1.4 cents.
Of course, if the penny were to be eliminated, prices would have to be rounded to the nearest five cents. Many people don’t like the idea of that. But the changes would generally be negligible.
A 99 cent toy would instead cost a dollar, and a $1,549.77 television would cost $1,549.75.
The rounding, of course, would only be necessary when the customer is paying with cash. Cards and checks wouldn’t be subject to the need to round.
One argument against the elimination of the penny is that doing so would be hiding the effects of inflation. But inflation is inevitable, and as prices rise, the value of the penny becomes less and less. It only makes sense to cut the penny out of the equation unless the government decides to revalue currency as a whole. It’s not hiding inflation, it’s adapting to it.
Besides, there is plenty of precedent for doing away with the one-cent coin.
Australia, New Zealand, Sweden and numerous other countries no longer use their one-cent coin.
The only argument for preservation of the penny which I consider significant is that its elimination would increase demand for the nickel, which, at 5.5 cents a nickel, also costs more to make than it’s worth. But I use nickels. When I see one on the ground, I pick it up and pocket it.
I can’t remember the last time I stopped to pick a penny up off of the sidewalk.
At McDonald’s a couple of days ago, I heard what might be the dumbest question ever asked.
We ordered fries.
“French Fries?” the employee asked, emphasizing the word “French.”
No, smart one, Canadian Fries.
Bandwagon fans. Every sport has them. They’re the fans who follow success, constantly giving their allegiance to the latest and greatest team.
And their allegiance goes as quickly as it comes.
They rode high with Michael Jordan and the Chicago Bulls during the team’s glory years, but most of them would be hard-pressed to tell you anything about Joakim Noah, except perhaps that he’s the guy with the crazy hair from Florida. They’re too busy following the San Antonio Spurs and the Detroit Pistons these days.
As soon as the MLB postseason rolls around each year, they love the Boston Red Sox. The “Red Sox Nation” has become little more than the ultimate bandwagon.
These fans love Tom Brady, Brett Favre, and Peyton Manning. Take any of those three star quarterbacks away from their teams, and the bandwagon fans move on.
These so-called fans are the scum of the sporting world.
Anytime a team wins a championship, there is a legion of people who will suddenly be a fan of that team the next day. They’ll be decked out in the winning team’s gear, acting as if they had followed the team for years.
In 2005, after the Pittsburgh Steelers won the Super Bowl, you could get a Terrible Towel at almost any sports store nationwide. This year, not so much. Retailers know how the bandwagoners’ minds work.
It’s sad, really. Bandwagon fans miss out on everything that makes being a sports fan great.
For true fans, the ones who have followed their favorite team year in and year out, the seasons of success taste so much sweeter. They have lived and died with every play, they have been through every thrilling victory and every heart-wrenching loss. They know what it’s like to suffer through the bad years, and truly appreciate it when things are good.
The bandwagon fans, flitting from successful team to successful team, are nothing more than pretenders, and true, diehard fans rightfully despise them.
At the 2008 International Consumer Electronics Show, controversy was raised when “blogger” credentials were introduced, meaning bloggers received the “blogger” badges instead of receiving “press” badges as they had in previous years.
Bloggers and officially-designated members of the press were segregated into separate lounges, and many bloggers were displeased by the differences between the two rooms.
The press lounge was supplied with an espresso machine and freshly-baked cookies, and was conveniently located by the South Hall entrance. Bloggers had to walk to the far end of the South Convention floor to get to their smaller, amenity-lacking lounge.
Any events designated as “press only” were off-limit to anyone with blogger credentials.
Strangely, some organizations received varying credentials for their representatives. Some Gizmodo employees were inexplicably given press badges while their co-workers received blogger badges.
“Instead of all of us being united under the umbrella of ‘press,’” wrote Gizmodo contributing editor Adam Frucci, “some of us were arbitrarily deemed ‘bloggers’ and others ‘press.’ I’m press, but [senior associate editor Jason] Chen is a blogger.”
The differentiation between bloggers and press at CES 2008 raises a larger question: should bloggers be considered members of the press?
Traditional members of the press, from newspapers, magazines, and television news crews, have been trained as journalists and work under editors and with the pressures of deadlines. There is a standard for quality in those fields.
In general, bloggers don’t have the same training, and don’t have an editor to read their work and make necessary changes. They post their raw thoughts, straight from their heads to the web.
Moreover, anyone can have a blog. It only takes a few minutes to set up a free blog on services such as WordPress.com or Blogger.
So why should Joe Schmoe, who created a blog to post pictures of his truck, suddenly be eligible for the same credentials as a trained, paid journalist at a major event such as CES?
He shouldn’t.
But what about the serious bloggers? The ones who approach blogging with a journalistic point-of-view, intending to provide legitimate content and coverage?
That type of blogger should be considered a member of the press. They do exactly what journalists do: they gather and disseminate information about current events, trends, issues and people. They just don’t get paid. Not usually, anyway.
So why draw a line? While there are many bloggers who shouldn’t be considered members of the press, there are just as many who should. Even without formal training, or editors to guide them, those bloggers work just as hard on their posts as newspaper writers do on their stories and columns.
A blogger who researches, reports, writes, and edits is a journalist by definition, and it doesn’t take a paycheck from a publication for that to be the case.