The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
Reply to Thread Bookmark Thread
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Posts 76 to 97 of 97
  1. #76

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Alter
    I dont think the guitar can "compete" with the piano comping wise, but i think it is an instrument that excels in minimalism. If anything, that's why most horn players or vocalists will hire a guitarist over a pianist for chordal work.

    Mick Goodrick has some great books demonstrating his approach on comping. He is great if you want to work on hearing and watching more of all the individual notes in a voicing, being able to follow them in chord progressions, breaking out of comping/shape patterns etc..
    Some time back, I'd have fully agreed with the idea that a guitar can't compete with a piano, comping wise.

    But, after having heard Chico Pinheiro and, last night at Zinc, Mike Moreno, I have renewed respect.

    Mike was playing harmony in the form of chord sequences that sounded great -- interesting voicings and strong melodic content within the comping. He accomplished it with some deep knowledge of the fretboard -- he was all over the place physically while retaining silky smooth voice leading. Chico accomplishes the same goal with a different rhythmic style. No disrespect to anybody else who is on this road -- it's just that I've heard these two players.

    And, while I'm on the subject, I found the Zinc Bar to be a terrific place to hear music. The place is friendly, $20 to get in (which I suspect goes to the musicians) and reasonable bar prices. You can stay for more than one set. Sound was great both nights I was there. Last night's music was Brazilian. I hadn't heard Mike Moreno before, but he was worth going for. I know the drummer, Rafa Barata -- who is as good as anybody I've heard. I didn't know the bassist or saxophonist (although it was the sax man's gig). Good players.
    And, a couple of nights before it was Jack Wilkins, Joe Cohn, Vic Juris and Mark Whitfield on stage together. Great bookings, great club.

  2.  

    The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
     
  3. #77

    User Info Menu

    Moreno is amazing with such a fresh approach, but still, harmonic wise i 've yet to hear a guitarist do things like say, brad mehldau, or generally have the harmonic complicacy of a good pianist. I don't know why, pianists seem to always have been one step ahead harmonically, just as horn players really shine on line/soloing material

  4. #78

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Alter
    Moreno is amazing with such a fresh approach, but still, harmonic wise i 've yet to hear a guitarist do things like say, brad mehldau, or generally have the harmonic complicacy of a good pianist. I don't know why, pianists seem to always have been one step ahead harmonically, just as horn players really shine on line/soloing material
    I take the point. Certainly the geometry of the instruments favors piano. I don't imagine that a pianist ever has to think much about reaching a 4 note voicing. Or, at a simpler level, figuring out how to move a note within a chord by a half-step. Usually, the pianist moves a finger one key over. The guitarist often has to refinger or even reposition the entire voicing -- and the guitarist has to think ahead -- it's no use to play a beautiful descending harmonic line and then need an unplayable voicing to complete it. Also, a guitarist can't comp with one hand and play a melodic (or bass) line with the other. The guitarist is always figuring what is playable and what isn't.

    But then, listen to a great player like Chico drive a band from the guitar chair as hard as I've ever heard a pianist do it -- and you think, maybe it isn't as limiting as it might seem. Listen to Guinga for voice leading -- astonishing and very difficult to play because of the stretches

  5. #79

    User Info Menu

    I’ve been trying to find a simple song that I haven’t had played until now and that I felt I couldn’t comp in a way that I like. This is what I found:

    Voice Leading-bildschirmfoto-2017-08-02-um-16-06-58-jpg



    Now I’ll try to describe the issue.


    In bar 2 I feel like moving along with the melody would be a good thing. I could either do that by doubling the melody with the top notes of my voicings, or by choosing a different top note and move it parallelly.
    If I go with the first option, I can basically think of playing drop2 voicings (which ultimately leads me to playing roots in the bass throughout almost the entire head) or playing the same voicings, leaving out the root (which results in playing 3-note voicings and makes me want to comp the rest in a „lighter“ way).
    If I go with the second option, the only notes I can really think of as top notes are 5ths of the chords. Since I don’t like the D-7 to have a 9 in it, I’d end up with either playing 1st inversion drop2 voicings, drop3 voicings or drop3 voicings leaving out the root again.


    Now if I go with 4-note rootless voicings, I’d end up not having a lot of options for the Bb triad. I can only think of add9 or 6/9 type of voicings really (in most cases I’m not a big fan of doubling notes). But then I’d run into trouble voice-leading the cliche in bar 5 and 6.
    If I stick with 4-note voicings with the root in the bass, I’d end up playing drop2 and drop3 voicings throughout the entire head mainly. I don’t really find that convincing, yet interesting.
    If I choose to use 3-note voicings mainly, I can’t find a really convincing way of playing bar 5 and 6. Same goes with the Bb/F in bar 7.


    I wonder how piano players approach chords like Bb or Bb/F. Do they double notes? What tensions do the use? And will I be able to translate that to the guitar, or will I run out of fingers and strings?


    I’ll try to come up with one other example that is more complex.

  6. #80

    User Info Menu

    Apart from what you choose to accompany the notes with, consider what to do with the spaces
    or in this instance the longer notes (dotted quarters). It is often good to inject movement when
    the melody rests or holds notes.

  7. #81

    User Info Menu

    Basin Street Blues... Trad repertoire OK? There is a pretty set way to play this song unless you are going Gil Evans and completely reharming it in some cool way.

    Basically - listen to recordings of the song in question and know your history.
    Listen to Ella or Louis doing it for instance, you'll cotton onto the vibe very quickly.

    1) Chord in bar should be a C#dim7 IMO. Never played C#m7 there in my life. It's a classic Ragtime/Blues type of thing - what Alan Kingstone would call a 'Monk Move' - check out Blue Monk and Don't Get Round Much Anymore for similar things. Swing era stuff, right?

    I think the drugs at Berklee in the '70s must have been pretty good. C#m7??? LOL. But seriously I think that chord is too parallel. YMMV.

    Bb6 Cm7 C#o7 Bb/D is what I would play here. Notice the voiceleading Cm7 C#o7 Bb/D. More stylistic, also less parallel. Simple voicings right? This is a historical cliche if you like, not an excuse to be clever. More blues than Bill Evans.

    The voicings are basically built around parallel thirds or tenths with an extra note added.

    What is is? Well it's a turnaround bro. A way of making chord I (Bb major) a bit more interesting.

    Rest of the chords are good though... I like the F7(+) - very stylistic.

    2) This bit of the song is only played on the head, so the voicings given are really part of the head arrangement. So 'comping' in this case is really bound to the melody. In terms of the soloing, that's done on the later 'round the houses' progression of dominant chords. So comping in the improvised sense is simply not something you would need to do on this bit of the song.

    However there is a similar example in Don't Get Around Much anymore which has a similar riff in the first couple of bars. In this case I would simply regard that whole turnaround as 'I' for the purposes of blowing and comping. Then do your regular shit that you would do on I.

    3) The harmony of this era was often built around basslines (Bb Bb/D Eb Ebo7 Bb/F for instance) because bassists weren't yet walking through the chords in an improvised way - they were playing in two or doubling notes up by repeating them and working from set traditional bass line cliches and licks.

    This particular bassline is one of the classic ways of going from I (Bb) to IV (Eb) - you'll also see it older versions of Blues, Rhythm Changes and so on. (Also these lines go through into Soul music and Motown etc - check out MJ's Man in the Mirror for a more modern use of the same progression/bass line, sort of pastiche Motown thing so harking back to that era to my ears.)

    See also the music of Jobim where the bass is similarly composed.
    Last edited by christianm77; 08-02-2017 at 11:48 AM.

  8. #82

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Philidor
    I’ve been trying to find a simple song that I haven’t had played until now and that I felt I couldn’t comp in a way that I like. This is what I found:

    Voice Leading-bildschirmfoto-2017-08-02-um-16-06-58-jpg


    Not sure how helpful this will be ...

    What to play in bar 2 depends on who else is playing. Assuming there's bass and piano, I'd probably play it in thirds (or lay out, if the piano didn't leave any space). That is, a Bb and D (strings 4 and 3) and move that up for the next three chords. You have a Bbmaj7, but I wonder if that chord really wants a nat7 in it. I suspect it will sound better as a straight major triad.

    If there was no bass or piano, I'd play it in tenths. Bb on string 6, fret 6 and the same D note. For the I I7 etc sequence, I might play a single note line, Bb, Ab, G, Gb. Or maybe add the third.

    Anyway, this is just another option to consider. My experience is that nobody ever complains that the guitarist isn't playing enough notes.

  9. #83

    User Info Menu

    Basically, land your left hand at 6th position, chunk around, wiggle your free fingers, pull off and hammer on, slide into chords and out of them ...

  10. #84

    User Info Menu

    Hey Navdeep, great idea, thanks!

    I played around with this, and came up with a note sequence I like, and it’s now part of my warmup. (I did this a while ago, and only recently got around to taping it).


  11. #85

    User Info Menu

    The firing order of a Holden six is 1,5,3,6,2,4. Is that musical?

  12. #86
    I think I first heard of stuff like this from Pat Martino and his Sacred Geometry concept and augmented triads.

  13. #87

    User Info Menu

    I know I talk about triads a lot, and often times am met by either those who agree or many who feel that it's too simplistic and the focus should be placed on our major, minor, and dominant 7 chords.

    The wonderful NYC pianist Glenn Zaleski just posted this really informative youtube video about voice leading and the power of triads. He basically sums up the entire process of how a musician can take triads, learn to master them and their movement, and then expand them outwards very naturally into lush, complex, dense, modern jazz harmony.

    It's WELL worth the 11 minutes it takes to watch.

    The challenge for the guitar is... how do we get this stuff onto the fretboard. It's easier said then done. But it IS possible.

    What do you guys think about this type of approach? Is it worth pursuing? Do you feel it's too alien to the physicality of the guitar? And should we opt out and focus instead on our drop chords and the string set parallel diatonic chord scale movement where we're often encouraged to spend our practice time? Should it be both?

    What's your take?


  14. #88

    User Info Menu

    The video presents an unusual definition of "voice leading" and then includes questionable examples. When the presenter concludes, "The omnipresent ii - V - I is, technically speaking, bad voice leading" I had to exit - no offense to anyone involved.

  15. #89

    User Info Menu

    I am VERY open to the idea of using triads as a basic unit of music from which to build improvised composition. The problem for me is I’ve never heard it applied in a way that spoke to me musically.

    The one exception is Garrison Fewell’s YouTube on melodic improvisation. His demonstration sounded like bebop, and I like bebop. But the video is only a glossing over, and his book is maddeningly unclear and full of important gaps. Sadly, he is no longer available to ask for guidance on his book.

    That is no knock on Jordan’s amazing skills and musicality, I just wish someone could show how triads can be used to build cliche lines and familiar harmony before pushing the envelope. Show me how triads can be used to make lines that sound like Charlie Parker, Jim Hall, Wes Montgomery — even if bad cliched imitations. As an art teacher once told me, if you can’t do a traditional painting how can you know if what you do next is innovation or a mistake?

    To me the examples of “good voice leading” in that video are neither good nor well voice led. To my understanding voice leading means that the voices supporting the melody in harmony move smoothly and in pleasing melody of their own. I didn’t hear that in his examples. His Amazing Grace was just grating. Almost unlistenable. He plays us out quite nicely at the end, so I know he can do it. But I wouldn’t want to figure out how to play his examples on guitar because I wouldn’t want to play his examples.

    Sorry. I really wanted it to be amazing and inspirational.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

  16. #90

    User Info Menu

    I'm sure there's something in this although it would have to be applied judiciously. The idea of not playing the same 'shape' twice in a row actually works.

    We could play the ubiquitous Dm7 - G7 - CM7 as ordinary triads but that would be tedious. Or we could use the usual guitar shapes like this:

    x5756x - 3x343x - x3545x

    Or we could use different voicings:

    xx7565 - x2303x - x3545x

    Or embellished/altered voicings:

    xx3213 - x5344x - x3243x

    But that's what chord melody players do anyway, isn't it?

  17. #91

    User Info Menu

    OK watching now.

    I like the simplicity of the concept. It's a cool thing to explore. I think his use of the term voice leading is not the understanding of the term I use. It is kind of a principle I use in jazz though...

    There's a lot of bad voice leading from a classical perspective in his examples. Lots of consecutives, but that's OK I guess? Also in basic classical voice-leading we can use a few 6/3 (1st inversion chords) in a row before we get told off.

    If he's going for a classical sound in the examples, it's not quite coming off to my ears. I'm a bit of a nerd for that stuff though, not necessarily relevant to jazz.

    The two part stuff is definitely not 'good' counterpoint, in terms of preparation and resolution of the dissonances within the chords but I can imagine Stravinsky writing stuff like that. I like it. Could do that on guitar.....

    Now here comes the extended chords.... Sounds great....

    I think this is a nice way to explore harmony if you are looking for a fresh approach.
    Last edited by christianm77; 08-24-2018 at 03:42 PM.

  18. #92

    User Info Menu

    One perspective on voice leading is to imbue each line with melodic content unto itself.

    Another is focused on maintaining common tones and moving other notes to nearest adjacent chord tones.

    Parallel motion while inherently non contrapuntal, constant structure is also a useful arranging technique
    within certain styles.

    Changing inversions as demonstrated in the video avoids parallel motion but does not in and of itself
    guarantee good voice leading. Glen's examples with simpler chords are mediocre at best but his examples
    with extensions sound great. Not hard to guess which model he puts the most energy into.

  19. #93

    User Info Menu

    Interesting responses. Thanks for checking out Glenn's ideas and chiming in. I can assure you guys I don't take offense to anyone's personal and aesthetic preferences.


    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77
    TBH I personally I find a lot of contemporary jazz harmony rather ugly. One thing that drew me to Jordan's ideas was that his harmony always sounds elegant and beautiful.
    Too kind. I spend A LOT of time obsessing over the tiniest and subtlest details of my understanding (and more importantly) my application and execution of harmony... so it's really nice to know that it comes across. I have for MANY years been obsessed with the aesthetic world of harmony that Bill Evans was able to build for himself and struggled with my inability to understand and (again, more importantly) create and control that type of harmony. I had small growth spurts along the way. Until I got into the triad thing. And then lots of doors opened up.

    I also love the dark, intense, ugliness that Pete can get from his harmony which seems incredibly influenced by the aesthetic of Monk (and others too, I know). Every time I hear Pete or get to play with him I feel ready to give up on Bill, focus on listening to Monk 24/7 and re-organize my whole approach. The Monk stuff is accessible with the triad approaches as well. It's just a different set of prioritized thinking.

    But then I listen to a cut from Bill and everything feels right in the world again... so I let Pete do his thing and come back to my thing.


    Quote Originally Posted by rlrhett
    ...I just wish someone could show how triads can be used to build cliche lines and familiar harmony before pushing the envelope. Show me how triads can be used to make lines that sound like Charlie Parker, Jim Hall, Wes Montgomery — even if bad cliched imitations. As an art teacher once told me, if you can’t do a traditional painting how can you know if what you do next is innovation or a mistake?
    That's literally why I decided to start an ongoing study group looking at HOW to begin thinking with triads... how to construct harmony and melody, how to understand the relationship between harmony and melody, how to analyze and play standards with them, how to develop vocabulary and improvisational freedom, etc.

    As Joe pointed out... we literally did an entire month just looking at a riff from Bird, breaking it down into triads, and seeing how he was ornamenting the basic triads to create the phrase. The idea being that learning the riff is great... but learning to navigate through the triadic pathway he took can help us then improvise countless variations through the progression that will all be based on the way his ear heard lines being voice lead through the progression.

    We also spent another month looking at the generic rhythm changes form from a very old school, "trad jazz", and bebop standpoint using triads. And during that month (I believe at the request of Christian) I broke down and analyzed the entire head from Anthropology and showed how it can all be seen and understood using basic triads with fairly simple ornamentation. Which also means that we can then develop a sense of improvisational freedom within the melodic contour of that tune rather than just running chord tones... as the triads found within the melody are an incredibly rich source of melodic inspiration if we want to get away from just running changes and to try to use our solo as a means of exploring the tune itself.

    But this thread and Glenn's video wasn't meant to be about me and my own personal approach and practices... even if we share out affinity for triads. I just thought others might enjoy seeing a piano player's perspective of looking at the basic fundamental elements of harmony (triads) and learning to move through them in non-parallel routes and being able to ornament any of the voices by seeing the triad note and playing notes above or below it.

    That said... Bird's tunes are FILLED with pure triads and lightly ornamented triads (sometimes with as little as one single added passing tone - what I would call a quadratonic... and sometimes with enclosures, neighbor tones, or leading tones).

    If you're looking to understand more of those ideas I'd say go straight to the source. Pick a phrase from one of his heads that you really love and see if you can find the skeletal structure within it. Is there a triad that many of the notes all seem to belong to? Does it account for 50, 75, or even 95% of the notes in the phrase? If so, you're probably onto something. Then try and take into account what the other notes are doing. What melodic function and role are they service within, or against, that triad? Are they enclosing a note? Are they walking from one triad note to the next? Is it a leading tone or a neighbor tone?

    Once you figure out what the triad is and think you understand the non-triad notes... have a go at just being playful and employing those same ornamentation techniques to that triad. See if you can improvise some of your own ideas this way.

    Some good tunes to check out... Now's the Time, Little Suede Shoes (especially the A sections), Billie's Bounce (especially the first few measures), Au Private (especially the first few measure), etc.

  20. #94

    User Info Menu

    I don't claim to fully understand what I saw and heard on the video.

    Apparently, my take on voice leading (which I obtained haphazardly, having never taken a formal course in music) is different than his.

    I think of it as trying to connect the harmony of the tune as smoothly as possible. That means finding the inner melodies (cello lines?) within the chord movement -- even you have have to add passing chords -- and moving as few voices as possible at a time without sacrificing the inner melody.

    I'm reasonably sure that a conservatory educated musician would express that entirely differently.

    I've never thought about a rule about not playing the same inversion twice in a row. That's interesting and I'll probably keep an eye on it in the future. But, it depends on the tune. I play the first two chords of ATTYA with the same grip (xx3544) and it never bothered me.

    Then, there's the larger issue which I think of as top-down vs. bottom-up. That is, do we start with tunes and transcriptions and try to internalize the harmony we already like? Or, do we start with theoretical building blocks and try to assemble them into usable harmony?

    The latter approach might have the advantage of leading to something new.

    But, that said, not everybody learns the same way, and I'm pretty certain I'm a top-downer. Just about everything that's in my playing came from hearing it played in a tune, except maybe for a handful of scales and arps that I often feel I'd be better off without. As far as finding something brand new -- I don't worry about it. Instead, I'm always on the lookout to incorporate just a tiny new sound -- and it's always one at a time for me, based on something I've heard or generated by scat singing.

    So, even though the video is intriguing, I don't think I'd ever figure out how to turn it into something I'd use on a standards gig.

    That's not a knock on the approach, but the OP asked for reactions. I think my "objection" would apply equally to other approaches which have worked well for other players.

  21. #95

    User Info Menu

    As a guitarist, the piano video needs some clarification.

    - He says "avoid using the same shape twice in a row" but what he is calling "shapes" are inversions. On the guitar, "shapes" are geometric events, the set of fret and string coincidences that may be thought to underlie particular scales and chords on the finger board, and inversion on the guitar really means multiple selections from this same particular shape (each inversion being just different parts of the whole same shape or pattern for a scale or chord).

    - I have to agree with others that what he calls voice leading is not the canonical meaning, way too simplistic for jazz harmonies, and that a lot of what he was presenting as sounding good, didn't.

    - He calls chords "keys" and chord changes "modulations"; I know that pianists have a peculiar way of looking at this from many discussions with them... try asking a pianist what he is playing at some point in a song and as a guitarist you will likely be surprised by the answer. Notice in the Barry Harris videos he says things like, (paraphrasing) "I'm in Eb major here but I need to figure how to get to Bb minor...".
    I don't know why, but guitarists seem to be resistant to this and generally adhere to a very strong tonal perspective; maybe the mechanics of the instrument?

    - "triads"... Usually presented as stacked thirds from the root, but once you play rootless extended chords the meaning seems to generalize more toward "three notes" where a CAGED observer might see different chords than the function of what one is "really" playing... sort of like Miles' suggestion to Herbie, "Don't play the butter notes"... where Herbie heard "butter" instead of "bottom".

    - Like others have mentioned, the fellow in the video is really in a very common situation for students, teachers, performers, and pros... they play nice, but their theory of how they do it just does not hold water. I've spent countless hours looking at it and I still have very little rigorous insight into how I really play.

  22. #96

    User Info Menu

    I think what I enjoy about this video is that it's setup to show a process... a method for growth. It lines up with the Bill Evans idea in Universal Mind. He talks about the problems students face coming from the fact that they're always trying to approximate the end product... and he recommends that students instead build a solid foundation with the fundamentals and learn to create simple, but authentic, music with the absolute basics. Once the student can do this, THEN there is a place on top of which we can build layers of complexity that all grow from, and are connected to, the fundamentals. So the growth becomes easier and more open ended.

    Not everybody learns the same way... but I personally vibe with Bill's point in a very deep way and find that the best players I've met usually (not always) seem to work this way. I think Glenn is showcasing this process as much, if not more than, just the voice leading idea.

    I think his examples at the beginning are good NOT in the sense that I want to buy an album of that type of playing and listen to it on repeat... but in that it shows how we can take the simplest and most basic element of music, and grow it into rich, lush, complex sounding harmony. I wouldn't want to listen to Barry Harris play chord scales through the 6 diminished scale either. It's boring and drab. But it's fundamental. And what he's able to then do with it is incredibly gorgeous. But I don't know how a student can get to THAT point without going through the process.

    I thought maybe a quick example of ONE WAY this might fall onto the fretboard might get us unstuck from whether or not we like his earlier examples and put things back into the guitar conversation and what this can mean for us and offer our own playing. That's kind of why I posted the video on a guitar forum.

    If we look at the root position triads of Dmin G C... we might get

    XX12.10.10X -> XX543X -> XX10.98X

    Like Glenn said, this just sounds terrible. First thing... we have to employ voice leading to make this musical (through whatever means we find helpful... his rule or otherwise... personally, I tend to follow the ideas that Tchaikovsky talks about in his book on the practical study of harmony... which are actually really quite close to what Glenn is talking about... a little more subtle and nuanced... but still forcing the student to change inversions... if with a little more direction as to how and why).

    How about

    X8X7.10X -> XX978X -> XX10.98X

    Still not SUPER musical. But it sounds better than all in root position... to me at least. Bland... but at least smoother.

    But where the fun can begin is that now we have this incredibly simple thing happening and (like Glenn points out in the video) we can now ornament these notes and treat them as different voices. I don't have time to notate out a bunch of examples in sibelius, and I've been wanting to test this new "notation" idea out... so let's see if this works. I'm going to write out the triad shapes just like above, but I'm going to put fret numbers for movement within parenthesis. Sort of like a Ted Greene type chord chart that includes melodic movement but without the visual diagram. I'm only going to put the melodic movement in the top voice... but the idea can be applied into the middle and bottom voices as well. One step at a time though, right?

    D-7
    x8x7(10-9-8)x
    G7
    xx97(9-8-7)x
    CMaj7
    xx10.9(8-9-10)x
    A7
    xx11.9(11-10)x -> xx765x
    D-7
    xx77(8-5-6)x
    G7*
    xx64(5-4)x
    CMaj7*
    x3543x

    The first 2-5-1-6-2 chords are straight up root position triads. Again, I'm showing a process of the most simple up through complexity.

    If you look at each of the first 5 chords, you'll notice that I'm essentially just playing a basic root position triad of that chord and then ornamenting the top note or using passing tones to get to the next top note.

    To show SOME of the potential for where this can head... I used some alternative triad choices for the final G7 and CMaj7. I used the E major triad to create a G13b9 and the G major triad to create the CMaj9. Plus I added the C root note under the G triad since it was the resolution chord and I wanted it to be really obvious. If we were playing with a bass player, that wouldn't be necessary. But an option.

    But in my mind, I'm simply thinking about/looking at the basic triad shapes and then moving around diatonically or chromatically against one of them. Again, the next step might be to try moving the just the middle voice. Then just the bottom voice. Then changing the movement between the voices. Again... it's a process. Or substitute the first 5 root position triads for alternative triads. Or use chord substitutions to create completely different routes through the progression. Or just sub one or two "tension" notes in place of the triad note. So for D minor, maybe change the D to an E. This can be an ornamentation that moves and resolves... but it can also just be an alteration or a suspension that just sits there and brightens up the basic triad that we're visualizing. Then we might get something like...

    D-7
    x8x9(10-9-8)x (can you see how this is just a simple variation of a basic D minor triad)
    G7
    xx97(9-8)x

    This is the same thing as the opening line from before, but with E-F-A instead of D-F-A

    What if we chromatically walk the E note (from the D minor triad) down to the D note of the G triad

    D-7 (* means sustain note through the two voicings)
    x8*x9(10-9)x -> x8*x88x
    G7
    xx97(9-8)x

    This type of playing doesn't actually fit into EVERY type of playing situation. And aesthetically it might not be what everyone wants in their playing at all. But again, don't forget... I'm talking about a method more than anything else. Starting with simplicity and growing in layers of complexity. There are a ton of directions this could head towards. This is ONE of the ideas I got from listening to Glenn talk about the types of things that are possible on the guitar.

    Can I just play?
    x575xx
    3x34xx
    x324xx
    5x56xx

    Sure. And I do that sometimes. Using triads isn't mutually exclusive from using shell voicings or 4 note drop chords. But I think it declutters the fretboard a bit and helps us see the structural pillars holding up the chord progression more clearly, which can overtime open up a lot of freedom for creating more movement, colors, and harmonic depth.

    At least, for me it's proven itself to offer those things.

    Not sure if that helps put this video in perspective. As much amazing stuff as I learned from my incredible guitar instructors, it was forcing myself to study harmony at the keyboard with a piano player/vibraphonist that REALLY helped me understand harmony beyond what seemed to be capable on the fretboard.

    Woof. That was too long. I gotta go get some work done now.

  23. #97

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by jordanklemons
    I know I talk about triads a lot, and often times am met by either those who agree or many who feel that it's too simplistic and the focus should be placed on our major, minor, and dominant 7 chords.

    The wonderful NYC pianist Glenn Zaleski just posted this really informative youtube video about voice leading and the power of triads. He basically sums up the entire process of how a musician can take triads, learn to master them and their movement, and then expand them outwards very naturally into lush, complex, dense, modern jazz harmony.

    It's WELL worth the 11 minutes it takes to watch.

    The challenge for the guitar is... how do we get this stuff onto the fretboard. It's easier said then done. But it IS possible.

    What do you guys think about this type of approach? Is it worth pursuing? Do you feel it's too alien to the physicality of the guitar? And should we opt out and focus instead on our drop chords and the string set parallel diatonic chord scale movement where we're often encouraged to spend our practice time? Should it be both?

    What's your take?

    Well, he is just talking about the fundamentals of harmony, avoiding parallel fifths and octaves, 7th going to the third of the next chord, etc.
    One day I asked about the guitar to my teacher, she said that was no problem with the guitar because it was acoustically different, it sounds acceptable.
    Anyway, with economy of motion you can have good results.
    In jazz they are 9 and 13, sometimes 11 in order to make forget that there are parallel fifths sometimes, parallel octaves never happen.

    On a piano...

    II V I VI II..etc.

    In jazz

    D C E F A
    G B E F A
    C B D E G
    A C# F G C
    D C E F A etc

    Those voicings are good to avoid parallel fifths and make the thing consistent.

    Classical harmony is something to know

    C Dmin G G/F C/E F Dmin/F G7 C Dmin G7/D C

    C G C E
    D F A D
    G D G B
    F D G B
    E C G C
    F C F A
    F D F A
    G D F B
    C C E C (5th omitted 7th has to go down)
    D A D F
    D G B F
    C G C E

    Ah ! What a mess ! I have forgotten everything, but that's the idea !

    Purcell When I'm Laid In Earth (Baroque)

    Gmin D7/F# G7/F C/E Cmin/Eb D

    G G Bb D
    F# A C D
    F G B D
    E G C (unison)
    Eb G C
    D F# A D

    The video is not about modern harmony.

    I agree with you, it's about fundamentals about harmony for people who only play fast made voicings.