what is a chord inversion

[timscarey]

Interesting. I've never heard anyone think of it that way. I tend to think of the melody as being the most important voice, and the bass (true bass) being the 2nd most important, but that may just be my "Baroque" mind. By "2 voice 'outline'" do you mean guide tones? I sometimes build chord voicings (for guitar voicings or horn pads) like that, but when I'm arranging for horns (violins) that have the melody, I always start with the melody. I try to make sure that the guide tones are in there and get resolved, but I "hang" everything off the melody. It's the same approach I use for chord soloing, I focus on the top note.

Kevin

yeah, by "outside-in" i meant basically that by the time you get to the point of writing voicings, generally, not always, you know the melody and at least the root movement. Now, as I build horizontally, I am always looking for a desired bass movement (usually includes at least a few inversions) so I write out the melody and the bassline, the rest is "filling in" the other voices, it's really only "outside-in" if the melody is in the highest voice, but that is not always the case. basically what I'm getting at is generally I construct chords in this order.

Melody, Bass, everything else. with the everything else being totally dependent on the first two voices. I'm digging this thread.

[JohnW400]

yeah, by "outside-in" i meant basically that by the time you get to the point of writing voicings, generally, not always, you know the melody and at least the root movement. Now, as I build horizontally, I am always looking for a desired bass movement (usually includes at least a few inversions) so I write out the melody and the bassline, the rest is "filling in" the other voices, it's really only "outside-in" if the melody is in the highest voice, but that is not always the case. basically what I'm getting at is generally I construct chords in this order.

Melody, Bass, everything else. with the everything else being totally dependent on the first two voices. I'm digging this thread.

When I look at George Van Eps's work , I get the impression that he thought this way. He has a lot of stationary bass/melody stuff with moving inner voices. Although he probably thought about 4 voices moving all the time

[ksjazzguitar]

When I look at George Van Eps's work , I get the impression that he thought this way. He has a lot of stationary bass/melody stuff with moving inner voices.

Yes, but of course he was doing a lot of solo stuff. Of course, if there is a bass player then the guitar player is no longer playing the bass note.

But if you are talking moving inner voices, then you have moved beyond simple chord voicing and have moved into counterpoint. When I think about "voicing" chords, I am usually thinking about static block chords (even if arpeggiated) or at least some kind of homophonic texture (alla a sax soli, which is often how I think about comping and chord soloing.) I think of counterpoint very differently. But Van Epps is a master of blending and blurring the lines of these and other textures.

I'm not saying they can't be played together, just that they work differently. And I still say that if you are playing with a bass, then the bottom note on the guitar is not a bass note but an inner voice. Most of the time (for me) the melody takes precedence over inner voices, but I do agree that it is a nice effect to have a static melody and moving inner voices or both moving in counterpoint. But that certainly is a more advanced technique (Van Epps' "Harmonic Mechanisms" is a trilogy of books I wish I could be stranded on a desert island with.) and that it goes beyond what I would call "chord voicing." I don't really think of "counterpoint" as a sub-topic of "chord voicing" but as a different and parallel topic.

Peace,
Kevin

[JohnW400]

Yes, but of course he was doing a lot of solo stuff. Of course, if there is a bass player then the guitar player is no longer playing the bass note.

Yes, I know. I'm talking about how Van eps music could give the impression that he thought about his melody and bass note first and filled the inner voices in as he went along with either parallel, oblique or contrary motion.

But if you are talking moving inner voices, then you have moved beyond simple chord voicing and have moved into counterpoint. When I think about "voicing" chords, I am usually thinking about static block chords (even if arpeggiated) or at least some kind of homophonic texture (alla a sax soli, which is often how I think about comping and chord soloing.) I think of counterpoint very differently. But Van Epps is a master of blending and blurring the lines of these and other textures.

Peace,
Kevin

It's clear we don't think the same about chords. I look for movement. I don't care what Voice it's in. I work on finding ways to move and connect chords in order to avoid static block chords.

If there is enough movement in the melody and bass then I don't worry so much about the tenor and alto voice. If the bass or melody don't move enough, then I look for ways to get the tenor/alto voices to move.

Of course this doesn't apply if there are other chording instruments and one has to be careful when playing with a bass player not to get into his range

[Jazzaluk]

If there is enough movement in the melody and bass then I don't worry so much about the tenor and alto voice. If the bass or melody don't move enough, then I look for ways to get the tenor/alto voices to move.

Nice concept John .... I was experimenting with this and makes sense to me. it helps keep things balanced in a finger style composition.

[JohnW400]

@Jazzaluk,

Thanks. Van Eps was one of the masters at this. I got the idea from his book of compositions where he holds notes in place ringing while moving other notes around. That opened up a door for me an help get me out of a rut.

The more I think this way (and work at it.) the less I think about the actual chords. You start to see moving lines.

Your right about it being a fingerstyle thing. I think that right there frees your mind up a bit

[Jazzaluk]

This really fits my approach since I usually map out tunes by reducing the melody and bass notes to half-notes ( I call them melodic sketches). I practice them for quite a while to internalize the tune and explore how it best fits on the fretboard.. Then I fill in the melody and try to add inner lines. The chords seem to just fall out by themselves. Sometimes I try to add too many moving lines and muddy the composition... But your simple tip seems to help keep the composition clean. I will have to look more closely at the Van Epps book I have.

Maybe I will post some melodic sketches for fun and conversation.

[ksjazzguitar]

I work on finding ways to move and connect chords in order to avoid static block chords.

It depends on what I'm doing. I tend to do a lot of chord soloing where I create a lot of motion by using reharms and chromatic approaches (alla Bucky Pizzarelli's chord solos) so the block-chord, homophonic texture makes sense. The point is that the block chords aren't "static" because they are constantly changing and implying new harmonies. My solo melody isn't usually static enough to allow that kind of inner-voice texture (except maybe on a ballad.) When the solo melody is a little more static I'll put a moving line in the middle.

Or if I'm doing a through composed chord-melody. But most of my chord-melodies are only half-composed or even seat-of-my-pants. I should do some more through composed stuff, alla Van Epps. I should probably look into that more.

If there is enough movement in the melody and bass then I don't worry so much about the tenor and alto voice. If the bass or melody don't move enough, then I look for ways to get the tenor/alto voices to move.

Sound advice.

Peace,
Kevin

[JohnW400]

It depends on what I'm doing. I tend to do a lot of chord soloing where I create a lot of motion by using reharms and chromatic approaches (alla Bucky Pizzarelli's chord solos) so the block-chord, homophonic texture makes sense. The point is that the block chords aren't "static" because they are constantly changing and implying new harmonies. My solo melody isn't usually static enough to allow that kind of inner-voice texture (except maybe on a ballad.) When the solo melody is a little more static I'll put a moving line in the middle.

He did master classes when I was in college. He showed us all his stuff from his duos with George Barnes - Live at Town Hall. Excellent Album. I finally tracked it down on LP and converted it to MP3.

His son went to this college as well. I never met him though. Jr. has a youtube out where he just smokes this chord solo. I don't know if it's improvised or just his stock riffs. Excellent none the less.

Or if I'm doing a through composed chord-melody. But most of my chord-melodies are only half-composed or even seat-of-my-pants. I should do some more through composed stuff, alla Van Epps. I should probably look into that more.

Sound advice.

Peace,
Kevin

I like both composed and improvised chord melodies. With the Van Ep's kind of thing I look at this the same way as single note lines. I started building a vocabulary of my own 'stock' riffs and then see what happens.

I may think of "do I want the bass to move and how? Chromatic, scalewise, up- down, mixed , pedal. Put that together with the melody and the inner voice options almost appear by themselves.



Another thing that helped me all those years ago was to take a tune and play it using different things. This is probably good advice for players when they're starting out learning tunes.

First play the melody as written, then up an octave (range permitting) then in octaves. Then try to harmonize the melody (3rds. 6ths ect).

Next, Comp and walking bass line followed by a Chord melody.

This is where I would start working on concept things like a CM in quartal/quintal, compound intervals. After all that, then solo.

A lot of work and a lot of the stuff didn't always fit the song but good experience and a good way to start building up your 'tool box' of things to use.

[JonnyPac]

Here's a little chart from my book that covers triad inversions on the fretboard. Enjoy!



This is how diatonic triads overlap for simple voice leading:

[ChuckAndersonGuitar]

A simpler and shorter explanation of inversion is - starting with a root position chord (1357), raise the root one octave. This produces the first inversion. Continue this process of raising the lowest note one octave and you produce the second and third inversions of the chord.

All inversions are voicings but not all voicings are inversions.

[ksjazzguitar]

A simpler and shorter explanation of inversion is - starting with a root position chord (1357), raise the root one octave. ...

OK, at the risk of being nitpicky, once more...

This is how to derive inversions in closed position, i.e. with everything within one octave. Of course, root positions and inversions don't have to be (and often aren't) in closed position, in which case this method often will not work. But is often how it is taught in the beginning, to keep things easier for the learner - but it has limited application in practice.

Peace,
Kevin