what is a chord inversion

[mississippi]

What are they is what I mean and why are they called inversions

[bako]

inversion from Meriam Webster online: a reversal of position, order, form, or relationship.

With chords it is simply that.
Reordering the notes of a chord in different sequences will yield additional versions of the same harmony.

Inversions of 7th Chords (with no doublings)

1357
1375
1573
1537
1735
1753

3571
3517
3715
3751
3157
3175

5713
5731
5137
5173
5371
5317

7135
7153
7351
7315
7513
7531

Sometimes an inversion will obscure or obliterate the original harmonic function. So while it is technically still an inversion of the same chord, it can require careful handling or avoidance at the users discretion.

[ksjazzguitar]

In music, "inversion" is usually defined as putting any chord tone but the root in the bottom. The arrangement of the other notes is covered by the topic of "voicing." The bass note determines inversion, nothing else. It ultimately traces back to Medieval music where they thought that the bass note defined the chord, exemplified by figured bass (as opposed to the root as we now think of it.)

If the root is in the bass, it is "root position." If the third is in the bass, it is "first inversion." If the fifth is in the bass, it is "second inversion." If the seventh is in the bass, it is "third inversion." You can keep going up if you want, but usually you are talking slash chords at that point.

I repeat the note in the bass determines the inversion, nothing else. Bako's grid of non-doubled voicings are interesting, but they go well beyond the topic of "inversion."

Usually jazz notation skips over inversion notation and just uses slash notation. So, a first inversion C chord would just be written as C/E.

There's a nice article with graphics on Wikipedia.

Inversion (music) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Peace,
Kevin

[mississippi]

Originally Posted by ksjazzguitar

In music, "inversion" is usually defined as putting any chord tone but the root in the bottom. The arrangement of the other notes is covered by the topic of "voicing." The bass note determines inversion, nothing else. It ultimately traces back to Medieval music where they thought that the bass note defined the chord, exemplified by figured bass (as opposed to the root as we now think of it.)

If the root is in the bass, it is "root position." If the third is in the bass, it is "first inversion." If the fifth is in the bass, it is "second inversion." If the seventh is in the bass, it is "third inversion." You can keep going up if you want, but usually you are talking slash chords at that point.

I repeat the note in the bass determines the inversion, nothing else. Bako's grid of non-doubled voicings are interesting, but they go well beyond the topic of "inversion."

Usually jazz notation skips over inversion notation and just uses slash notation. So, a first inversion C chord would just be written as C/E.

There's a nice article with graphics on Wikipedia.

Inversion (music) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Peace,
Kevin

Thanks Kevin

By the way I just checked out your site, I like the free licks you have to offer, I'll be heading over there as often as I can.

again thanks

[mississippi]

Originally Posted by bako

inversion from Meriam Webster online: a reversal of position, order, form, or relationship.

With chords it is simply that.
Reordering the notes of a chord in different sequences will yield additional versions of the same harmony.

Inversions of 7th Chords (with no doublings)

1357
1375
1573
1537
1735
1753

3571
3517
3715
3751
3157
3175

5713
5731
5137
5173
5371
5317

7135
7153
7351
7315
7513
7531

Sometimes an inversion will obscure or obliterate the original harmonic function. So while it is technically still an inversion of the same chord, it can require careful handling or avoidance at the users discretion.

hey bako, thanks for taking the time to write all that out. it is above my skill to understand it, but I did want to say thanks to you

[mr. beaumont]

Originally Posted by ksjazzguitar

In music, "inversion" is usually defined as putting any chord tone but the root in the bottom. The arrangement of the other notes is covered by the topic of "voicing." The bass note determines inversion, nothing else. It ultimately traces back to Medieval music where they thought that the bass note defined the chord, exemplified by figured bass (as opposed to the root as we now think of it.)

If the root is in the bass, it is "root position." If the third is in the bass, it is "first inversion." If the fifth is in the bass, it is "second inversion." If the seventh is in the bass, it is "third inversion." You can keep going up if you want, but usually you are talking slash chords at that point.

I repeat the note in the bass determines the inversion, nothing else. Bako's grid of non-doubled voicings are interesting, but they go well beyond the topic of "inversion."

I feel like you and Bako are answering the question from different perspectives--Bako's take gets into some of the ways you might invert a chord for interesting comping, and your answer gets more at the actual musical concept of inversions and how one might write something in a chart or verbally explain a chord.

Mississippi, both are good answers, so you know. And Bako's response isn't over your head--take a maj7 chord, for example:

Cmaj7: C E G B (Root (1st), 3rd, 5th, 7th)

If you were to play that chord like this:

x x 10 9 8 7

The notes would be in the same order...

look at the first example in the second bank: 3571 (E, G, B, C)

so all you have to do is play this: x 7 5 4 1 x



















OK, yeah, just kidding--wanted to show you they're not all practical in all keys...but kick that one up into the high register, and you might be able to nab it (I can...barely!)

[bako]

Mr. B,

Yes, some of these border on stretchy to unplayable.
I address these challenges by playing these note combinations broken.

EGBC

E+GBC
EG+GB+BC
EG+EB+EC
BC+GC+EC
GBC+EBC
etc.

Kevin,

For me, the root position is also an inversion (perhaps the prime or initiative one)
I like to think of these voicings in an egalitarian way, equal until their sound proves them otherwise.

Thanks for providing a simple and technical answer, my Gemini brain doesn't always go to that place first.

[ksjazzguitar]

Originally Posted by mr. beaumont

I feel like you and Bako are answering the question from different perspectives--Bako's take gets into some of the ways you might invert a chord for interesting comping,...

With all due respect, Bako gave a great answer, just to a different question. Not once did he explain what an inversion is - he was explaining voicing. His statement, "With chords [inversion] is simply that. Reordering the notes of a chord in different sequences will yield additional versions of the same harmony." is incorrect. Again, he's describing voicing, not inversion. True, inversion is a subtopic in voicing, but it is not the same thing.

Originally Posted by bako

For me, the root position is also an inversion (perhaps the prime or initiative one) I like to think of these voicings in an egalitarian way, equal until their sound proves them otherwise....

While I commend your egalitarianism, I think that you'll find your explanation is at odds with the musical establishment. The idea (somewhat arbitrary) is that the root position is that starting point and the reordering of that (by putting other bass notes) are the inversions.

I don't think that they are saying that the root position is inherently "better" (although Rameau may have thought that) but that the terminology refers to process, not "goodness." They are not saying that the root position is "better," just that it is the starting point and that it is inverted to get the others.

You can call it what you want, but just be aware that if you refer to the root position as an inversion you might raise a few eyebrows of people who question your theory knowledge. And if you start talking about the mathematics of chord voicing, then definitely you will get some chuckles.

And of course in practice, inversion of guitar chords is merely a nomenclature device. The true inversion is usually determined by what note the bass player is playing, not by the lowest note the guitar player is playing. Really, if we are talking about a situation of when someone else is playing the bass note, then it might very well be better to refer to these as different voicings of guitar chords. The main time we are talking about true inversion with the guitar is when we are talking about chord melody, or if the guitar is accompanying alone. And even then, we usually just think of them as slash chords or alternate bass notes, not really the classical theory conception of inversion.

Peace,
Kevin

[mississippi]

Originally Posted by mr. beaumont

I feel like you and Bako are answering the question from different perspectives--Bako's take gets into some of the ways you might invert a chord for interesting comping, and your answer gets more at the actual musical concept of inversions and how one might write something in a chart or verbally explain a chord.

Mississippi, both are good answers, so you know. And Bako's response isn't over your head--take a maj7 chord, for example:

Cmaj7: C E G B (Root (1st), 3rd, 5th, 7th)

If you were to play that chord like this:

x x 10 9 8 7

The notes would be in the same order...

look at the first example in the second bank: 3571 (E, G, B, C)

so all you have to do is play this: x 7 5 4 1 x



















OK, yeah, just kidding--wanted to show you they're not all practical in all keys...but kick that one up into the high register, and you might be able to nab it (I can...barely!)

Thanks Mr. Beaumount

I'm going to get my guitar and see if I understand what you wrote. I'll get back to you on this.

Must be dang cold in Chicago now, glad I left back in the early 70's

[bako]

"While I commend your egalitarianism, I think that you'll find your explanation is at odds with the musical establishment. The idea (somewhat arbitrary) is that the root position is that starting point and the reordering of that (by putting other bass notes) are the inversions".

"I don't think that they are saying that the root position is inherently "better" (although Rameau may have thought that) but that the terminology refers to process, not "goodness." They are not saying that the root position is "better," just that it is the starting point and that it is inverted to get the others".

"You can call it what you want, but just be aware that if you refer to the root position as an inversion you might raise a few eyebrows of people who question your theory knowledge. And if you start talking about the mathematics of chord voicing, then definitely you will get some chuckles".

Who are these people I am at odds with, whose eyebrows I will raise, who will question and laugh at my theory knowledge?
Is the world really that dangerous?

I find it useful to think of all voicings as inversions, while observing similarities and differences in the bass, lead voice and inner voices.
For me theory is not about passing exams but using organized systems of information to assist me in the creation of music.
I like to be aware of the established orthodox thinking on a subject but feel no compulsion to be bound by it.
Thanks for the reminder.

[ksjazzguitar]

Originally Posted by bako

Who are these people I am at odds with, whose eyebrows I will raise [by equating "inversion" and "voicing"], who will question and laugh at my theory knowledge?

Anyone who paid attention in the first semester of their freshman theory course knows the difference. Anyone who's taken the 30 seconds it takes to look it up on Wikipedia. Anyone who's skimmed the first half of Music Theory for Dummies. Walk into any freshman theory course right now, explain your definition of "inversion" and wait for the laughter. Forgive my directness, but do you really know so little about terminology that you really don't understand what you did wrong?

It's like if you were a zoologist, and you decided, "You know, I'm going to classify birds as a form of mammal. Feathers are kind of like, fur, aren't they?" You would be the laughing stock of the zoo.

The word "inversion" has a few very specific meaning in music, and for chords, there is only one. And voicing ain't it. "Inversion" is defined by which chord tone is in the bass. There's no wiggle room here. No ifs, ands, or buts. I defy you to find me a single reputable source that conflates these two definitions.

Originally Posted by bako

For me theory is not about passing exams but using organized systems of information to assist me in the creation of music.

Great. But there is existing terminology that has specific meanings. And if someone asks "What is a chord 'inversion'?" Then it is irresponsible to give them your personal definition (without qualification) instead of the definition that is used by 99.99% of the musical world. It is misinformation. If someone hadn't corrected you, the OP would have been left with the wrong definition.

Use whatever theories you want to organize your thoughts. But don't use existing terminology if you don't know what it means. (Sorry, but it is very easy to find out what "inversion" means.) It's like if someone posted asking what a "mode" was and I answered with my "personal" definition that "'modes' are the chormatic notes that connect scale tones." That would cause a lot of confusion and the OP might not know whom to believe.

Originally Posted by bako

I like to be aware of the established orthodox thinking on a subject but feel no compulsion to be bound by it.

You are completely missing the point. You sanctimonious cries that I am trying to bind you to the "orthodox thinking on a subject" is ridiculous. I am not binding you to the orthodox thinking on anything, but to the orthodox terminology. There is nothing wrong (or even unorthodox or even remotely original) in your thinking on voicing. But it had nothing to do with the OPs question and indicates that you don't know the meaning of the word "inversion." I am not criticizing your thinking but your labeling - it is in direct conflict with how 99.99% of the musical world thinks of it. 99.99% (really, everyone but you) of the musical world defines what you were talking about as "voicing," not "inversion." I'm not telling you to change your ideas - just use the well established terminology.

A shared terminology is fundamental to any intellectual discipline. If you want to discuss a new discipline, the first thing you must do is define the terms. And we have defined terms in music that are in common usage. If you feel that a term is inadequate, then build a case for changing it and define, but don't just start using a new definition without telling anyone. And why not use the same labels as everyone else? Wouldn't it be easier and more communicative? Is it just laziness that keeps people from looking them up?

Unfortunately, in jazz guitar, we have a lot of self-taught people whose grasp on theory, history, and terminology can be tenuous. Sometimes they sort of half understand something and let their imaginations fill in the rest. But if you want to be taken seriously as a musician, you owe it to yourself to find out some basic definitions. I could understand if you had been confused about some subtlety of 12-tone matrix theory, but the definitions of "inversion" and "voicing" (with regards to chords) are extremely basic. I tried to be polite about it before, but you should be a little embarrased - like an amateur zoologist that thought that birds are mammals. ("Hey man, don't try and bind me to your established orthodox thinking on what a 'mammal' is - my definition is just as valid as yours. If I want to include feathers, you can't stop me. Stop trying to kill independent thought!")

I am not trying to discourage anyone from coming up with their own theories - that's a good and healthy thing. But of course, it might be a good idea to do a simple check to see if the theory already exists. And I'm not saying that we never have to make up new or even change existing terminology if it is inadequate - but it should be done openly. If there is existing terminology that means the exact same thing, then use that. If you have to make up a term, but that word is already in use and have a very different meaning, then chose another. If it is the only word that will do, then at least define your meaning of the term clearly. These are basic procedures in any discipline.

Really? Is it that hard to find this stuff? It's not like you have to drive to the library and look it up in Grove's (although I do recommend it.) I just tried and it took me less than 10 seconds to find an excellent definition on Wikipedia and less than a minute to read it. There are tons of sources on the internet and a basic music dictionary is cheap to get. Why is it that the easier things are, the lazier people seem to get?

If you had started your post with, "Well there is s definition of 'chord inversion' that everyone else uses, but I have my own definition (that is really under the topic of what everyone else calls voicing.) I'm not going to answer the spirit of your question by explaining the common understanding of the term 'inversion' but will use it as an opportunity to digress into my own definition, which of course has nothing to do with what your question intended." - if you'd stated your post that way, then I would have just rolled my eyes and moved on. But you didn't, so the OP might have been left with the understanding that your own personal definition of inversion was the same what it means to every other informed person in the musical world. That would have done him a disservice. It would have been intellectually irresponsible and ultimately indefensible.

Jazz guitar is already somewhat separated from the rest of the musical community. Do we need to distance ourselves even further by making ourselves a laughing stock because we can't get basic definitions down? Only in a jazz guitar forum could someone think they could get away with what you did. Go try that in a jazz piano forum and they will come down on you like a million pound sh!# hammer, in the words of Hunter S. Thompson.

Peace,
Kevin

[bako]

Kevin,

You describe yourself as an intellectual.
I would suggest that you dedicate even a small portion of that brain power to consider how to engage in a conversation without hurling insults.
I am willing to resume when you figure it out.

Bako

[ksjazzguitar]

Nice dodge. You've completely avoided the points raised.

In my original posts I tried to be delicate, but when someone keeps pushing back against common practice and common sense, it gets more and more difficult. Your definition was flat out wrong. And your insistence that your definition was just as acceptable was insulting to anyone who's taken the time to actually learn this stuff.

When you ask questions like, "Who are these people I am at odds with, whose eyebrows I will raise, who will question and laugh at my theory knowledge?" - how am I supposed to answer that? The correct answer is "anyone who knows what they're talking about." (And again, the theory isn't the problem, it's the contradictory choice of terminology and the fact that you seemed oblivious to the incorrect definitions.)

You are going to need thicker skin if you are going to try and make up your own theories and terminology and try to pass them off as established. (Your lack of qualifying remarks was a tacit statement of this.) If you are going to use contradictory definitions, then I (and I hope others) will always challenge you. If you truly feel that you have some revolutionary concept, then don't label it as something that already has a common definition. But of course, you had a rather mundane concept and you got your definitions backwards.

If you are going to keep insisting on not doing the most basic background research and insist on making things up and presenting yourself as knowledgeable on the subject, then get used to feeling insulted as people who have done it will be constantly correcting you. Again, the definition of inversion is extremely basic knowledge and I question the musical education of anyone who does not know it. (It would be like a chemist confusing ions and isotopes - would you trust him? You'd probably laugh at him and think he was an incompetent chemist - and you'd be right.)

Or you could just do the tiniest bit of reading so you can catch up to the rest of us. But if the purpose of this forum is sharing knowledge, then posts like yours (at least in this thread) are working in the opposite direction. Your definition of "chord inversion" was flat out wrong and if left unchallenged would have left people to come to the wrong conclusion.

One of two things happened when you answered the OP. Either you understood the question but chose to give and incorrect answer, or you truly didn't understand the question (as simple and elementary as it was.) In either case, you shouldn't have answered it.

Just go to the used books store and pick up a pocket music dictionary. It'll make things easier for the rest of us. Again, only in jazz guitar is this illiteracy tolerated. If this was a chimistry forum and someone had asked "What is an ion?" and someone answered with the definition of an isotope, the entire forum would have ripped him a new one. But in jazz guitar, it's just considered "individualism." Again, only in jazz guitar is this illiteracy tolerated.

Just post on things you know. There are subjects where my knowledge is lacking so I just sit back and listen. I don't feel the need to pretend that I know and make up some theory and pretend to understand terms that I don't. That is out of respect for my fellow forumites. Post on what you know, listen and learn on what you don't know. Don't confuse the two.

Peace,
Kevin

[JohnW400]

Originally Posted by ksjazzguitar

If you are going to keep insisting on not doing the most basic background research and insist on making things up and presenting yourself as knowledgeable on the subject, then get used to feeling insulted as people who have done it will be constantly correcting you. Again, the definition of inversion is extremely basic knowledge and I question the musical education of anyone who does not know it. (It would be like a chemist confusing ions and isotopes - would you trust him? You'd probably laugh at him and think he was an incompetent chemist - and you'd be right.)

Or you could just do the tiniest bit of reading so you can catch up to the rest of us. But if the purpose of this forum is sharing knowledge, then posts like yours (at least in this thread) are working in the opposite direction. Your definition of "chord inversion" was flat out wrong and if left unchallenged would have left people to come to the wrong conclusion.



Peace,
Kevin

Hey Kevin,

In the 500 or so posts that Bako has made on this forum he has proved time and again that he is indeed knowledgable about theory and jazz guitar. Clearly his response supports this as he gave the definition of the word plus voicing's of the chord in order of their inversion

You've only just arrived "here" relatively speaking. There are lots of members who have had a lot of university level jazz studies and/or real world playing experience here. (Tony Di Capria and Jimmy Bruno come to mind) It's easy to tell who these guys are. They use their name.

Then there are those out there that don't use their name. Those are guys you don't know who they might be or what their playing credentials are.

It might serve to remember that when you reply. You never know who you may be speaking too.


Regards

[RunningBeagle]

Inversion refers to the bass note given a certain voicing. I.e. drop 2 1st inversion. Without a voicing, you don't have anything to invert. Not to massage anyone's ego or excuse some very grating posts - but the first explanation is IMO wrong.

[mr. beaumont]

Accepted music theory and practical application/language are not always the same thing. That's a fact of life.

Kevin gave the textbook definition of inversion. Bako showed a very practical application in a chart form. Is the argument here that the root position voicings shouldn't be included? Or that the order of the other notes doesn't matter under the accepted definition? Why bother arguing the point? Both posts were valid...


And we're gonna get into a pissing match over it? Jee-sus.

I'll give you my opinion as a music teacher and a guy who's gigs jazz regularly. The textbook definition is right. But no jazz player would laugh at Bako's explanation, either. Time to get over this petty B.S. and get back to playing.

[RunningBeagle]

Your practical experience with these terms is not relevant to someone who is trying to learn them for the first time. This isn't pedantry, it's just trying not to editorialize and needlessly confuse a beginner. There are voicings and then there are inversions of voicings.

The practical importance comes from being told to play inversions of drop 2 voicings and not playing drop 3 or closed voicings thinking that they are just inversions of drop 2s.

[ksjazzguitar]

Originally Posted by JohnW400

...Clearly his response supports this as he gave the definition of the word plus voicing's of the chord in order of their inversion ...

Once again, he did not give a definition of inversion. Not once. Hes definition was, "Reordering the notes of a chord in different sequences will yield additional versions of the same harmony." That is factually incorrect. That is not a definition of inversion. Not once do I see the idea, "inversion is defined by what chord tone is on the bottom." That is the definition.

Your interpretation that they are in order of their inversion is an assumption. The first number could be the top note. Even if it is the bottom note, still he failed to make it clear that the bottom note is the only thing that defines inversion. I'm sorry, but anyone who says that anything other than the bottom note defines the inversion (for a given chord) simply does not know what they are talking about. There is zero room for interpretation here, this is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of simple definition.

Can you find one point in his answer when he mentions the word "bass" or "bottom"? (I don't see how an accurate definition of "inversion" is even remotely possible without one of those words or their equivalent.) To the contrary, he even defends his "voicing" definition of "inversion" in later posts.

Originally Posted by RunningBeagle

... Without a voicing, you don't have anything to invert. ...

I see what you are trying to say, but definitionally I disagree. I can define a "shoe" without explaining what kind of person is wearing it. If someone asked me what a shoe was and I spent the entire time talking about the guys entire wardrobe and not once making it clear that the shoes were the things on his feet, then that is factually wrong, wrong, wrong. That is not to say that discussing his clothing is not worthwhile, but it is not explaining what a "shoe" is.

The inversion of a chord tells us absolutely nothing about the voices above. There are a practically infinite number of voicings that can be above it. The two are not in any way dependent.

Originally Posted by mr. beaumont

...Kevin gave the textbook definition of inversion. Bako showed a very practical application in a chart form.

Again, he did not once give a definition of inversion. Nor once do I think he gave a practical discussion of inversions use. He did provide an organizational tool for voicings, but that wasn't the question. By implying that his organization of for-note voicings was the definition of "inversion" his answer was misleading and factually incorrect. Voicing is irrelevant to the definition of inversion. I just looked up Grove's and Oxford's definitions and found no discussion of voicing.

Originally Posted by mr. beaumont

Is the argument here that the root position voicings shouldn't be included? Or that the order of the other notes doesn't matter under the accepted definition? Why bother arguing the point? Both posts were valid...

Now, if Bako had given an accurate definition of inversion (really, it's just one sentence) and then gone on to say, "That's inversion, but you also may want to consider the following issues in voicing..." Then that would have been very different.

But he pretended to give a definition of inversion with a definition of voicings, conflating the two and not once really making it clear what inversion is. They are too different topics.

Originally Posted by mr. beaumont

I'll give you my opinion as a music teacher and a guy who's gigs jazz regularly. The textbook definition is right. But no jazz player would laugh at Bako's explanation, either.

Well, I'm a jazz player who laughs at it. The bass player I played with last night gave me blank stare before rolling his eyes. (True not a laugh, but he's a quiet guy.) Really, the guys you play with don't know the definition of inversion?

And for the record, textbook definitions are derived from practice. They come out of what musicians do and how they use them. As practice changes, the definitions expand to include them.

Originally Posted by mr. beaumont

Time to get over this petty B.S. and get back to playing.

But the question was not about playing. The OP was looking for a definition. Bako gave him a definition that was wrong by any intelligible measure. (Even if the question was how to use inversions, I still question it's values since his answer seems to be completely ignorant of what it is - confirmed by subsequent replies.) There is no way you can twist what he said into a correct answer of "What is chord inversion?"

Yes, there are practical issues invilved with applying inversions. But any discussion of application of inversion will necessarily focus more on bass lines than the ordering the upper voices. True, inversion can be considered a sub-category of inversion, but it is a very specific aspect of it.

And to me, getting definitions clear and challenging inaccurate "definitions" is not "petty BS."

I have no problem with different ideas. I have no problem people disagreeing with me. But when people start making things up or giving factually incorrect answers, then I will fight back. Factually incorrect answers are the enemy of productive sharing information. One of the difficulties of the internet is that there are a lot of people who don't know what they are talking about pretending that they do.

There are things that are subjective. The different "moods" or "qualities" created by different inversions for example. How to best use an inversion is another. But the definition is not. I'm sorry, but anyone who read Bako's answer and thinks it is in anyway an answer to the OP's question is going to be butting heads with me a lot.

People make mistakes. Bako should have just said, "Oops, I made a mistake." Or "Oops, I misread the question." Or, "Uh-oh, I guess I need to double check my understanding of what the word 'inversion' means."

But he didn't do that. He vainly kept trying to argue that the sky is not blue in an effort to avoid admitting that he had made a mistake. I will always fight back against that.

Again. People should post on subjects on which they have knowledge. If you don't know what you're talking about on a subject, then you should shut up and listen and learn. If you aren't sure a bout what you are saying, then at least qualify it with "I'm not sure, but I think..." or something like that. If you make a mistake, just admit it and move on - don't keep trying to defend it. These are basic courtesies in any intelligent discussion. I know it's less common nowadays, (c.f. Fox News) but this used to be expected. I don't think it's an unreasonable expectation and I will continue to fight for it.

Really, I love healthy debate. But misinformation is the enemy of healthy debate. That's why I fight it. I know it is undiplomatic, but I will not sit idly while someone asserts that the sun revolves around the earth - it is not in my nature.

Peace,
Kevin

[mr. beaumont]

RunningBeagle, I'm not trying to start an argument, but I wouldn't necessarily call that a practical application--it's an academic one.

I've never sat on the bandstand and had someone tell me "play drop 2 voicings for this tune, okay?"

My beef is not with the correctness of Bako's answer, we've gotten to the point that he gave (very good) examples of chord voicings--broken up by inversion. I realize academically root position is not an inversion, but the other three banks of examples he gave were very useful. Then we got the correct, textbook definition of inversion from Kevin. And it could have been DONE.

But Kevin takes a potshot, Bako fires back, and then we get "laid-back" Kevin's (his own term) textual dress down of Bako that was positively uncalled for.

Let me show you how this could have been handled:

Post #3

Hey, Bako, just to avoid confusion the actual definition of an inversion is ____________________. Misissippi, be sure to check out what he has there--an little beyond your questions, but a handy list of voicings that could be classified as root position voicings or different ways of voicing a first, second, or third inversion. That classification all comes from the bass note--put the third on the bottom, it's a first inv. etc.



And no pissing, shoving, flaming or bickering required.

[mr. beaumont]

Originally Posted by ksjazzguitar

It's like if you were a zoologist, and you decided, "You know, I'm going to classify birds as a form of mammal. Feathers are kind of like, fur, aren't they?" You would be the laughing stock of the zoo.

Only in a jazz guitar forum could someone think they could get away with what you did. Go try that in a jazz piano forum and they will come down on you like a million pound sh!# hammer, in the words of Hunter S. Thompson.

The quest for the right answer isn't petty. This text of yours I quoted is. You want to have an intellectual debate, right? Then learn how to make your point without dressing someone down like this. I guarantee you, no one cares whether you're right or wrong after you insult them.

[oilywrag]

+10

To Mr B's voice of reason

Tom

[Jazzaluk]

These KS posts remind me of Sheldon from the sitcom "Big Bang Theory".

[ksjazzguitar]

Originally Posted by Jazzaluk

These KS posts remind me of Sheldon from the sitcom "Big Bang Theory".

It might not have been meant that way, but I'll take it as a compliment. Kevin, the homo novus of music...

Originally Posted by mr. beaumont

Originally Posted by ksjazzguitar

It's like if you were a zoologist, and you decided, "You know, I'm going to classify birds as a form of mammal. Feathers are kind of like, fur, aren't they?" You would be the laughing stock of the zoo.

]Only in a jazz guitar forum could someone think they could get away with what you did. Go try that in a jazz piano forum and they will come down on you like a million pound sh!# hammer, in the words of Hunter S. Thompson."

The quest for the right answer isn't petty. This text of yours I quoted is. You want to have an intellectual debate, right? Then learn how to make your point without dressing someone down like this. I guarantee you, no one cares whether you're right or wrong after you insult them.

I stand by that analogy. It is an analogy of someone making up his own definition that contrasts the accepted definition. I don't see in what way this analogy is flawed. True, it's easier to see the uninformed nature of the redefinition of "mammal" to include birds. Perhaps my mistake is that everyone does not see the problem with redefining "inversion" to include all voicing combinations of the upper voices.

As to my statement about jazz guitarists being especially uninformed and tend to have an independent streak that sometimes leads them bizarre self-fabricated theories and definitions and misunderstandings about history - I stand by that. I would even say that in the classical world, guitarist tend to be less informed about many things. Part of it is a lack of reading skills. Part of it is a lack of formal teaching. But for some reason, guitarists (more than any other instrument) come up with bizarre and sometimes flat-out uninformed opinions. True, it's a generalization, but my observation is that it is generally true. Especially in the jazz guitar community.

I admit I was getting a bit acerbic. But if you look at my first post, on the subject, you'll see that it was still quite diplomatic, I did start out with a statement similar to "Hey, Bako, just to avoid confusion the actual definition of an inversion is ____________________."

Originally Posted by ksjazzguitar

...I repeat the note in the bass determines the inversion, nothing else. Bako's grid of non-doubled voicings are interesting, but they go well beyond the topic of "inversion."...

That is the only reference to Bako in my first post, in an effort to be diplomatic.

My my descent into un-diplomacy was gradual as I kept getting bombarded with factually incorrect statements. But the style of my rhetoric should not distract from the content, which I still stand behind.


Again, I don't jump on people who make mistakes. I jump on people who make mistakes and then defend the mistake - either because they don't know any better or because they refuse to admit they made a mistake. There seems to be a lot of that on this forum (like the internet in general.)

I applaud that there are people on here fighting for diplomacy. But I also think that it is important to have people fighting for accuracy. And I think that when we sacrifice accuracy for the sake of diplomacy. If a diplomatic tack had been taken here, any learner might have come away with the idea that both the correct and wrong definitions had equal weight. That is the opposite of information sharing. I put accuracy above diplomacy any day of the week. Perhaps if a few more rational an informed voices had come to my aid I would not have needed to go into berzerker mode to lead the charge myself.

But I apologize if my tone offended anyone. If people will try to be more epistemologically rigorous, I will attempt to be more diplomatic.

Peace,
Kevin

[mississippi]

Hey guys, this has been very educational for me. Yes, I'll re-read these post and absorb everyones collective knowlege of my original question. For me at this point of learning just one thing about the workings of music/theory has really help awaken me how much easier it is to understand how to play music on my guitar.

Thanks guys

[cosmic gumbo]

Whew! I heard that the jazz police almost went on red alert!

[ksjazzguitar]

Originally Posted by cosmic gumbo

Whew! I heard that the jazz police almost went on red alert!

Not really, more like the epistemology police. There was never an issue of actual performance, just in definitions and if it is proper to defend a wrong definition and put it on the same standing as the correct one. And at what point (if ever) are you allowed to get frustrated and started being insulting. (OK, that would be the politeness police.)

Peace,
Kevin

[mr. beaumont]

Originally Posted by ksjazzguitar

But I apologize if my tone offended anyone.

Accepted. But I'm not letting you off the hook so easily. Real talk here now.

You know your shit, I can tell. You also know a lot of stuff we haven't even tapped into--I can tell just by your vocabulary (and your grasp on logic when it comes to debate) that you've got a lot more to share. There's a lot we can learn from you.

But this is the second time I've seen you in a pissing match with someone, and I think of this community as above that. You have a lot of points to make, but I've kept a close watch on the often condescending way you approach memebers you disagree with/ know more than, and I don't like it. It pisses me off more because I like reading what you have to say, and just about every post of yours I've encountered has contained useful information. It'd be easy to write you off if you were just a useless asshole. You're not.

I just ask for the future that you be aware of a few things--one, we have members here of all levels who will help, whether their advice be spot on or not. I realize that's going to frustrate you, but use it as an opportunity to teach (which I can tell, deep down, you like to do) rather than talk down.

Secondly, the reminder I must give myself every time I log in: It's the internet. We can't see each other, we can't pick up on intended verbal inflections, sarcasm, etc. It makes it a lot more difficult to communicate in a colloquial way-- I have to catch myself as I post often to remember that what I'm typing might not "read" the same way I "hear" it in my head. For example, you stand by your zoo metaphor, and I stand by my assessment that that comment was a cheap shot, a low blow, meant to piss it's reciever off--and it worked. It was bullshit, and I think you know it--served absolutely no function in a "spirited discourse" other than to embarrass and say "gotcha" to the reciever, who'd now be more likely to fire a volley back at you than engage in actual conversation. That's an arguement starter, not a conversation booster.

I'm not asking you to change who you are--obviously a quick thinker, and a little less "laid back" than you've described yourself. I just ask that you remember that sometimes firing off lines the way we would if we were grabbing a beer (an offer I extend, should you ever be in Chicago) doesn't work here. Here we can think about, and craft responses (just think about what I'm doing now--typing over the course of 15 minutes or so, finding the right words, trying to make a point and not alienate or offend, as opposed to just going "old neighborhood" style and hitting somebody in the mouth like I would would four pints in me down at the corner pub) and it's our choice to decide whether we'll make that thought out response an eloquent statement, or a strategic attack.

[ksjazzguitar]

Originally Posted by mr. beaumont

...But this is the second time I've seen you in a pissing match with someone, and I think of this community as above that.
...

Again, the thing that riles me to no end is people pretending to know things that they don't. I don't like people making things up. I don't like people talking on subjects on which they are clearly uninformed and passing off their misinformation as facts. Those things will always get me riled. I find them intellectually insulting. I absolutely, 100%, with out a doubt, have no problem with people not knowing everything - I certainly don't.

It is very difficult to distinguish fact from fiction on the internet. And a large part of that is people who don't know what they are talking about acting like experts. Compared to some of the other forums I've been on, this seems a fairly small community (I don't know how old it is.) One of the way these forums police themselves is by more knowledgeable members shutting down people shooting off their mouths with misinformation. Otherwise the forum degenerates into a swamp of fact and pseudo-fact. I'm glad to see that people have at least stopped defending Bako's completely incorrect definition, but that's where some of my frustration came from - Why am I the only one pointing out that this is misinformation? Why are people trying to get me to say that false definitions are just as valid as the true ones? For the sake of diplomacy?

Maybe you guys want a social club more than an exchange of knowledge. Diplomacy is nice, but it doesn't change the facts. If you want to have any kind of a real exchange of the ideas, then people making stuff up and pretending to know things that they don't - people have to take a stand against that. Again, if you go back through the thread you can see that I tried to keep it diplomatic and it was only after I was being confronted by more and more anti-reality attacks that I got flustered.

Again, I have no problem with people not knowing somethings - as long as they don't pretend to.

I have no problem with people making mistakes - as long they just fess up to it.

I don't mind people disagreeing and arguing against me - as long as they do it in an epistemological sound manner.

I don't mind people making up their own theories and terminology - as long as it is clearly defined and doesn't contradict established terminology.

Nearly every pissing match I have ever gotten into on the net has involved someone violating one of these basic rules of intellectual honesty. The sad thing is that I seem to be one of the few that cares. I was actually quite shocked that I seemed to be the only one who thought that giving incorrect definitions was a problem. I tried politeness, but in this case it didn't work. I am not going to just say, "OK, we'll compromise - you can say the sun revolves around the earth and I'll say the earth revolves around the sun. Let's just agree to disagree so everyone can be friends." There are some things that are subjective, but this question wasn't one of them.

You are upset with me because of my hostile tone. But I feel that someone pretending to know something they don't and making things up is a form of a lie. It is intellectual dishonesty, and (to me at least) that is much more offensive than someone's tone - it's a lie and that insults everyone. I hold myself to these standards and I also hold everyone who pretends to be engaging in an exchange of knowledge (not a dialogue where people can pretend to know things that they don't so they can feel smart.) There are plenty of things where I don't know the answer - so I shut up and listen, that's how I learn more.

It may be hard to believe, but I am a laid back and mellow guy. But when someone lies to me - even if hidden in a pseudo-intellectual statement - that sets me off. I try to rebut it politely, but if that doesn't work, my love of intellectual integrity compels me to push back. If the goal is not truth, then I don't know what it is.

Is politeness more important than truth? Why has no one told Bako: "Hey man, you made a mistake. Get your facts straight next time and don't argue a point once you realize you're wrong."? No, everyone was trying to straddle the fence. The problem is that one side of that fence was fact and the other side was misinformation. People focused on my last posts and decided that they didn't like my tone.

Peace,
Kevin

[Baltar Hornbeek]

Yo KS, you used the word "I" 369 times in this thread. Just sayin...

[JohnW400]

Originally Posted by ksjazzguitar

assumption. The first number could be the top note. Even if it is the bottom note, still he failed to make it clear that the bottom note is the only thing that defines inversion. I'm sorry, but anyone who says that anything other than the bottom note defines the inversion (for a given chord) simply does not know what they are talking about.
Can you find one point in his answer when he mentions the word "bass" or "bottom"? (I don't see how an accurate definition of "inversion" is even remotely possible without one of those words or their equivalent.) To the contrary, he even defends his "voicing" definition of "inversion" in later posts.




Peace,
Kevin

Two assumptions I made to help me determine what he meant. That we read left to right and that gravity dictates that things be constructed from the bottom up, not the top down.