Voice Leading

[hed_b94]

Could you help me understand the way voice leading works in jazz?
Until now my focus was on improvisation, and not much on harmony.
Now I'm starting to get into it. I know mostly the traditional theory 'rules', some can be applied and some can't.

I know the basics of 2-5-1, 3rd goes to 7th , 9 to 13, and so forth...

But that cant be it. by those rules, this example is 'wrong' (and i'm pretty sure it isnt):
Dm7 G7(#11)
Cmaj9
C C# D
A B B
F F E
D G C

How would this progression be explain?
Of course it's a simple 2-5-1 with a tension, but the voice leading is "wrong", from a traditional point of view, and also from Mark's Levine point of view.

Using the traditional theory idea of "7th always resolve downwards" doesn't work in jazz. Considering other root progressions (in 3rds for example) make this rule impossible, since in jazz pretty much EVERY chord is 7th.

How should we treat dissonant? obviously jazz is much more dissonant, but should the tensions and 7th be played arbitrary?

In traditional theory dissonant must be prepared.
Can we just say that Cmaj7 is not dissonant? and if so, why is it possible?
I mean, what is the difference that make it possible to say maj7 is a consonant in popular music?

quite incoherent. I hope you understand!

[gersdal]

Originally Posted by hed_b94

... but the voice leading is "wrong", from a traditional point of view, and also from Mark's Levine point of view.

Where in Mark Levines book is that stated?

I don't think I've used the voicings you indicated much, but I'm not sure why they should be wrong.

[bako]

Some common tone motions for Dm7 G7 CMa

D D D
E E E
F F F# // F F E
G G G
Ab Ab G // Ab Ab A (Dm9b5)
A A A
Bb Bb A // Bb Bb B (Dm7#5)
B B B
C C C (G7sus)
C# C# C // C# C# D (DmMa7)

The G7 can harmonize every note but F#

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Write out as many versions of 4 part chords as you can within Dm7 G7 CMa.
Focus on if it sounds good and if it fulfills the II V I progression in some way. Don't worry about rules.
Life will look different after that.

[Fast Bebop]

Originally Posted by hed_b94

Could you help me understand the way voice leading works in jazz?
Until now my focus was on improvisation, and not much on harmony.
Now I'm starting to get into it. I know mostly the traditional theory 'rules', some can be applied and some can't.

I know the basics of 2-5-1, 3rd goes to 7th , 9 to 13, and so forth...

But that cant be it. by those rules, this example is 'wrong' (and i'm pretty sure it isnt):
Dm7 G7(#11)
Cmaj9
C C# D
A B B
F F E
D G C

How would this progression be explain?
Of course it's a simple 2-5-1 with a tension, but the voice leading is "wrong", from a traditional point of view, and also from Mark's Levine point of view.

Using the traditional theory idea of "7th always resolve downwards" doesn't work in jazz. Considering other root progressions (in 3rds for example) make this rule impossible, since in jazz pretty much EVERY chord is 7th.

How should we treat dissonant? obviously jazz is much more dissonant, but should the tensions and 7th be played arbitrary?

In traditional theory dissonant must be prepared.
Can we just say that Cmaj7 is not dissonant? and if so, why is it possible?
I mean, what is the difference that make it possible to say maj7 is a consonant in popular music?

quite incoherent. I hope you understand!

First of all, 3rds and 7ths always resolve downwards, but for one kind of progressions only. The A progression, ascending in fourth. (II-V-I for example). Since in traditionnal jazz music, these progressions are about 80% of the music, the general harmony tends to go downwards (if you write voicings with care of voice leading, for a standard, you will quickly see you have to go up once in a while, because resolutions bring you down and down, halfstep by halfstep )

Concerning your remark about Levine, you have to explain a bit more why it wouldn't be good.

Your questions at the end goes in too many directions. I don't know what you mean.

Cheers

FB

[Reg]

Traditional voice leading in jazz is for traditional musicians trying to understand jazz in their comfort zone... it doesn't work... somewhat like trying to explain color with black and white. Generally... what you consider acceptable and traditional voice leading or contrapuntal practice is avoided... I'm BSing somewhat... That is unless that's what you want to sound like... extremely straight... more like the pop style of jazz from old musicals, shows and movies. There's nothing wrong with many of the old tunes, but jazz players don't play them as pop or show tunes... melodically, harmonically or rhythmically.
Your concept of how voices move in simple II Vs... is one of many choices... the difference is instead of rules governing the concept of theory and harmony in tunes... the concept and application govern the rules... If you begin to understand that concept... you'll have a chance at actually beginning to understand jazz. If you want to go through an actual tune with examples... I'll gladly help... if your looking for a one answer or method of governing principles... somewhat like performing from memory or having a safety net... Jazz might not be your thing...
But if you do want to play jazz.... and you need structure to help justify or help guide your choices... You need to think of your traditional music education as music 101... and begin to move on... you have a ways to go... Reg

[hed_b94]

Originally Posted by Reg

Traditional voice leading in jazz is for traditional musicians trying to understand jazz in their comfort zone... it doesn't work... somewhat like trying to explain color with black and white. Generally... what you consider acceptable and traditional voice leading or contrapuntal practice is avoided... I'm BSing somewhat... That is unless that's what you want to sound like... extremely straight... more like the pop style of jazz from old musicals, shows and movies. There's nothing wrong with many of the old tunes, but jazz players don't play them as pop or show tunes... melodically, harmonically or rhythmically.
Your concept of how voices move in simple II Vs... is one of many choices... the difference is instead of rules governing the concept of theory and harmony in tunes... the concept and application govern the rules... If you begin to understand that concept... you'll have a chance at actually beginning to understand jazz. If you want to go through an actual tune with examples... I'll gladly help... if your looking for a one answer or method of governing principles... somewhat like performing from memory or having a safety net... Jazz might not be your thing...
But if you do want to play jazz.... and you need structure to help justify or help guide your choices... You need to think of your traditional music education as music 101... and begin to move on... you have a ways to go... Reg

One of the things I always wonder about is the harmony of more modern composers. (Debussy, Ravel , Stravinsky etc, or even Shoenebrg and his students)
Their harmony also creates 'trouble' if tried to be analyzed with the traditional theory. So, is it the same thing?

I'm not looking for one solution to use all the time, I'm looking to understand how to create as many as possible options that will still sound GOOD.
So sure, I'll move on. What is next?

I'd be happy to see an example, on a simple tune like bluesette, which have many 2-5's.
You said the concepts govern the rules, so what are the concepts?
Just like I want to know a scale so I'll have a pool of notes, I want to know harmony well, so I can have a pool of different concepts to use. Could you speak more about that? If it's not a drag, I'd be happy to see 1 chorus of chords, of bluesette. Hopefully from that 1 I could learn new things to make many more.



Bako-
Oh, you rebel.
Rules obviously are not universal laws. They should be treated as directions, and of course many times you don't follow them, but I think you should understand WHY it works against the rules, or what justified breaking the rules.

[JonR]

Originally Posted by hed_b94

One of the things I always wonder about is the harmony of more modern composers. (Debussy, Ravel , Stravinsky etc, or even Shoenebrg and his students)
Their harmony also creates 'trouble' if tried to be analyzed with the traditional theory. So, is it the same thing?

It would be related, because many (if not most) jazz musicians studied classical harmony, so would at least know of those composers.
The "same thing" in the sense that harmonic practice has moved on snce the CPE, and other kinds of sounds are acceptable. Jazz certainly has "common practices" of its own. (Which help to define it as "jazz" of course.)

Originally Posted by hed_b94

You said the concepts govern the rules, so what are the concepts?

Good question, and I can't really give you chapter and verse.

IMO, a good rule of thumb is first to accept that jazz does indeed regard maj7s as consonant (on minor as well as major chords), and will even add 9ths, 6ths or #11s to them (well not #11s on minors, although AFAIK perfect 11s are OK on tonic minors).
And if they can be regarded as technically dissonant by definition, then we accept that jazz regards them as "stable dissonances", if that's not a contradiction in terms! Blues will often end on a tonic with a flattened 7th (dom7-type), and regard that as perfectly normal. Maybe they (we) just like the air of ambiguity those chords create - as if the classical habit of the final plain major triad is too cheesy and obvious. (Life doesn't have neat endings like that .)
Anyway, we start from those assumptions about tonic maj7s. Jazz voice-leading is then about creating half-step moves between chords (the other chords will all have b7s, of course, with the exception of IV). In the standard ii-V-I, we have the classical 4-3 and 7-8. But jazz likes to invent other half-step moves - and anything goes as long as it ends on one of the chord tones or consonant extensions of the tonic. So lines can rise as well as fall (although falls are still more common).
So, in your example, we insert that C# to make a line up from C to D, instead of the more conventional (and therefore less interesting) C-B-C move. We could just as well go from A on Dm7 to Ab on the G7 (b9) to G on the C. Or from A to B via A# on the G7 (#9). Or D-D#-E.
All these (and probably more) are acceptable.
You'll notice that the alterations are all on the V7 chord. It's much more unusual to alter ii or IV chords as much, because their function is more fragile. We can turn a major key ii chord (min7) into a m7b5 (or the IV into a minor iv), but that's about as far as it goes - unless we turn it into a secondary dominant, in which case we have all the freedom of dom7 alteration that we have on the V chord.
The plethora of chromatic alterations on the V7 chord results in (or is a result of) the practice of tritone substitution. This is related to the classical concept of the augmented 6th chord, but is more liberally applied. Eg, in key of C, we might lead to the G7 chord by way of Ab7 - and regard that as a tritone sub of D7 (V/V); this is very similar to the classical German 6th. But jazz uses tritone subs anywhere, not just to resolve to V.
So we can use Db7 in place of G7 in between Dm7 and Cmaj7. The Db7 will have a #11 (G), it shares the 3rd and 7th (enharmonically respelled) and its other chord tones represent various alterations on the original G7. (IOW the Db7#11 can have a major 9th (Eb) or major 13th (Bb) too.) In a sense they are the same chord (only the bass note is different). The point always being that extra chord tones on the Db7 are put there to make chromatic transitions between the Dm7 and Cmaj7 (or C6, C69, whatever).

I haven't studied jazz harmony in depth, but it seems to me this basic concept (alteration to get more chromatic voice-leading) explains all the functional harmony games jazz gets up to - at least to my satisfaction (but then I never studied classical harmony much either ).
Modal jazz harmony is another story altogether...

[bako]

hed_94

I don't mind the moniker of rebel, but my non-rebellious intention was to say freely experiment first, form your own opinion about what you like, what you find intriguing and then compare your findings to the rule.

[JakeAcci]

Originally Posted by bako

Some common tone motions for Dm7 G7 CMa

D D D
E E E
F F F# // F F E
G G G
Ab Ab G // Ab Ab A (Dm9b5)
A A A
Bb Bb A // Bb Bb B (Dm7#5)
B B B
C C C (G7sus)
C# C# C // C# C# D (DmMa7)

The G7 can harmonize every note but F#

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Write out as many versions of 4 part chords as you can within Dm7 G7 CMa.
Focus on if it sounds good and if it fulfills the II V I progression in some way. Don't worry about rules.
Life will look different after that.

Cool list!

If feeling spicy, you could resolve to G#/Ab on the Cmaj7(#5) as well.

A A Ab

G G G#

G Ab Ab

A Ab Ab

[Reg]

A very simple question... does a interval resolve without the actual traditional physical voice leading movement. Does octave transposition work... does deceptive resolution... does implied movement or resolution... what about organized time displacement of voice leading and resolutions... with longer displacements... What happens when one misses or is unaware of of how the voice leading or resolution was implied... did it happen... I'm simply trying to help us realize... that voice leading is just a security blanket to make us feel were in control of playing jazz with traditional harmonic movement and resolutions. If your looking for voice leading to help you understand jazz harmony... good luck. It's somewhat like calling blue notes color... or Modal interchange borrowing chords...
Hey Hedb94... Sure would be very happy to... what's very cool is the new tune for the Practical Standards Group is going to be Bluesette... Ill make a playing example of analysis with examples of different harmonic approaches... and how those different concepts create the guidelines, (rules), for how one could play Bluesette . Reg

[Fast Bebop]

Originally Posted by Reg

If your looking for voice leading to help you understand jazz harmony... good luck.

Of course it does. I spent 2 years doing harmonizations, one per week. First, just find the "good" chords (at appreciation of the teacher), the most natural way to make sound the melody. Then make voicings, with "academic" voice leading. Man, I've spent hundreds of hours doing that. And clearly, I have a much better comprehension of how voices work together, and a deeper knowledge of harmony. That's one thing. The most important is still to play, experiment, and "find our own way", but seriously, you are sometimes patronizing. It's ok, and important to learn things the classic way. Or tell me at least how you did it. Knowing tradition allows you to get out of it whenever you want. I'm no traditionnalist, but it's insulting for the jazz tradition.

No offenses at all, but you seem so reluctant to traditionnal thinking. I appreciate that, but sometimes it's annoying :-)

Cheers,

FB

[Reg]

hey FB... sure I am trying to push buttons, to motivate... whatever it takes to open traditionally trained ears to be able to hear and understand that jazz has different organizational principles with the use of harmony... yes I am classically trained... have taught, composed , arranged and still play, compose where that is the source of how I approach. But when I approach from that set of governing principles and concept of hearing ... I'm aware of it and make a conscious effort to reflect that. I think I've said a few time... one needs to understand traditional theory and harmony etc... that's fairly obvious and pretty much required..,. but for the most part that's like M101, when beginning to understand jazz concepts of harmony.
I am reluctant to pushing traditional musical thinking... because generally it's one way or the highway and tends to close musicians ears as opposed to opening...
It's the beginning not the end... somewhat like realizing there are more colors than black and white.
Getting back to voice leading... the entire concept of voice leading and as a source of understanding harmony is simply... one application of one understanding... one method of establishing guidelines for harmonic movement... there are many more methods of guiding voice leading just in it's self.
I'm sorry if my comments rub you wrong... I mean nothing personally... that's a cool tune,(nothing personal)...hell I can't really remember any of your playing posts... maybe you already have it all together... but sometimes many of my comments go above or below readers... they comprehend the technique or application as the concept... or focus on one part of a concept that they understand and sometimes... miss the forest because of focusing on the trees... sorry weak analogy...
Does me annoying you motivate??? Does it make you want to have a better understanding of the topic... In the end that's really what I'm trying to to... I can't tell you how things are ... you need to get that together yourself... as you said "find your own way". All I'm trying to do is share what I've learned from many years being involved in music at many level. Hell... I'm just a guitar player... what the hell do I know...right... Reg

[hed_b94]

Originally Posted by Reg

hey FB... sure I am trying to push buttons, to motivate... whatever it takes to open traditionally trained ears to be able to hear and understand that jazz has different organizational principles with the use of harmony... yes I am classically trained... have taught, composed , arranged and still play, compose where that is the source of how I approach. But when I approach from that set of governing principles and concept of hearing ... I'm aware of it and make a conscious effort to reflect that. I think I've said a few time... one needs to understand traditional theory and harmony etc... that's fairly obvious and pretty much required..,. but for the most part that's like M101, when beginning to understand jazz concepts of harmony.
I am reluctant to pushing traditional musical thinking... because generally it's one way or the highway and tends to close musicians ears as opposed to opening...
It's the beginning not the end... somewhat like realizing there are more colors than black and white.
Getting back to voice leading... the entire concept of voice leading and as a source of understanding harmony is simply... one application of one understanding... one method of establishing guidelines for harmonic movement... there are many more methods of guiding voice leading just in it's self.
I'm sorry if my comments rub you wrong... I mean nothing personally... that's a cool tune,(nothing personal)...hell I can't really remember any of your playing posts... maybe you already have it all together... but sometimes many of my comments go above or below readers... they comprehend the technique or application as the concept... or focus on one part of a concept that they understand and sometimes... miss the forest because of focusing on the trees... sorry weak analogy...
Does me annoying you motivate??? Does it make you want to have a better understanding of the topic... In the end that's really what I'm trying to to... I can't tell you how things are ... you need to get that together yourself... as you said "find your own way". All I'm trying to do is share what I've learned from many years being involved in music at many level. Hell... I'm just a guitar player... what the hell do I know...right... Reg

Thanks for taking the time and answering.

I agree with you, as I said - applying traditional theory to jazz just doesn't work. but the idea of 'voice leading is just one way' is making me confused.
In the post before this one, you asked few questions that I already asked myself (on implied resolutions, and how time and rhythm affects voice leading) but that is all part of voice leading. It's just not that traditional. (Actually I've read about implied resolutions of V9 in a very traditional harmony book..)
So I get if you say - unconventional voice leading. but shouldn't we still study that?
This is where I get confused by you. You say study traditional harmony, but it's only the beginning. What is next?

Eventually what I'm saying is that music is music is music. We shouldn't make the dichotomy of 'classical music theory' and 'jazz theory'.
Maybe jazz has different voice leading ideas (as you said, the different concepts make different 'rules', or directions, of voice leading) but the idea itself of voice leading still exists, and I think we should still try to understand it. Also I'd say that jazz harmony can be quite similar to modern 'classical' harmony. again - if it's the same, then the same rules apply.

Just because jazz is based on improvisation doesn't mean we shouldn't analyze our chords carefully like classical guys do. Eventually when I listen to a record, I hear music, and that can and should be analyzed.

Another point, again going back to your previous post - all the things you said there, are never taught in jazz harmony books. Why is that? Why should we make everything so intuitive about jazz?


Just like I won't understand Beethoven by voice leading alone, I don't think I'll understand jazz harmony by voice leading alone. I think it's the combination of everything, and if it is, then I should probably learn voice leading.

[Franklin52]

Originally Posted by Reg

Hell... I'm just a guitar player... Reg

Yeah, but one of the best here on these forums ...

Reg, I'm looking for your example and analyse of Bluesette, thanks.

[Reg]

Thanks Franklin52... yea bluesette will be fun.
Hey hedb94... OK... again remember there are many methods of voice leading... which can reflect what jazz harmonic concept your using as reference... not the other way around. The voice leading is a product of the harmonic concept... the harmonic concept is not a product of the voice leading... although if voice leading design was your harmonic concept... say a structural use of constant structure... the voice leading could be thought of as the constant structural principle, which could be part or all of the harmonic concept.
Which brings up a problem when we try and compare traditional or classical style music with jazz. Generally when we compose... in the classic style... we expect what's notated generally to be performed. When we compose in the jazz style we expect much more than what we simply notate... The notation has much more meaning. I expect... by how I write out the changes or simply say in a certain style... to get much more than I actually notate. And I expect this to have somewhat of a life... not be the same every time.
The voice leading can be different every time the tune's played... if anything I don't want the voice leading to follow typical least amount of movement and traditional interval resolutions... unless that's what I want...
I make references to musicians playing jazz tunes and then there are jazz players who play tunes... when I joke about players being "straight"... that's one of the characteristics that's pretty hard to miss... not that jazz players don't also voice lead in traditional practice... but that when something else is implied... they hear it and react. Not good or bad... but very different.
So sure study voice leading, all the different methods and why.
I'll try and show some straight as well as a few other concepts of voice leading when I post a video of analysis of bluesette... Reg

[Reg]

I'm putting in a plug for one of my regular gigs... this Sunday I'll be performing with a B-3 trio... we'll be burnin up the place... and we're always locked in the groove. I'll be broadcasting the gig live on the net.
Sunday 3pm -6pm Pacific standard time. I'm pushing the gig because I'll make sure we play some tunes for us to analyze and see in live jazz setting. We'll cover some version of Bluesette, I'll write out a Jesse van Ruller tune, either Secret Champ or Circles and a Martijn van Iterson tune from his "The Whole Bunch" CD. We don't have set lists... we just take off... it's one of my favorite gigs.
I'll post The Web site Sat. Morning... Reg

[wizard3739]

Hey Reg! I will be waiting for Saturday morning. Should be another good opportunity to learn something. "Bluesette" is one of my favorite tunes.

wiz

[Franklin52]

Originally Posted by Reg

I'm putting in a plug for one of my regular gigs... this Sunday I'll be performing with a B-3 trio... we'll be burnin up the place... and we're always locked in the groove. I'll be broadcasting the gig live on the net.
Sunday 3pm -6pm Pacific standard time. I'm pushing the gig because I'll make sure we play some tunes for us to analyze and see in live jazz setting. We'll cover some version of Bluesette, I'll write out a Jesse van Ruller tune, either Secret Champ or Circles and a Martijn van Iterson tune from his "The Whole Bunch" CD. We don't have set lists... we just take off... it's one of my favorite gigs.
I'll post The Web site Sat. Morning... Reg

It's gonna be a late night for me but I can't wait to see the gig.

Thanks Reg!

[Reg]

I'll try and record at least a few tunes and post...Reg

[timscarey]

The concept of voice leading is designed for several purposes employing several (many) different methods depending on the goal. some things it helps with.


Voicing full chords in motion with a specific number if monophonic instruments, with the aim of keeping each instrument within it's range, avoiding the crossing of voices, creating individual parts that each sound "good" on their own, creating close or spread out voicings, etc....

depending on how many voices you have at once certain notes will take a higher priority for each chord, even with 3 voices, there are always several options for each chord.

in Jazz voice leading, the root of the chord is assumed by the bass player and usually left out unless needed (or wanted) in the upper voices. This is the reason I suspect you think your example is "wrong" my Levine's standards. in your case the roots are on bottom and moving by 4th. Keep in mind that when you play them that way on the guitar you are playing the role of both the guitar/piano player AND the bass player.

A few things I like to keep in mind other than the above mentioned considerations....

The interval of a minor 9th is VERY dissonant and can kill a voicing, it is usually to be avoided. certain chord types sound VERY different when inverted. minor 2nds in the top 2 voices is to be used with caution, intervals greater than a 6th between any 2 voices can be tricky.


remember, adding or removing one string from a guitar voicing is like adding one more horn in the sax section, or another singer in the choir.

[brwnhornet59]

Originally Posted by Reg

I'll post The Web site Sat. Morning... Reg

Cool!

[hed_b94]

Hey Reg, I'm also looking forward for your gig.

I've been thinking about this and I see what you are saying. There is no point in learning one method of voice leading like in traditional harmony, it just limits our options.
So my question now is this - how SHOULD I learn jazz harmony, then?
How do I connenct my knowledge of scale-chord theory, and analysis of harmony to actually playing chords?

[Reg]

Short answer... there are many methods or concepts that we can use to create guidelines for how we approach playing a jazz. Most of those methods and concept can be combined... mixed up how ever one chooses to apply. What generally sounds good is when we balance what we use...
Traditional theory and harmonic concepts generally are still where we start....like I said, music 101.
For me personally and how I hear jazz... you need to understand Modal interchange to the point that it's not an application, a method of analysis... or way to explain where some chords come from.... It needs to become how you look and hear harmony... the default concept. Rather than start with basic analysis or traditional methods of playing or analyzing tunes... start with the doors of modal interchange always open... playing or hearing music from a traditional concept... is one method or concept... one of many other choices.
And the same goes for function and resolutions... start with a modal style of guiding principles.... All that really means is don't assume or always start with traditional functional harmony and resolutions... You need to develop your ears to be aware of what's being implied...
So your knowledge of chord scale theory... that is if you understand... it really has nothing to do with what scale to play over what chord... but really simply informs us of the harmonic concept being referenced... The scale reference is simply the first step to becoming aware of the complete collection of notes and source... one of the methods jazz players become aware of what the composers harmonic or melodic concept was... and when we're actually playing... it also works in similar manor... by what I'm playing ... I'm giving directions what I'm hearing or where I want to go... so this concept also applies to your traditional analysis of harmony... It's one possible concept... But you do have a language and practice that simply needs to be expanded... somewhat like, you have a one dimensional understanding, which will help you develop two and three dimensional views... You understand some concepts of how music works... you just need to become aware of more. The application process is similar... just more possible layers.
The other really important concepts are... Blues... not simply blue notes, but blues as a concept... blue notes have sources and can imply function and resolutions...
That next characteristic is MM and how we use it and what can be implied... and the concept of how we use in jazz...
Obviously rhythmic concepts, how we use accent patterns and where we play on or off the beat. Swing is not a technique... it's a feel.
Well sorry ... there are no simple complete answers... Think about it and we can discuss more... Reg

[Edwhite]

Hey I would appreciate if some would shed some light on this for me please.
Could someone explain how i should apply voice leading in a jazz standard say like 'blue in green' using drop chords. Do i make my way down the fretboard using the closet inversion of the next chord in the sequence? Just general guidelines would be great! Thanks

[JonR]

Originally Posted by Edwhite

Hey I would appreciate if some would shed some light on this for me please.
Could someone explain how i should apply voice leading in a jazz standard say like 'blue in green' using drop chords. Do i make my way down the fretboard using the closet inversion of the next chord in the sequence? Just general guidelines would be great! Thanks

Assuming you mean "closest" inversion, and not some hidden gay chord shapes - yes!
That's my general guideline.
I don't worry personally about drop voicings - I guess I use them (all guitarists do), but I just think about how to include the notes I want, and then how to link the chords as closely as possible.

Here's what I might do for Blue In Green - keeping the melody, but mostly using rootless voicings:

Bbmaj7#11  A7#9      Dm9 Db7   Cm7 F13b9  Bbmaj7         A7alt    Dm6     E7alt   Am9    Dm7
-12----10-|---------|---------|----10----|------------5-|8-----5-|3------|8----4-|7---5-|13--9------
-10-------|13----11-|10-----8-|6---7-----|5---------6---|6-------|5----6-|6------|5-----|--------
-10-------|12-------|10-------|8---8-----|7---7-6-7-----|6-------|4------|7------|5-----|10-----
-12-------|11-------|10---9---|8---7-----|7-------------|5-------|3------|6------|5-----|10----
----------|---------|---------|----------|8-------------|--------|-------|7------|------|12---
----------|---------|---------|----------|--------------|--------|-------|-------|------|------
 

Obviously without the melody there'd be a lot more freedom to maintain close voice moves and shared tones.

[Fast Bebop]

Originally Posted by JonR

Assuming you mean "closest" inversion, and not some hidden gay chord shapes - yes!
That's my general guideline.
I don't worry personally about drop voicings - I guess I use them (all guitarists do), but I just think about how to include the notes I want, and then how to link the chords as closely as possible.

Here's what I might do for Blue In Green - keeping the melody, but mostly using rootless voicings:
Obviously without the melody there'd be a lot more freedom to maintain close voice moves and shared tones.

The #9 on the Ealt is nice too : X76788 I like to play the Am maj9 : xx6557