-
You play drop chords. Admit it.
Originally Posted by AllanAllen
Oh nice. These are great. Not sure why I didn’t think of this. Originally Posted by pcjazz
-
12-09-2024 07:53 PM
-
I play grips and they happen include drop chords, but I'm not concerned to know what drop bucket it falls in. It's an arrangers tool.
I guess my point is, I can only label so many things and I don't care to learn which grip is which drop. I just use the easy ones.
-
It’s a bad attitude to have I guess.
-
It is an arranger’s tool, and comping is arranging on the fly. Originally Posted by AllanAllen
-
I don’t know if it’s a bad attitude to think that the names are obnoxious. They’re more logical or intuitive or whatever when you think about the way sax or brass ranges work. Originally Posted by AllanAllen
I would say maybe if you were maybe not interested in what voicing was represented in the grip and if it could lead you to others, then maybe that would be a bad attitude?
But you’ve had long digressions on threads where you’re posting chord diagrams of chords you’re transposing through a key or whatever, so I’m guessing that’s not you anyway.
-
I just don’t see why I need to know x3525x is C6 drop 2. When I can think of it as one of many C6 options.
Yes, I did look up what a C6 drop 2 grip was. And you’re right, I do use that one.
-
I'm not sure I'm super invested in the idea that you do? Originally Posted by AllanAllen
I guess it's worth noting that "drop 2" describes a process. So if you know what the process is, then you'll be able to find other chord types in the same voicing, inversions etc. Those will generally play well together and voice-lead.
But otherwise, I'd imagine there are more than a few guitarists we listen to on recordings who played most of them and never gave a crap what they were called.
It's also a bit easier on piano to find a voicing an then just move it through a scale and invert it and stuff. Guitar it's harder to visualize that stuff sometimes, so knowing the process can help circumvent how weird it can be with its shapes and whatnot.
-
They're a voicing organization system mostly for guitar where you only have so many note and fingering options. What Peter said. Originally Posted by AllanAllen
On piano, you can use them, but your options are way more numerous since you have 10 fingers available to put down. I personally don't use the drop system. I generally choose if I want to use 1-4 notes for either hand and then just arrange the notes how I feel like. Although I can kind of get around with the drop voicings because we use them in Chris class.
-
Giving something a name helps you characterize it, I guess?
Also it might help with understanding where the notes are in the voicing and what you can manipulate.
I've thought about making a chord non-compedium of all the useful voicings and inversions that one would need. I just don't know if it could be done bc you could just play shells for the rest of your life and be fine. I also wouldn't want to make artistic choices for people but also could be a fun "shortcut" document.
One thing off the top of my head is to understand the logic/physicality of chords on the guitar with more close voicings going diagonal down towards the headstock and open voicings diagonal down towards the bridge.
-
Everyone goes on a journey with this stuff (stuff = music or musical concepts, I guess) so "shortcuts" bc of the differences in the way people learn or their perception or natural gifts or whatever.
But I do feel somewhat passionate about folks not wasting their time on non-musical exercises.
-
It's important to work up some technical things for your goals, but I definitely agree on not wasting time on irrelevant stuff. Originally Posted by bediles
Pebbz was a legend at that.
-
who tf is that guy haha
-
Pebber Brown. He was a pretty well known educator out of LA. Unfortunately he passed recently.
-
Drop 2 and 4 are great sounding chords. The interval gap between both pairs of notes create distinct sounding chords. Pasquale Grasso uses them a lot and teaches them, in a fundamental sense. I gotta have them in my repertoire.
-
Mick Goodrick used to teach a system where (talking degrees of the scale) between 1357, 1257, 1347 and 1247 one covers pretty much all playable voicings on the guitar. Sus chords, triads over bass notes, quartal voicings, tensions, its all there.
-
I have pages of this. Example attached. Just a little hobby I have to write out inversions. Originally Posted by bediles
This one is shells and diminished partners for comping movement.
-
If I could play everything Pasquale considered fundamental, I’d actually be good. Originally Posted by Navdeep_Singh
-
Drop 2 and 4 chords are not hard at all. Originally Posted by pamosmusic
5163 is just a barre: the M3 is 2 frets up from the barre; the m3 is just 1 fret up from a barre.
1536 is a very conventional shape. It’s just basically the 1573 M7 drop 2 SHAPE but a skipped string between 15 and 36. (Adjust for m3 accordingly).
6315 is just the 1536 shape above but the last note up a fret. (Adjust for m3 accordingly).
3651 in the major 6th is an easy 2 part barre, basically. Adjust for m3 accordingly.
-
Would you please post an example of such a chord voicing? I'm not up on the terminology and so not sure what you mean. Originally Posted by pcjazz
The Jimmy Bruno pdf on this page looks like a good drop chord reference:
Learning your Chord Inversions -- Jimmy Bruno Method - My Jazz Guitar Journey
-
it would be like … Originally Posted by Mick-7
6 x x 7 8 x
for a Bb 6
inverted
10 x x 10 11 x
etc
the full voicing would have F or A respectively on the 5th string as well.
-
Right. I was (mostly) joking. Originally Posted by Navdeep_Singh
I mentioned a few times way up thread that larger chord shapes tend to aggravate some carpal tunnel issues I have.
Drop 2 are the worst offenders, but some of the 3 and 2-4 inversions too.
So I use lots of modified shells and 3-note chords derived from ditching notes from drop-2s.
PCs suggestion to the same with the other voicings was a useful one I think. Probably not yet, but I’ve got it written down somewhere, so I’ll get to it sometime.
-
Thank you.... funny, I've thought about using a mirror version of that, a la Lenny Breau, where you play 2-3 note voicings in the bass strings and your melodic lines against them on the top strings, similar to a piano player comping simple voicings with his left hand while playing single line solos with his right hand. Originally Posted by pamosmusic
-
CMaj6 dim through the scale of chords: Originally Posted by Mick-7
x 3 x x 5 5
x 5 x x 6 7
x 7 x x 8 8
x 8 x x 9 10
x 10 x x 10 12
x 11 x x 12 13
x 12 x x 13 15
x 14 x x 15 16
-
Oh that makes sense! Originally Posted by Mick-7
Playing through them yesterday, they reminded me of George Van Eps quite a bit
-
Re: The shell voicings in the diatonic cycles pdf you shared in this thread: Ed Bickert chords and diatonic cycles Originally Posted by pamosmusic
For example: String set 4-3-1 -- chord tones 7-3-1:
Fmaj7: x-x-2-2-x-1 >> G7: x-x-3-4-x-3
If one plays with a pick and/or doesn't have the right hand finger independence of a Lenny Breau (who does?), your voicings are probably the most practical option. If you lower the 2 bottom notes an octave, it may become difficult to play them and good solo lines simultaneously.
Which reminds me, I have a quibble with one of your shell voicings. i.e., the VIIm7(b5) chord, which you voice as D-A-B or A-D-B. This voicing would duplicate the IIm7 voicing in A Major.
I contend that if you omit the b5th, the voicing will not reflect the character of the chord, which is a dim. triad: B-D-F + b7th (A). I would voice it as a Dim. triad and omit the b7th, like so [String set 4-3-2, in C Major]: B dim : x-x-12-10-12-x
It does deviate from the fingering cycle but I think it's warranted. I'd do this for the same reason I wouldn't omit the b5th in a Dom.7b5 shell voicing (I'd omit the root).
Reply With Quote
Please have a look at this neck picture
Today, 01:02 PM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos