Drop four chord question

[gingerjazz]

Can someone help me please.I recently read on one of these threads someone talking about drop four voicings.Now i was allways under the impression that these could not exist in a four note chord because you would be trying to drop a note that was allready on the bottom.Please could someone educate me if i am wrong about this.For the record i do understand how drop three and drop two chords are voiced/constructed.

[max_power]

Can someone help me please.I recently read on one of these threads someone talking about drop four voicings.Now i was allways under the impression that these could not exist in a four note chord because you would be trying to drop a note that was allready on the bottom.Please could someone educate me if i am wrong about this.For the record i do understand how drop three and drop two chords are voiced/constructed.

For drop chords, you drop the indicated note down an octave. Drop 4 chords have the bottom note dropped an octave. Even though the chord still reads as, for example, C E G B for a Cmaj7 chord, drop 4 chords are not closed voicings (i.e., not all of the notes are contained in the same octave).

Here is an example of a closed voicing for a Cmaj7 chord: xx(10)987

In contrast, here's an example of a Drop 4 voicing for a Cmaj7 chord: 8xx987

[ksjazzguitar]

Yeah, they can exist, I'm just not sure how useful they are.

...i was allways under the impression that these could not exist in a four note chord because you would be trying to drop a note that was allready on the bottom....

Yes, but the changing the inversion is not the only thing that is accomplished in a drop voicing (which is really only relevant if the guitar is the lowest instrument anyway.) You are also spreading out the voicing. So, a drop-4 voicing doesn't change the inversion, but it does change the voicing by dropping the bass down and octave. I even remember a jazz arranging professor talking about drop-2-4 voices, where the second and 4th voice were dropped. But I wouldn't be surprised if you run into a teacher somewhere that will assert that drop-4 doesn't really exist. I think that it has just as much right to exist as the others - they're all just abstract organizational concepts.

Ultimately these are just ways to describe different ways to spread out a 4 notes chord. Don't get too caught up in what is a "correct" drop voicing. Drop-2 is a useful organizing tool for the guitar since it sounds good and lays so well on the guitar. To some extent drop-3 is good too. I'm not sure I like the sound of drop-4, but I'm sure I've used a few without realizing it - I just don't know if it would be worth my effort to go through and learn them all.

But these are just organizational boxes. Don't let the box tell you what to do, you are the boss. Use the box or ignore it if it gets in the way. Sometimes I think in drop voicings, and sometimes I'm not. Most of the times, I'm just thinking in terms of "good voicings" and "good voice leading" and seeing where that takes me.

Peace,
Kevin

[GodinFan]

Drop 2 & 4 isn't uncommon in large ensemble arranging. Drop 4 by itself functions more like a bass note or root since it's separated from the rest of the chord.

[gingerjazz]

Thanks for the replies guys,i think ive got that cleared up now.So its on to the next thing to learn,as Mendalson said "A lifetime isnt long enough to learn music"

[JohnW400]

Yeah, they can exist, I'm just not sure how useful they are.




Peace,
Kevin

They are useful because they open the possibility of finding other chord such as 5 and 6 string version



[chord] Original Recipe

||---|---|---|---|---|---|-7-|---|---|---|---|
||---|---|---|---|---|---|---|-5-|---|---|---|
||---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|-3-|---|---|
||---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||---|---|---|---|---|---|---|-1-|---|---|---|

[/chord]


[chord] Extra Crispy

||---|---|---|---|---|---|-7-|---|---|---|---|
||---|---|---|---|---|---|---|-5-|---|---|---|
||---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|-3-|---|---|
||---|---|---|---|---|---|-6-|---|---|---|---|
||---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||---|---|---|---|---|---|---|-1-|---|---|---|

[/chord]


[chord] With hot sauce (move 3 to #4 , relocate 3 to 5th)

||---|---|---|---|---|---|-7-|---|---|---|---|
||---|---|---|---|---|---|---|-5-|---|---|---|
||---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|-4-|
||---|---|---|---|---|---|-6-|---|---|---|---|
||---|---|---|---|---|---|-3-|---|---|---|---|
||---|---|---|---|---|---|---|-1-|---|---|---|

[/chord] This is also *kinda* like Gma7 over Ami

[ksjazzguitar]

Perhaps that was hyperbole - I just think that time would be better spent with the other inversions. I can't see using a drop-4 voicing on the guitar unless it was for a solo thing, and I wouldn't use them in arranging. In both cases, they sound too "empty" to me. As I said before, I might use on on a cho-mel thing, but I can't see really using them other than that. I suppose they might show up in a 3 horn arrangement when the the horns are playing in close voice and the bass is high enough to reach the bottom note.

If you must spend time learning drop voicings for guitar, I think that drop-2 and maybe drop-3 is time much better spent. But I agree with many that the "drop" craze is a little overblown - it's just a category of voicings.

Peace,
Kevin

[Reg]

I'm with the group as far as guitar playing... I use drop voicings but only by chance, there simply some of many. For what it's worth... I worked for years composing and arranging and used mechanical voicings all the time, even with big bands, especially with saxes and bones, you have the range, not so much for tpts. Extremely fast method for pumping out arrangements with consistent sound...Best Reg

[ksjazzguitar]

Yeah, I would agree that drop-2, drop-3, and drop-2-4 can be useful for arranging - they are great for writing sax solis, etc. - often with only slight adjustments

Peace,
Kevin

[bako]

Is drop anything terminology ever used when writing for more than 4 voices as in the standard big band 5 saxophones? I took an arranging class with Don Sebesky years ago and I don't remember him mentioning it once despite covering voicing possibilities in great detail.

[ksjazzguitar]

No, I've never heard it used for more than 4 voice tertian harmony. It is just a way to spread out a 4 voice closed position chord.

Perhaps someone has used it for other things, but it is meant to refer to expanding 7th chords.

Peace,
Kevin

[JohnW400]

.

If you must spend time learning drop voicings for guitar, I think that drop-2 and maybe drop-3 is time much better spent. But I agree with many that the "drop" craze is a little overblown - it's just a category of voicings.

Peace,
Kevin

I never heard any of these voicings called 'Drop Anything' until someone was looking to get people to 'drop' some coin on their new 'drop 2 chords for guitar ' books

I learned chords in sets of strings based on voicings (which bako did an extensive list on sometime back) and went on from there.

As to your notion that time spent learning these 'non comping' type voicings is better spent on drop 2/3 chords, I wonder if George Van Eps and even Ben Monder thought like that when they were learning their chords? judging from what I hear on their CD's I think not.


Everytime I leaned a new set I would start to look for other notes to add to it. Some chords worked, some didn't. But you won't know until you start looking. So my advice is to start looking. I know a shit load of chords and I still find new ones that I didn't think of before. And I worked hard to find and learn all of them. worth the effort? You betcha

[bako]

John,

I don't know how Ben Monder thinks or learned what he knows but I do know from a friend who took a one off lesson with him that he suggested learning all 7ths in the 24 possible ordering of the notes, described by their intervallic structures (1357,1375,1573,1537,1735,1753 and their inversions) rather than the drop terminology. He also gave him multiple string group fingering combinations to learn all 7th chord arpeggios. I guess this is just some of the prep work. And for the 2nd lesson.....

Kevin,

Thanks for the response to my question.

[ksjazzguitar]

I've never really understood some people's seeming virulent antagonism towards the whole "drop" thing. Some people like categorizing their voicings. What's wrong with that? We accept some classifications for voicings. You don't hear complaining about people distinguishing between the categories of open and close voicings. The drop system is just a subcategory of open voicing. People further use inversions terminology to refer to their chord voicings even though they are not true inversions (someone else is playing the true bass note.) But they are just useful ways to categorize. If you don't like to categorize that way (or at all) then more power to you, but I really don't see why we have to vilify drop voicing terminology. George Van Epps invented his own system for categorizing his voicings - are we going to vilify him? I'm sure others have done the same.

I don't know the history of the "drop" terminology (*sigh* another thing to research when I go to the uni library), but I doubt that it was a money making trick. It is somewhat useful way to think of chords on piano, guitar, and vibes. And it is an extremely useful way to think of voicings for big band arranging - to be honest, when I write a sax soli, it is a very useful tool. I suspect that it was jazz arrangers that started using them first, even if they didn't call them that. Of course, things like jazz arranging and jazz in general was not taught in universities for so long that it makes sense that this terminology would take a while to get out there. Some times terminology develops much later, in an effort to explain an earlier practice. When we analyze Bach fugues, we end up using a lot of terms that would have been foreign to him - so what - he didn't use terminology, he just wrote. What terminology he did use is considered awkward by today's standards (harmony was going through some major conceptual changes at the time and the old terminology was no longer completely accurate.) But it helps us to study what he did by categorizing and labeling in ways that make sense to us. There is nothing wrong with that.

And when the term was invented was irrelevant. Just because the old guys did something a different way, doesn't mean that we have to. The argumentum ad antiquitatem never had much pull with me. If it works, use it, regardless of the origin.

Again, I don't think (like some seem to) that drop voicings are some magical panacea. I also don't think (like some seem to) that they are some marketing trick that should be avoided. They are somewhat useful categories of voicings. If you like to think that way, then do. If you don't like to think that way, then don't.

Peace,
Kevin

[bako]

I first came across the term drop 2 in the Brett Willmott book "Harmony, Theory and Voicing" and soon after, 6 class of drop spreads in Mick Goodrick's Dr. Goodchord series. I had already discovered and studied these spreads by generating permutations of sevenths and I kept track of them by the generic intervals between the notes. I never encountered an explanation as to how they were formed until more recently. In studying from Goodrick's book I used rote memorization to associate the names which was slower to stick for me and I'd have to periodically go back for reinforcement. Later when I found out what note was dropping from which reference point it became much easier to retain but still feels like an extra mental step. Learning the origin of the term would be interesting.

In Don Sebesky's class we studied many voicing types for varying numbers of notes, always tied in to the particular instrument combination being discussed. They were based on the spreads and they always encompassed the full range of harmony, never just 7th chords although frequently using 7ths to imply chordal extensions. Some had names, cluster, 4 voice close, semi open etc. I can't remember what he called the 5 voice close encased in octaves. Often, he would associate voicing styles to specific arrangers, perhaps so we could further investigate on our own. Life would have been different if I had youtube then.

[JohnW400]

Life would have been different if I had youtube then.

That and notation software. I can't tell you how many #2 pencils I went through in arranging class. Write the score and then the parts. Man that Sibelius extraction program certainly would have saved me hours and some 'all nighter's

@Kevin,

I guess my aversion is that I'm old school meaning I learned this stuff before all this drop 'technology' came out . That and the bebop scale.

Anyway , on the fly , I really look at all the 4 string sets as being either wide open (1 7 5 3) and then the notes getting closer up to tightest voicings (1357).

[ksjazzguitar]

...I guess my aversion is that I'm old school meaning I learned this stuff before all this drop 'technology' came out . That and the bebop scale....

Yeah, I would agree that they are not necessary to learning jazz. And I agree that they tend to get overhyped, by beginners and people trying to sell stuff. But I think that both can be useful, as long as you know their limitations.

Peace,
Kevin