Where did this obsession with block chords come from?

[Irez87]

I would subtitle the thread: what we can learn from Van Eps, and other early plectrum guitar players of yesteryear, pianists, orchestras, choirs, and the modern harmonies of today's jazz?

Just a thought, but it seems that block chords in their Drop 2 and 3 formations seem like a dictum in jazz guitar. I love these voicings, they sound beautiful, especially under the right hands, but many of us just stop there.

I went out and got that Masters of Plectrum Guitar (thanks Rob, where ya been?) and found many of GVE's triadic forms sprinkled all throughout the lovely volume. There were Drop voicings too, but it wasn't a whole book of Drop this and that.

My concern, for myself, is that different soloists, different tunes, different settings, and heck, even different venues (loud or not) may warrent voicings that aren't from the Drop family. I guess this is a call out to the guitar universe to explore, and seek all the mountain tops for new ways (and old) to express harmony on the instrument.

This may tie into my love hate relationship with the shape based geography of the guitar and how it serves and severs the ear from the music that we play... But that might be for another thread. I have a feeling this thread will offend or isolate a few, so I want to preface by restating that Drop 2s and 3 are beautiful. My argument is just that they shouldn't be the end all be all--we should keep reaching (into the past and into the future).

[fumblefingers]

1. Block chords are close position voicings. Drop2 and 3 are not.

2. Drop 2 and 3 are for seventh chords, although substitutes are possible which introduce other "available tensions".

But why sweat your question? Who suggested that one restrict himself to drop 2 and 3 voicings?

[matt.guitarteacher]

Pianists and other instrumentalists learn basic, closed-position chords in all inversions, just as a beginning reference. I suppose there is some inherent "danger" in making "rules" out of such exercises, but the idea that knowledge of any kind, in and of itself, is somehow stifling is largely superstitious mumbo jumbo in my opinion. Kind of like the singer who's afraid to take voice lessons because it will "mess up what they've got going already".

Drop 2's are one of the closest PLAYABLE analogs to these type chords for guitarists. You can really systematically work out all inversions of basic chord types, and shore up fretboard knowledge from four inversions/positions.

I think they're pretty cool for that purpose. I also would agree, however, that there are a lot of players who seem to feel that they HAVE to learn all of them and don't really know why.

To answer your thread title question, you could cynically say that there have been a lot of books/videos published on the subject. I don't necessarily see anything wrong with that, but it might give an unintended impression about their importance perhaps?

But I don't think that knowledge is stifling. I could still suck knowing more or fewer chord types. Creativity and musicianship are their own things and multifaceted.

[Irez87]

I might be able to answer my question...

Let me preface by saying I am talking about players who use Drop voicings expertly in this paragraph. I know some players who use these voicings really well and made a conscious choice to stick to them. There is a benefit to sticking to certain material--you become an expert in that material. It's kinda like writing a master's thesis, you go as specific as possible to get as in depth as possible.

I chose to go the other route and become as all encompassing as possible. Although I spent 4 years going through the basic GVE triadic forms (GVE is always George Van Eps in my posts, btw), I love using as many sounds as possible. I like having the palette to paint whatever the situation calls for.

However, I do admit, I am often scared to play this way because I am worried that other musicians will gripe of me "not playing guitar chords" or "the right chords".

At this point, I am trying restrict what I play to what I hear (when I am really brave). That goes for chords too. That sometimes means I'll play dyads, upper structures, or tenor Freddie Green lines (with one finger) because that is what my ear is telling me to do. These choices are not done at random, as I spent the past 3 months (still working on it) ear training harmony, and dyadic movement in a specific and conscious manner.

[destinytot]

Ah! Love the sound of block-chord (close-voiced) harmonization - especially in classic recordings from the classic Swing era. I've only harmonized a couple of pieces in close-voiced block chords for solo guitar, but I've tried it for other instruments (including voices) and the arrangements work - because the sound is so iconic. I haven't listened closely enough to GVE's 6-string acoustic playing, but I recognise that sound in Johnny Smith. Then there's the 'guitar choir' concept:

You can't double the melody in octaves as well as play the whole chord, but that sound is achievable on guitar, but it requires thought and preparation.

(Right now, I can't think of a more rewarding musical pursuit than writing block-chord harmony sections - is obbligato the right term? - within ensemble projects. That thought comes as a formidable challenge in this economy, and it has nothing to do with any expectation of making a living beyond upholding the principle of acknowledging the dignity of others' work by ensuring that they're paid appropriately.)

[Irez87]

I love the way Johnny Smith plays harmony! My gripe was more with the fact that people learn the Drop 2s and 3s and Wes block style chords (not as closed and piano like as JS) and they just play those grips instead of thinking about what they are actually playing. Once again, I stress the many not all statement. There are pros and amateurs out there who I've met who play and you can hear the sonic connections, they are thinking about which inversion goes where.

Studying GVE, looking at piano voicings, listening to classical music, and doing some harmony ear training of my own has made me really appreciate and love all of the inner movements and intricacies of playing harmony. You can strip something down to one note or dyads, or you can create lush orchestra environments that pay homage to Bach Chorales or Stravinsky. But you are using your ear to build this beautiful conception (everyone will hear it a little differently) instead of using a shape and relying on the eye for what is "correct".

I think this all comes from the idea that comping for someone else is just as important, if not more so, than soloing. But for many guitarists, comping is just a time to play some memorized shapes until it is time to play their coveted solo. Many, not all, I stress (because I was guilty of many of the things I have a gripe with in the past, being all about soloing and all. heck, when I am not feeling comfy, I go back to those shapes. But my point is to strive for something much bigger than shapes)

[destinytot]

I love the way Johnny Smith plays harmony!

I do, too - and then there's George Shearing's signature 'group' sound (which I used for my Joõo Gilberto schtick with a sextet). I also think it sounds great in a duo when the melody is doubled an octave below. (Fancy doubling it if I post a recording with space to improvise?)

My gripe was more with the fact that people learn the Drop 2s and 3s and Wes block style chords (not as closed and piano like as JS) and they just play those grips instead of thinking about what they are actually playing.

I think Alan Kingstone's take on this is work quoting in full:
"As I see it, there are two paths for a chord player to go down. Either one becomes a "hitter" or, one becomes a "mover". The "hitter" sits up and works out a couple of beautiful sounding voicings for each kind of chord (or worse, learns someone else's from a method book) - and from that point on, plays them exactly the same way. These vertical groups of notes are "hit" or "struck" on the instrument - with no thought to creating movement. The "mover" on the other hand, understands that chords come from scales and thereby learns to approach chording in a more fluid fashion. As well, one realizes that the interesting spots in music, whether you are comping, harmonizing a melody or writing an arrangement, are the places in between the chord symbols. In fact, I prefer to think - movement-to-movement - as opposed to chord to chord. When was the last time you listened to the symphony, for instance, and said oh yeah, Am7b5 - D7. It's not that the classical folks don't play chords, they just know something about getting from one to the next in an unobvious manner. Suddenly the musical ceiling gets raised and points us back to the purpose behind this book."
Jazz School Online - Harmonic Method - Guitar

[Irez87]

I have that book and I agree wholeheartedly with Alan an BH (so much so that I plugged in my guitar at the last Barry workshop, said I'm gonna play with Barry, and if he gets pissed, so be it! Was so much fun, and I learned a lot!). If you wanna do a George Shearing thing, than I gotta grab my recording with Louis Stewart. Talk about another monster of a player, but the Irish buskers I asked had no idea who he was

[christianm77]

It's a load of old blocks if you ask me!

AFAIK the four way close voicings - that is saxes (or trupets) playing the melody in parallel harmony in section comes from traditional big band arranging (c1930s.) A lot of these techniques AFAIK were trailblazed by Fletcher Henderson.

Pianists started getting into this for solos and arrangements. Goerge Shearing is the biggy here.

But guitarists were playing his way in the 30's - probably because of issues with projection and because most guitar players were banjoists first and had grown up with chord soloing. But the early Van Eps stuff and most of the other 30's stuff I have looked at is triadic, so not hte four part thing we see in BH or later guitar players.

I really like the idea of viewing the guitar as a lap orchestra. I always here that when Wes solos. He builds up the guitar like the Basie band horn section would build up a tune like Jumpin at the Woodside.

The ins and outs of this are quite interesting. It is possible to use the BH 6-dim scales to work out a four way close style arrangements of a melody without a score. I remember a guy researching this era saying this was common practice at one point (they didn't call them the 6-dim scales though.) Since the Basie band early on didn't use scores but did use four way close, that would make sense

[christianm77]

There are many more combinations of notes available (you can check out the Ben Monder handout if you want a thorough road map of fingerboard jazz harmony, for example) but actually I find voicings themselves quite boring.

I think you could get more out of three way chords and using them in ways that were flexible and voice leading oriented. The four note things is great to know but by it's very nature it is much much harder to flexibly voice lead these formations smoothly. That's not to say you shouldn't practice them, but three note voice leading is ample with bass. Even without.

Just my idle thoughts :-)

[Irez87]

I prefer 3 note voicings. If I add a voice, I sometimes might throw an octave in there.

[Jonah]

I live in a country where there was not much jazz around and those days no internet too... I played classical guitar and rock songs and somebody gave me probably the only jazz comping book in the country those days (the only published I mean)... later I saw it mainly followed Baker's method but was more deep in harmonic approach (probably because the author was local and had very solid calssical education traditional here).

So the first chapters contained major minor scales harmonized with Drop 3's (with bass on 6th and 5th strings) and some common jazz turnarounds with passing chords - parallel motion...

I played those few chords with this weird (for my classically trained hands) fingering and was immediately encharmed by its jazzy sound.. it just immediately sounded jazzy.


So answering your question - these chord shapes are just basic part of jazz guitar style vocabulary of what makes guiatr sound jazzy.. in traditional sence.

[Irez87]

So answering your question - these chord shapes are just basic part of jazz guitar style vocabulary of what makes guiatr sound jazzy.. in traditional sence.

Of course, and you seemed to learn them correct from the start--through harmonized scales. I got into them, but the real traction was seeing how Barry Galbraith applied them to standards. I had three points, though

1. Many people play these voicings without listening to what they actually sound like. This results in seeing what someone may think is a "ii-V" and playing a memorized shape when the progression is a iv-bVII7 and requires different considerations (especially with extended harmony). I say this because I used to do the same, and I am battling to get out of this habit.

2. There are many other ways to express harmony on the guitar. Some are actually easier than these voicings, like using 2 note, or 3 note voicings.

3. Different situations and soloists should force us out of our comfort zones and into playing things that compliment the group and not our own sensibilities. This is really really hard to do, and it takes bravery. No one wants to play something in a way that they are not comfortable on stage.

For example, most of us are comfortable playing a root position C chord this way:

x.3.2.0.1.0

But what if the band is playing something else and you stretch yourself and find that this sounds better:

x.x.10.9.13.12

(doubling roots and thirds)

A fellow guitar player would look at your hand and go, "that's not a freaking C chord! Why are you playing octaves like that? Learn how to play guitar!" But the piano player might look at you and smile and say "thanks for using your ears instead of your eyes, that fit perfectly"


Just a thought

[targuit]

This discussion tends to intersect with what I am focusing on during most of my recent daily guitar activity, which is rehearsing several songs a night using my Sibelius library of midi files and notated arrangements of jazz standards as my band. My practices are essentially playing and improvising around my arrangements of songs written primarily as a guitar part and vocal or melody line. I vary the degree of note specificity in the guitar arrangement from a relatively simple "block chord" approach as mostly half and whole notes to a more detailed written out arrangement of which I improvise. In one fell swoop I work on my reading notation skill, voice leading, mechanics, and playing along with the midi file whose tempo, key, and other performance parameters I can vary. The entire process reinforces my overall musicianship and keyboard skills as well as provide as close to a performance situation as possible minus a real band and venue in which to play in my pajamas at four in the morning.

But to get back to style of approach to solo guitar jazz performance, coming from a classical background I tend to think in terms of melody, harmony, and rhythm expressed on a solo guitar. I don't tend to 'think' or simply play in terms of specific drop two or three voicings of specific chords. But more in terms of where I am on the fret board positionally. I hear the voice movement and I play what I hear. There is manifestly a sense of incorporating the melody and bass, but my choice of where I'm playing the notes in question (fret position) determines what chordal and voicing possibilities are inherent in the particular position. Lately I focus on the inner voices that are played mostly on the low A fifth string through the high B second string and let the melody and bass lines just happen around that core. This approach simplifies in some ways your playing.

To use a simple example, there are many ways to play a song like My Foolish Heart in G. First position, fifth fret, seventh, tenth, twelfth fret... In each position the notes to harmonize the melody are there, and voice leading becomes so important. It is about the transitions - going from one point to another. I'm always trying to think ahead to where I'm going with the phrase in terms of hearing it in my mind.

Just parenthetically, a solo guitar arrangement can certainly be very different if the voice is taking the melody line. In a live venue situation I think that a solo player who can sing credibly and play a nice guitar part is stronger generally than a straight instrumentalist, whose actual playing in terms of chord melody may be far more difficult. I say this not from a normative point of view but more from a sense of what holds an audience. Or to put it another way, Body and Soul is a gorgeous song, but when delivered by a good singer, just has more emotion and soul. Something about the human voice.

[Jonah]

1. Many people play these voicings without listening ...

Many people play much more exquisite voicings without listening... sometimes they make a career, gain an authority, won prizes and praise from critics and audience and all that without listening...

I am not sure I can help it...

[KirkP]

I agree with the last couple of posts. A few years ago a teacher told me each note is like a kiss. He might have been quoting someone else. I took that to mean every note should express something. The context might have been single line solos, but I think the idea applies equally well to harmony. Often it's movement of inner voices that grabs me emotionally. To create that, the player must hear each note in a chord and play (or not play) each with intent, not just grab a grip.

[Irez87]

Okay, to each his own. But if I am thinking of the composers you have in mind, I might argue that they did hear what they were doing, but they had a different conception of hearing than you and me. Schoenberg and Webern come to mind when you say "people play without listening" as they composed with matrices, random notes, note set theory, and permutation (Schoenberg). But I think they heard it as well... It's an idea, a strong one, but whatever works for you is whatever works for you

And Bill Evans... well, I don't believe he didn't have the ability to hear anything... I consider rhythm an aspect of ear training as well... so I think he heard some things that you and me couldn't... Just a thought (Bill was also really hard on himself, like many musicians )

[Jonah]

Okay, to each his own. But if I am thinking of the composers you have in mind, I might argue that they did hear what they were doing, but they had a different conception of hearing than you and me. Schoenberg and Webern come to mind when you say "people play without listening" as they composed with matrices, random notes, note set theory, and permutation (Schoenberg). But I think they heard it as well... It's an idea, a strong one, but whatever works for you is whatever works for you


And Bill Evans... well, I don't believe he didn't have the ability to hear anything... I consider rhythm an aspect of ear training as well... so I think he heard some things that you and me couldn't... Just a thought (Bill was also really hard on himself, like many musicians

Shoenberg adn Webern do not come to my mind in this case...

and who said anything about Bill Evans?

Originally it was you presumption about many people that some

Many people play these voicings without listening to what they actually sound like. This results in seeing what someone may think is a "ii-V" and playing a memorized shape when the progression is a iv-bVII7 and requires different considerations (especially with extended harmony). I say this because I used to do the same, and I am battling to get out of this habit

[Irez87]

I guess I assumed that you know what they say about "you and me" when you assume something about someone

My apologies

The thing about Bill was from the beginning of a Sid Jacobs book. Bill is quoted as saying that he had a hard time hearing what he played, and had to work even harder to play good jazz. Could you believe that? Yikes!

[Jonah]

The thing about Bill was from the beginning of a Sid Jacobs book. Bill is quoted as saying that he had a hard time hearing what he played, and had to work even harder to play good jazz. Could you believe that? Yikes!

I could but he said it about himself...

[Irez87]

I hate technology (that is something I don't mind getting flack for...grrrr )

To clarify about what I meant by many "not hearing chords"

I meant that not everyone hears the entire chord when playing block chords. I've spoken to many pros and weekend warrior (though incredible) guitar players and they've admitted that they hear the highest voice (the soprano, if you will) when using block chords. The internal structure of block chords permits this because the structure is so tight that you don't always have to concern yourself with hearing all voices simultaneously in a block chord. Of course, players with a great ear can hear everything.

I want to get to that point of hearing everything before I play it. It's a lofty goal, but it is realistic given my ear training studies (give the rest of my life time, but it makes music a journey for me ) So, right now, I will play smaller voicings like 3-note, and 2-note voicings because they are easier to hear and keep track of all the voices simultaneously​.

This is just based on who I've spoken to, I can't speak for everyone, because that makes an ass of you and me... But it is an interesting concept...

[Jonah]

I understand what you mean but your samples - imho - are a bit deviative...

To hear harmony one should hear harmonic concept...

for example in functional harmony voicing - being an important compositional tool - is still secondary to function... if you want to approach this you should learn to hear functional realtions...
In this concern it is more important to hear a chord as solid entity than to distinguish voices...

It depends mostly in what you want to hear... it's your choice. You make realtions, the sounds do not have it on their own.

[Irez87]

I can't always reinvent the wheel, Jonah . Just wanted to make sure we understood each other and weren't at total odds. You are absolutely correct, my goal is a conscious choice (that I am still shooting for). I like what you said at the end about the musical "relations". Truth, my friend, truth.

[wolflen]

the close voiced chord .. to the beginner it may be a struggle to play it..but then learning several more chords like it in the same key..it may draw an outline of a rock or pop tune that the student fills in with his memory of the tune..and for many players this is more than adequate for their musical needs..they learn the chords of a scale in several keys and they can "play" literally thousand of songs..in time they may learn to play the melodies of these songs..and this is a separate study for them - chords have nothing to do with the melody..and "solos" are again in a separate space..

then..they might see someone like chet atkins or mark knopfler..and their safe musical world falls apart..

reading many posts on guitar forums..many new to guitar view it this way..and it is reinforced by music teachers..professional players.."method" books and teaching "videos" ..after years of playing with this approach..we can see why using chords as more than "frozen" harmonic blocks becomes terrifying to someone who can play the entire Beatles song book.

In the study of harmony..moving voices may be as foreign to some as "hearing voices"-not the musical kind- .. a C chord is in this certain place and fingered as such..end of discussion..if you alter it in any way for any reason it is no longer a C chord and the player is lost..

when students want to learn "jazz" .. I ask.."what do you mean by jazz?" .. this often offers a response of "..its..you know.." and the description is abstract..the student most likely has several different styles in an amalgam in their "ear" that they label "jazz"..so to separate one style from another is a task they cannot do..the introduction to diatonic harmony to students .. separates the "serious" from the rest .. and then seeing chords as frozen harmony becomes a revelation as they learn how to "unfreeze" the chord voices into harmonic enhancement and then melodic phrases..such as using simple harmonic devices as moving inversions through several string sets..

Van Epps and others saw the guitar more like a piano..and adjusted their approach to it as such..being that the instrument is illogical in its layout..to overcome this a method of organization is almost mandatory..thus the book "harmonic mechanics" .. in the same vein Ted Greene (a student of van epps) extended some of this approach in many of his "chord" studies..

it does take a great deal of time effort and dedication to play the guitar in the dimension way beyond chords that are assigned to "rhythm" playing..and it is not only in "jazz" that finds the rewards of this approach..Hendrix and Van Halen used chords in their playing in ways that were way beyond their peers..and influenced many thousands of todays players..who take a simple C chord and visit infinity with it..

[Irez87]

Wolfen, thank you for finally addressing my concern with playing only traditional "guitar" voicings. At the end of this life long pursuit, I would still see myself using traditional voicings mixed with all of the other harmonic movement. Jonah, I tend to think of harmony in movements (another cliche, sorry) instead of freeze frames (as wolfen stated).

To humor my English teacher side, I will clarify "harmonic movements". I wouldn't play a A13b9 chord to Dm6/9 within a dminor environment without giving special attention to the major third to minor third movement in a minor key. Maybe I would play dyads or single notes to smooth out the major 3rd to minor 3rd movement. Or maybe that A13b9 would be a great harmony to express the parallel major of the key and transition out of Dm. I will try to save the figurative language for the classroom and deal only in specifics if the metaphors are annoying (sorry )

Wolfen, do you write books, poetry, articles? That was really great!