Reimagining the Fretboard: A New Approach to Harmonic Development

**jordanklemons** · 02-01-2016, 04:16 PM

Hey guys,

So I've mentioned my thesis a bunch of times on here, and on the topic I was writing about...

I've been planning on, and talking about, posting my thesis here on the forum for anyone interested. However I've been holding off until I could pick up the final, graded copy from my advisor. I wanted to see what notes he left for me so I could make any necessary changes before putting this thing out publicly.

But it's proving harder than I expected to meet up with him. So whatever. I may make a couple changes to this at some point after talking with him. But this was the final draft that I turned in.

It's only about 24 pages, and a lot of that is made up of examples, chord charts, chord melodies, and comping etudes. Here's the thesis abstract to give you a quick summary of what to expect. Feel free to download a copy and check it out. And please hit me up with any questions or comments you might have. I'd love to hear them.

Abstract
This study will examine an advanced view of harmony, both in theory and in application to the physical realities of the guitar. Guitarists generally approach chords with a bottom-up view, building them up from the root. This creates an harmonic environment where voicings are weighted towards the lower end of the chords’ structures. Upper extensions are treated as separate entities added on if possible. I will present a top-down approach to harmony where the emphasis and priority of the chord will be placed in the upper register of its structure. I will use the jazz standard Blue in Green, an analysis of its melody, upper structure triads, and ideas developed by Stefon Harris to create a new harmonic vocabulary for the guitar. For each chord I explore I will chart out a new set of voicings on the fretboard. These will include full chords (5-6notes), mini chords (3-4 notes), and dyads. I will provide examples of how these voicings can be used in Blue in Green both to create chord-melody arrangements and to apply to comping situations. I hope to create a new chordal vocabulary for myself that is more deeply connected to the melodies I am harmonizing and which offers a richer and more colorful palette of tonalities. I am documenting the exploration in this thesis to help other guitarists interested in expanding their own approach to harmony.

**Nate Miller** · 02-01-2016, 04:35 PM

interesting stuff. Its funny because reading the part in the beginning where you talk about how guitarist voice chords makes me glad I don't play like a guitarist. You are absolutely right that all this nonsense about shapes gets in the way.

Now, one thing I was curious about...I had learned that the way to overcome only having 6 strings for a big fully extended 13th chord was that the 9th replaced the root, and the 13th or #11 replaced the 5th. So you had your 3rd, 7th and extensions. This is how I thought it was taught, but these days nothing would surprise me anymore

I like the Stefon Harris quadron method you talked about. I do something similar but I don't call it the quadron method, I never knew that term for it.

but it sure is nice to see a young man like yourself working things out in triads like the piano players

that is how you get a sound that is yours and doesn't sound like everybody else, too

good luck with your thesis, these are sound ideas

**jordanklemons** · 02-01-2016, 05:50 PM

Thanks for checking it out Nate. You're a fast reader!

To answer your questions. First, I personally don't feel that learning via shapes is bad or wrong or nonsense. As I stated in the thesis, I think it's actually a necessary part of guitar education... due to the physical nature of our instrument. But, I do believe there are downsides to it. Big ones.

The idea of replacement (R-9th, 3-sus2/4, 5-#11/13, 7-6) is a total viable technique for formulating voicings for guitar or for horn/string sections. I've used it plenty and it's still taught. But again, it still starts with the assumption that FIRST and MOST IMPORTANT are the lower structure notes. It still sees the upper extensions as extensions that must be squeezed into the voicings. Which when harmonizing a melody note that exists in the upper structure means that our voicing won't necessarily embrace the melody as truly part of itself... rather it will be thought of, and potentially heard as, a note that we're substituting in place of something more important... something that comes first.

The idea for me is to make the melody, and the triads that contain the melody, the most important part of the voicing. Even if you play the 3-7-extension... it's still viewing the extension as an addition to, rather than as integral to, the harmony. And even if we're not playing the root, we're still thinking bottom-up, where the root is the most important note and we build everything up through the 3, (maybe 5), 7, and then extensions/melody notes.

For instance - like I pointed out in the thesis - the first chord/melody of Blue in Green is a G-7 chord with an E note in the melody. If you voice that out how you mentioned by playing the extension over the 3rd and 7th, then you get F-Bb-E. So the melody note is sitting on top of the 7-3 by a tritone. It's not wrong. Theory says that's the right way to do it. But to me, that tritone doesn't make me feel like the melody is being embraced. Especially over such a beautiful ballad like this, I don't like the sound that I first hear being that. I feel like it should be smoother and more lush than the voicing that creates. Others may want it. I just feel like it's not the right energy. I much prefer the sound of organizing that upper structure note within a C major triad, and then adding some G-7 notes underneath it to create the effect of a G-13(11). It feels much richer and more musical in my ear that way, and it feels like the E note is really being embraced and accepted into the harmony. For instance, something as simply as changing F-Bb-E to F-C-E makes a world of different in my ear. Now the E note no longer sounds like it's being fought against. By getting rid of the Bb (what SHOULD be an integral note based on bottom-up chord construction) and hinting more at the C major triad, it sounds much more harmonious to my ear. And we could also easily add the G note as well if we wanted (F-G-C-E... a very basic and common slash chord, but being used in a non-traditional way where the G root note is not in the bass). This is actually the 4 note voicing I demonstrated for that chord in the thesis. And if I'm not mistaken, I believe Bill Evans was playing F-C-E in his right hand on this recording. Any piano players out there know for sure how he voiced out that chord?

destinytot · 02-01-2016, 05:52 PM

Thanks, Jordan! I'll devote time to reading this on Wednesday. (Applause - for posting it.)

**jordanklemons** · 02-01-2016, 07:13 PM

Originally Posted by destinytot

Thanks, Jordan! I'll devote time to reading this on Wednesday. (Applause - for posting it.)

Thanks DT. Looking forward to hearing what you think. Hope you enjoy it!

Originally Posted by targuit

Reading your thesis, Jordan. Congrats!

I did not yet sit down at the piano to listen to the voicings, but I'm not sure I accept some of the premises. The guitar is a different instrument played in a different manner than the hammer on string percussive piano. Pianists have a broader harmonic palette given they could in theory use all ten fingers. Yet I suspect that is relatively uncommon as a means of voicing. Given that I did not finish at this moment reading your thesis, I don't know if you propose a 'final' transcription illustrating your conception.

Of course, the infamous 'arpeggio' is one guitaristic solution to expressing the extensions. But I think the notion of superimposed triads such as that practiced by Larry Carlton among others is not unique. Some like to think in those terms and as they say, if it floats your boat, great.

I recall listening to one approach by Kurt Rosenwienkle (sp?) who suggested he approaches solo chord melody style as revolving around the tonic plus the seventh with the addition of extensions. Given that one of the notes would be the melody, traditionally the highest note, though not a rigid rule imo, if you include a bass note, a third or fourth in quartal harmony, a high melody note, the seventh quality, and notes like a flat fifth or thirteeth, eleventh etc, you are already in the zone of a four, five or six note chord, not counting the possibility of playing even more notes as part of the arpeggio.

There is also the possibility that the ear 'fills in' missing harmonic information. In fact, that is one thing that consistently troubles me on the forum generally which is that such short shrift is given to the importance of the musical ear as priority over any theoretical construct.

Of course, generally this notion is discredited by many here, perhaps as being 'old fashioned' or naif, though I would argue the contrary. But that is merely my opinion. (Disclaimer for the Jazz Police.) A guitar is not a piano. Though often some people have a lot of pedals...

Hmm... well... ok, I think? I'm honestly not sure what to say to this or what your central point is.

Are you trying to say that you think the ear is more important than the theoretical stuff? Because if so, I find it odd that you would draw the conclusions you've seemed to only by reading part of the paper and not having tried a single chord diagram, chord melody, or harmonic etude to even see what they sound like. It seems like you just have a problem with the theory at play here? Which I'm not going to argue with you over. I think the ear is as important - if not more important - than the theory, so I'm less interested in arguing about theory. If you don't like the sounds of the chords after you try them... then by all means, feel free to voice that opinion.

It seems like you don't like the idea that I brought up the piano because you feel the guitar and piano are different instruments? And that we shouldn't try and imitate them? If I'm understanding correctly. Again, that's a personal choice you have. I'm sure different people feel differently. Again, I'm not 100% what to make of your comment or how to respond as the notion that guitar and piano are different is basically at the heart of my exploration:

"This exploration is built on the physical differences between the piano and the guitar."

That's on page 1 Jay. The 1st sentence of the 2nd paragraph... not even halfway down the page.

Sorry I can't respond better to the issues you take with my ideas. I'm just not sure exactly what to say. If it's not your cup of tea, that's fine. No need to waste your time reading it. If you're interested, then by all means check it out... and feel free to comment and let me know what you think once you've gotten through. There's no "final transcription" but there are many chord diagrams and 7 different examples (chord melodies and harmonic etudes) that you're welcome to take a look at and listen to. If you don't like the theory and/or your musical ear doesn't like the sounds I'm bringing to the table, that's fine. I won't be offended. I'm not sharing this stuff to convert anybody. I just love the sounds available to us when thinking this way and feel wrong not sharing the concept with others.

**pingu** · 02-01-2016, 08:10 PM

For instance, something as simply as changing F-Bb-E to F-C-E makes a world of different in my ear. Now the E note no longer sounds like it's being fought against. By getting rid of the Bb (what SHOULD be an integral note based on bottom-up chord construction) and hinting more at the C major triad, it sounds much more harmonious to my ear. And we could also easily add the G note as well if we wanted (F-G-C-E... a very basic and common slash chord, but being used in a non-traditional way where the G root note is not in the bass). This is actually the 4 note voicing I demonstrated for that chord in the thesis. And if I'm not mistaken, I believe Bill Evans was playing F-C-E in his right hand on this recording.

I agree that a melody 6th on top of a minor chord is not that pretty ....
I've been searching for a solution to this unsucessfully for a while now
[for ex 'All of me" the line 'you took the best'
bar 9 of the B section (AB form)] etc

aaargh
anyway Blue in Green
C triad doesn't work for me cos it pre-sounds
the C melody note on top of the A7#9

**NSJ** · 02-01-2016, 08:15 PM

Thank you, Jordan. I will sit down and read this very thoroughly as this is a very exciting topic for me.

At this point in my development, I really want to learn how to use triads creatively. It's taking a lot of work, but I have reached the point where I can play all the diatonic triads, in all the inversions, as well as the spread triads, all over the fingerboard in all the string sets . As impressive as this sounds, of course I recognize that this is only one small aspect to using triads.

I'm convinced that this is a definite prerequisite, but only the very beginning . To be honest, I bought the Tim Miller and Goodrick book on triads, but a lot of the cluster voicings, i'm not sure how to use. The fault is entirely mine, as I need to bridge the knowledge gap between learning the basic diatonic triads all over the neck (which I have done and still continue to do of course) and learning how to use triadic voicings in a creative way beyond the conventional diatonic thinking.

I suspect your thesis will help with his goal. Thank you again. Much appreciated.
Nav

**jordanklemons** · 02-01-2016, 08:39 PM

Originally Posted by NSJ

At this point in my development, I really want to learn how to use triads creatively. It's taking a lot of work, but I have reached the point where I can play all the diatonic triads, in all the inversions, as well as the spread triads, all over the fingerboard in all the string sets . As impressive as this sounds, of course I recognize that this is only one small aspect to using triads.

That's no small feet Nav! Takes a lot of work to get to that point... but so rewarding.

Originally Posted by NSJ

I'm convinced that this is a definite prerequisite, but only the very beginning . To be honest, I bought the Tim Miller and Goodrick book on triads, but a lot of the cluster voicings, i'm not sure how to use. The fault is entirely mine, as I need to bridge the knowledge gap between learning the basic diatonic triads all over the neck (which I have done and still continue to do of course) and learning how to use triadic voicings in a creative way beyond the conventional diatonic thinking.

I suspect your thesis will help with his goal. Thank you again. Much appreciated.
Nav

I hope it helps. Please feel free to chime back in on this thread with questions, realizations, ideas, etc.

**vintagelove** · 02-01-2016, 09:45 PM

Looking forward to downloading it (when on my laptop) and going through it. Appreciate the hard work!!!

**wolflen** · 02-01-2016, 11:02 PM

Jordan..wow....a very ambitious work...and thank you for sharing it with us...

my very early interest in jazz (music in general but jazz in particular) was seeing Dr. Billy Taylor on TV doing a weekly "jazzmobile" show..he would breakdown and analyze a tune and explain why the ear hears chords and melody in a jazz context..that hooked me for life..getting chords to "fit" together..it was a giant jigsaw puzzle .. many years later it was my good fortune to study with Ted Greene for two years..in doing so many questions on harmony were answered ...

My visual teaching aid is taking an image of a piano..and twisting it..the left half goes up the right half goes down..then you twist your left hand to the left-quarter turn and your right hand to the right quarter turn and ..volia..a guitar...with less notes and no logic..to compensate for this loss..you need to also loose your mind trying to figure it out..

I always felt that terms like "extensions, upper partials etc." were at best confusing to learning harmony on guitar..jazz chords being confusing enough but to consider some notes to be "add ons" as it were-only complicated it more..Greene stressed two things often..there is nothing more powerful than the bass..and the highest note in a chord is the soprano..in chord melody it is "often" the melody note-(it could also be part of a "fill" if the melodic line is at rest) it was this embellishment of the melodic line that I found the most interest in..developing it and staying true to the tune and original melody..the study of counter point and voice leading cleared up much of the confusion..

the real growth in this area is learning chords and their inversions - triads and four note chords..in all positions and keys..this is the part of learning guitar that many do not continue to study..for whatever reasons..so the concepts of "altered dominants" and how to approach them is a "separate" study instead of an integrated work that fits in with the inversions..the moving one voice at a time in a chord takes time to absorb in muscle memory to the point that you don't have to think about it..but a very necessary part of chord voicing as it is both harmonic and melodic movement thus "chord melody" .. the other factor is confusion over "chord names" .. yep this can be a bitch..when you are using only three notes of an altered chord to function in a chord melody defining its name (as it CAN have several depending on your view of the harmonic structure-see Ben Monder-yikes)

your study of Blue in Greene is an excellent example of some of these concepts and applications I have just addressed..

again thank you for your effort..

**Nate Miller** · 02-01-2016, 11:58 PM

I just spent the last hour playing Tangerine solo guitar style. The tune in F goes to A major. So I'm playing with the triads of F and A major

I was thinking of the upper voice and thinking triads down rather than from a middle voice up (my usual practice)

I've played this tune since I was a teenager, and I found a whole new way of looking at this one tonight.

So I had a good time thinking down from the top. I made some different choices, for sure

and you're right, I only gave it a quick read. I'll look through it some more. Its very similar to a lot of the things I think about. Maybe I'll get a chance to play Blue and Green again in the next couple days. Its been a long time.

**Robertkoa** · 02-02-2016, 12:51 AM

Interested to see these Voicings for Composition use...

My Adobe Android App says" not a valid
PDF File Unable to Open"

Any ideas- thanks for posting- I'd like to see /hear them.

**jordanklemons** · 02-02-2016, 01:45 AM

Originally Posted by Robertkoa

Interested to see these Voicings for Composition use...

My Adobe Android App says" not a valid
PDF File Unable to Open"

Any ideas- thanks for posting- I'd like to see /hear them.

Robert, I'm not sure how android software works. The file is just a basic pdf... so if you're able to open pdfs in general, it should still work. If not, maybe it might be possible for you to download it to a computer?

If that doesn't work, maybe one of the moderators has an idea? Or if that doesn't work, you can pm me and we'll talk.

**yaclaus** · 02-02-2016, 04:18 AM

As an aside: Jonathan's answer to the "6th in melody of minor chord"-problem is grandiose:

Gm913: 10.10.8.10.10.12

No tritones.

I enjoyed the thesis immensely, love the top-down approach and the approach to start out with 5 notes all the way to 2 note chords. I also like the fact that it is so condensed being very specific about relatively sparse material (10 measures). It hints a huge, huge world, but doesn't overwhelm.

**diminix** · 02-02-2016, 06:44 AM

Originally Posted by jordanklemons

And please hit me up with any questions or comments you might have. I'd love to hear them.

Jordan,

besides from my own thesis works I have ghostwritten -- at least in parts -- quite a few thesis papers and two doctoral dissertations when I was young. Also I have done a lot of refurbishing work (content and layout/typesetting) on thesis papers, all that for some additional income. My interest in this kind of published texts is still there, so took a short look into your paper. There are two things that immedeately struck me:

1. Your thesis is a scientific work, therefore it is expected to be written in an appropriate, academic language. If you write passages like: "Look through almost any guitar method book, and you will find chords and scales being expressed as visual patterns, intended merely to be memorized. This way of thinking is not wrong, and I would even argue that it is a necessary part of guitar education due to the physical nature of the instrument. But if we [...]" or "really quite bizarre", then certainly this expectation is not satisfied. In this text you're not casually talking to an abstract reader. This kind of style would be too informal...

2. With regard to the next point, like Don Quijote I am fighting against windmills half of my life--nonetheless it should be said: your text is supposed to be read by human beings. It is a functional text with long passages of continuous sentences. Western culture provides you a 2,000 year old treasure that perfectly meets the ergonomic demands of such a kind of text: serifed typography. Helvetica is ok for display parts and headlines, but for sure it is not appropriate for reading passages. Essential reading for that: Robert Bringhurst "The Elements of Typographic Style".

Of course there might be claims of the house style of your university that would contradict my point of view (then please kick your Dean's tibia with greetings from me). One example could be the the immense leading of your text, which makes it almost unusable. Many universities demand this kind of typographical nonsense for proofreading purposes...

Wish you good success with your thesis!

Robert

**TheGrandWazoo** · 02-02-2016, 09:27 AM

Jordan,
I applaud your work. I really enjoyed reading your blog. And look forward to what you will do next.

**diminix** · 02-02-2016, 09:55 AM

Originally Posted by TheGrandWazoo

Don't listen to the critics, no one really gives a shit about papers anyway.

Not sure, if that is directed towards me...

--

If so--man, how do I love this interweb BS. Always telling everybody that it is never me who is involved in online hassles, only wretched characters do this. Hopefully I can refrain from doing so now.
Maybe it is my bad english that gives my posting above a negative inflection, any bad vibes I put in unintentionally that I am not able to notice. That was not my aim. To make it clear: I dig everything Jordan is doing in this forum, read every post of him, though most of it is over my head. I appreciate his enthusiasm and his will to share, to explain, to help. That's the reason why I answered his request for comments. I do this from a point of view where I believe that I can give something. There is nothing about music theory he needs me for. Did it as a comment, not a critique, not downgrading his work. And I think that his paper contains stuff that people will give a shit about, so it would be great to do it typographically as good as possible, to make it usable. Because there will be people reading it. And doing it typographically good is also making the writing process easier, because it makes the authors use of the text easier and less prone to errors.
The perspective that papers are worthless is the reason for most papers actually being worthless. This kind of view devaluates any academic effort. I guess that Jordan has another view towards his work.

--

If not, you didn't read the above anyway. Never mind...

Robert

**TheGrandWazoo** · 02-02-2016, 10:13 AM

Robert,
Yes it was, but not as a critique of your comment. It was meant as support for Jordan.

**TheGrandWazoo** · 02-02-2016, 10:32 AM

I have edited my initial comment that was innocently written but may be detracting from the originator's intent of this thread.

**targuit** · 02-02-2016, 10:35 AM

Jordan - A question for you.

I watched and played along with your video of Body and Soul. Did you apply your research approach to this tune in your performance? To be honest I expected to see something "radically" different in terms of fingering or bass and inner voices.

What I heard was excellent melodic predominantly playing with tasteful harmonic additions and good time. Given that you did improvise on the melody if I recall and that will be certainly often the highest pitched note, can we dis-count that note from the equation as a given? In other words the melody note or improvised melody note will be there no matter what. That leaves the rest of any harmony voices and the bass voice. I am assuming that a bass voice of some sort is also a 'given', though one can naturally employ other notes besides the root and fifth including leading voices or extensions.

These presumptions on my part re bass and melody voices leave you 3rds, 7ths, 9ths, and other extensions and alterations as the inner harmony voices. Did this conception regarding the upper triads or use of extensions in a 'top down' harmonic approach (you choose the proper designation) contribute to your recording of Body and Soul? And if so, how?

This is not a trick question or dismissal of your approach. I am trying to hear it in the recording. I would add that given that the harmony was well done but relatively sparse in a melody dominant "arrangement" for lack of a better word, this song might not be the vehicle for applying your approach, as it is fundamentally a blues.

**Nate Miller** · 02-02-2016, 10:53 AM

One of the things about playing with a more radical, or rather a more individual theoretical underpinning like this one is that you don't necessarily want that to jump out at people. You'll scare folks to death like that. I mean, I know stuff about harmony that could make you run screaming into the night. It sure did me. So you want it to be subtle.

I believe that if you are thinking in triads like the bebop players did, then you will more naturally sound like authentic bop

This seems to be the direction Jordan is going with these ideas. He is definitely working to challenge the way jazz harmony on guitar is getting taught, and that is definitely worthwhile. I had the benefit of playing with a lot of piano players and paying a lot of attention to what was being played in either hand. The way he's looking at the chords is a good way.

**Reg** · 02-02-2016, 11:17 AM

Hey Jordon... congrats. I'll read through, thanks for posting.

**Groyniad** · 02-02-2016, 12:41 PM

its a big deal putting something like this up on a forum - thanks a lot J.

there is no internet forum in the world on which i would post my phd thesis on perception (philosophy)

----

i start b in g with a gm6 chord in 1st inversion which has the 6th in the top voice. i love that chord. i suppose its like the C7 with a seventh in the bass - but its also like a Bbmaj#11

how do you stand in general to 'barry harris-type harmony' (i.e. his maj and min6 dim chord scales and their multiple applications)?

--

thanks again for being so generous with your work

---

**studiotan** · 02-02-2016, 12:54 PM

Jordan - thank you for posting. A very well thought out and interesting read, and at least from my perspective succeeds as a being a motivator to try thinking more from a top down perspective on guitar and presents a possible framework for doing so.

Some questions for you:

On page 5 the point is made that the upper structure triads in the paper will be limited to major triads for the sake of simplicity. Can you discuss some guidelines for when a non-major triad would be used for the upper structure triad? Is it arbitrary based on the sounds you are going for or what you can conceive of on the fly, is the type of triad guided by the underlying/left hand harmony, does Stefon focus just on major, or?

Can you elaborate on how one generates the tension note that was shown on page 16 for each triad in the grid for Blue in Green to form the 'Quadrad' in Stefon Harris' system? Apologies if I am being dense but the pattern isn't jumping out at me and I am not at an instrument to play around with the sounds right now.

Thanks for your efforts and best of luck.

**jordanklemons** · 02-02-2016, 01:09 PM

Originally Posted by yaclaus

As an aside: Jonathan's answer to the "6th in melody of minor chord"-problem is grandiose:

Gm913: 10.10.8.10.10.12

No tritones.

I enjoyed the thesis immensely, love the top-down approach and the approach to start out with 5 notes all the way to 2 note chords. I also like the fact that it is so condensed being very specific about relatively sparse material (10 measures). It hints a huge, huge world, but doesn't overwhelm.

Yowza... can you play that chord?!

That's a tough one for me. Is that a double barre? On the 2 sets of 10th frets?

Glad you enjoyed reading it. This is a huuuuuuuuge topic. The hardest part about the thesis for me was limiting myself and figuring out what to leave. If I ever decide to go for a PhD, I can definitely see myself opening this up. I would love to have been able to analyze more tunes, and I would REALLY love to have been able to do some of the melodic, single-note applications. But, had to squeeze it into 20 pages.