I-VI-ii-V chord voicings

[Chris Whiteman]

My first time doing any type of instructional video. Hope someone finds it useful.

[QAman]

Chris,
Thanks for sharing. Very useful information for me - since I don't use too many extensions.

[matt.guitarteacher]

Nice job. Delivering concise, coherent thoughts about chord voicings while actually playing is much harder than it looks. You do it very well. Maybe bump the audio volume on the front end of the recording process if possible. Congrats on a job well done.

[Chris Whiteman]

Thanks for the feedback Matt.

[smokinguit]

Great stuff! Enjoyed your presentation. Very easy to follow.

[Hep To The Jive]

Very cool, thanks! Those shapes are great for chord solos, and intros! Plus you can mix and match them, alter voicings, etc. For swing guitar, it's like bread a butter.

The only question I have, why b13, not #5 consistently? From my theory understanding, b13 assumes there's natural 5 there somewhere, and it's not the case?

[Chris Whiteman]

Anton, Thanks for pointing that out! You are correct, referring to the alteration as a #5 would be in most cases the best choice (alterations on an altered dominant chord are: b9,#9,#11,#5).

With that said, there is another viable possibility. Although less commonly discussed than the altered dominant mode of melodic minor, the fifth mode of harmonic minor (also called phrygian natural 3) generates a dominant chord with alterations: (b9, 11, & b13). So by calling it an A7(b13), it is implying that the harmony is from the harmonic minor scale. In this case, the parent scale is D harmonic minor.

Thanks again for bringing attention to this,

Chris

[Hep To The Jive]

Anton, Thanks for pointing that out! You are correct, referring to the alteration as a #5 would be in most cases the best choice (alterations on an altered dominant chord are: b9,#9,#11,#5).

With that said, there is another viable possibility. Although less commonly discussed than the altered dominant mode of melodic minor, the fifth mode of harmonic minor (also called phrygian natural 3) generates a dominant chord with alterations: (b9, 11, & b13). So by calling it an A7(b13), it is implying that the harmony is from the harmonic minor scale. In this case, the parent scale is D harmonic minor.

Thanks again for bringing attention to this,

Chris

Ok thanks! That's too deep for me, I don't think that way at all, the only time I studied melodic minor was in a classical piano class, where I remember you play melodic minor scale ascending, and natural minor descending. That's all I know I only think in chord tones, and I know dom7 #5 resolves in minor nicely. b13 is no problem, it's just takes a few milleseconds longer to equate it to #5 in my brain when Im reading charts.

[Longways to Go]

Super great lesson!

I love how you move up the scale through each sequential 1-6-2-5.
I kinda know about 70% of these chords, but this lesson will really help fill in the conceptual gaps!

thanks

[edh]

Great lesson. Looking forward to Part 2.

Thanks.

[Groyniad]

great idea to organize things by keeping the top voice static

getting it to fall or rise chromatically is equally helpful

thanks!

[Reg]

Yea... cool... great voicings and dig your pres etc... but some thoughts.

Common tone lead lines are not generally standard comping right, they are an effect or technique to help support something.

So there are a few things going on,

1) what your comping for, are you supporting something, interacting or are you the front, is what your playing the melody or solo etc...

2) the Harmonic organization of what your playing... which basically comes down to the lead line and the harmony relationship, and of course the reference of the tune.

3) the last aspect is the organization of that lead line or top note interval with rest of voicing, the structural details.

Maybe you've already covered these details... or if you haven't, what is your organization.

Not trying to bust your chops etc... but your calling the vid instructional, and I like you and your presentation, might as well cover. If your just posting some nice voicing etc... sorry for comments. Keep posting.

[monk]

Anton, Thanks for pointing that out! You are correct, referring to the alteration as a #5 would be in most cases the best choice (alterations on an altered dominant chord are: b9,#9,#11,#5).

With that said, there is another viable possibility. Although less commonly discussed than the altered dominant mode of melodic minor, the fifth mode of harmonic minor (also called phrygian natural 3) generates a dominant chord with alterations: (b9, 11, & b13). So by calling it an A7(b13), it is implying that the harmony is from the harmonic minor scale. In this case, the parent scale is D harmonic minor.

Thanks again for bringing attention to this,

Chris

I enjoyed your presentation, Chris. Good tone, good facility with the material.

I learned most of my theory in the 70s and 80s when the alterations on a dominant seventh were called b9, #9, b5 and #5. While more recent developments in music theory have given rise to #4 and b13, et al, there was a descriptive consistency in the older terminology that still seems more streamlined and to the point. I feel the same about calling a minor seventh flat five, a half-diminished. Minor seventh flat five describes the chord in a completely unambiguous way.

Regards,
Jerome

[bako]

Common tone lead lines are great for bringing attention to the movement of the other voices.

I took the video to be presenting in an introductory way, possibilities beyond straight C, A7, Dm7, G7 inversions.
Essentially just posting some nicely voiced variations on a common sequence. Chris presented examples for lead lines on G,A,B,C,D,E,F which provides enough material to create lead lines that move along the scale by mixing and matching.
A pretty good takeaway from a short video.

Reg, You play a good role here, challenging us to look deeper. I appreciate that.

[Hep To The Jive]

Yea... cool... great voicings and dig your pres etc... but some thoughts.

Common tone lead lines are not generally standard comping right, they are an effect or technique to help support something.

So there are a few things going on,

1) what your comping for, are you supporting something, interacting or are you the front, is what your playing the melody or solo etc...

2) the Harmonic organization of what your playing... which basically comes down to the lead line and the harmony relationship, and of course the reference of the tune.

3) the last aspect is the organization of that lead line or top note interval with rest of voicing, the structural details.

Maybe you've already covered these details... or if you haven't, what is your organization.

Not trying to bust your chops etc... but your calling the vid instructional, and I like you and your presentation, might as well cover. If your just posting some nice voicing etc... sorry for comments. Keep posting.

If I may butt in... I look at those top four string chords (block chords?) and voicings as a material for either chord solo, chord melody arrangement, or intros. I wouldn't use it for comping, even though there's probably possibilities for that. But in the past I've been told by a soloist not to play too much extensions when I'm playing rhythm, and it made sense. My ears also prefer playing 3-4 note chords on lower strings, basically I exclude 1st string more or less when I'm comping. I'm interested to hear your thoughts on that!

Also, disclaimer: I'm primarily a swing guitarist within jazz, so I don't usually play very modern forms or tunes.

[monk]

Comp is an interesting word.

In the 70s and 80s, depending on who one was talking to, the definition of the word was either a shortening of accompany (to happen or occur at the same time as or along with [something]) or complement (something that fills up, completes, or makes perfect).

At that time there was a definite difference between "playing rhythm" and "comping". Rhythm was always four-to-the-bar played on the lower strings. Comping was a more interactive process wherein the comper played a more active role using voicings on the higher strings, punctuating the soloist's phrases with more varied, less predictable rhythmic patterns, even extending to playing counter-melodic ideas against the solo.

The passage of time seems to have blurred the distinction.

[Hep To The Jive]

Comp is an interesting word.

In the 70s and 80s, depending on who one was talking to, the definition of the word was either a shortening of accompany (to happen or occur at the same time as or along with [something]) or complement (something that fills up, completes, or makes perfect).

At that time there was a definite difference between "playing rhythm" and "comping". Rhythm was always four-to-the-bar played on the lower strings. Comping was a more interactive process wherein the comper played a more active role using voicings on the higher strings, punctuating the soloist's phrases with more varied, less predictable rhythmic patterns, even extending to playing counter-melodic ideas against the solo.

The passage of time seems to have blurred the distinction.

It's a very good observation! I'm still confused, can you call 4 to bar a comping, or it has to be sparse? How about a combination of both? For me, there;'s no rules, I just go with what feels right at the moment. What to call it? I don't know, but comping seems what everybody uses these days... Whatever I do, I don't like playing chords on on top 4 strings, I save it for solos. Just a personal preference, but I wonder how others go about it, using the OP examples for 'comping'?

[Chris Whiteman]

Yea... cool... great voicings and dig your pres etc... but some thoughts.

Common tone lead lines are not generally standard comping right, they are an effect or technique to help support something.

So there are a few things going on,

1) what your comping for, are you supporting something, interacting or are you the front, is what your playing the melody or solo etc...

2) the Harmonic organization of what your playing... which basically comes down to the lead line and the harmony relationship, and of course the reference of the tune.

3) the last aspect is the organization of that lead line or top note interval with rest of voicing, the structural details.

Maybe you've already covered these details... or if you haven't, what is your organization.

Not trying to bust your chops etc... but your calling the vid instructional, and I like you and your presentation, might as well cover. If your just posting some nice voicing etc... sorry for comments. Keep posting.

Thanks for your comments. I hope the post wasn’t confusing. This is an exercise to develop facility with drop 2 voicings. They are drop 2 voicings with color tones and alterations, and are tonally richer than the basic drop 2, 7th chords ( R,3,5,7). I explained which color tones and alterations were used in each voicing in the video.


I chose to maintain a common tone in each sequence as part of the exercise, and did 7 sequences for the following reasons:


1. It requires that each quality of chord in this progression ( I-Major, VI- Dom 7, ii- Minor, V- Dom 7 ) be harmonized with all 7 diatonic scale degrees. This will result in the ability to voice the chord with any diatonic note in the top voice. This is helpful for harmonizing melodies (while soloing or creating chord melodies) as well as choosing voicings that won’t clash while accompanying others.


2. The common tone lead note also helps with voice leading between chords. You could also drop the top voice if it’s too high in the register for your application and still have useable 3 note voicings (although you may occasionally be omitting the 3rd or 7th in the voicing).


Let me know if that offers some clarity.


Thanks,


Chris

[monk]

It's a very good observation! I'm still confused, can you call 4 to bar a comping, or it has to be sparse? How about a combination of both? For me, there;'s no rules, I just go with what feels right at the moment. What to call it? I don't know, but comping seems what everybody uses these days... Whatever I do, I don't like playing chords on on top 4 strings, I save it for solos. Just a personal preference, but I wonder how others go about it, using the OP examples for 'comping'?

I don't call four-to-the-bar comping. To me, it's playing rhythm regardless of what set of strings the chords are fingered on. I've heard recordings where George Van Eps, Allan Reuss, Oscar Moore and George M. Smith played rhythm on the top four strings (4-1).

I think of comping as being sparser and more varied rhythmically which doesn't necessarily exclude it from being played on the lower pitched strings. In my mind, it's two different approaches to a similar goal.

[PMB]

Comp is an interesting word.

In the 70s and 80s, depending on who one was talking to, the definition of the word was either a shortening of accompany (to happen or occur at the same time as or along with [something]) or complement (something that fills up, completes, or makes perfect).

At that time there was a definite difference between "playing rhythm" and "comping". Rhythm was always four-to-the-bar played on the lower strings. Comping was a more interactive process wherein the comper played a more active role using voicings on the higher strings, punctuating the soloist's phrases with more varied, less predictable rhythmic patterns, even extending to playing counter-melodic ideas against the solo.

The passage of time seems to have blurred the distinction.

An older generation of players made the same distinction. I recently came across an early '60s book by Herb Ellis where he points out the difference between 'rhythm' and 'comping'. In Barney Kessel's opinion, the historical 'missing link' was Oscar Moore.