most of my chords have root in the bass..

[T1mothy]

Coming from Django Reinhardt background, his rhythm section played almost exclusively chords with root in the bass. I have quite a few of them. For major I like to use 7, 9, 6, 6/9. For minor 7, 9, 6. For dominant I like mostly 7,9 and 13 chords (7#9 or 7b9 for the minor ii V i). Venturing into straight jazz the rhythm section is not as straight forward and I love it. I ve been stunned by the lead work of Sonny Rollins, Sonny Stitt, Dizzy, Coleman Hawkins, Lester Young but also the work of Art Tatum, Oscar Peterson, Bill Evans, Bud Powell and I ve been really curious about how much can one employ different voicings and their inversions on guitar. Could anybody recommend some source of information regarding this or share the information itself?

Have a good one,
Timothy

[joe2758]

I think I would start with all inversions of Major and Minor 6th chords in Drop 2. you can use the major as 6th, minor 7th, or maj9 sounds, and you can use minor 6th as min 6th, dominant 9, min7 b5, or dom alt.

[BigDaddyLoveHandles]

+1 to Joe. Also, take any chord with the root in the bass and just don't play the bottom note!

G7: 3x343x --> xx343x

Leave it for the bass player!

[matt.guitarteacher]

Reg has a pretty different take on this, as is often the case with his view, and is somewhat of a dissenting position from the normal. He doesn't use a ton of chord forms.

He'd say learn root-position diatonic voicings for 7, 9, 11 , 13, all chord qualities, on each scale degree. Then, work on "subbing" chords a diatonic third above and a diatonic third below the root of the "chord of the moment". So for Am7, as ii7 chord, sub Cmaj7 (Am9) or F#m7b5 (Am6). Reg calls these "extended diatonic" relationships.

Then, work on subbing larger chord patterns which work with these subs, like the Balt which you can associate with F#m7b5 etc. Anyway, that's sort of just the beginning, but there's some really hip stuff with blue note implications and all of that.

But it basically BEGINS with knowing some diatonic subs, which are, in a roundabout way, "inversions". You're also exploring harmony in a richer way , rather than simply focusing on arbitrarily learning four inversions of everything for the rest of your life.

I mean, you've got multiple string sets, multiple "drop chords", 7, 9, 11 , 13's for every diatonic chord of every scale degree of.... major , harmonic minor, melodic minor etc.? Then you've got symmetrical scales etc.

I think we all understand that it's a lifetime pursuit , but what reg is talking about gets you pretty quickly into the deeper harmonic stuff that you'd want to do eventually, anyway.... normally, as a completely separate study. Do you really need to know every inversion of every diatonic possibility in major BEFORE even approaching melodic minor/ altered voicings , for example?

Just a thought on slightly different approach.

[joe2758]

good point matt. learning the subs with root position chords is the best way to get the sound in your ear.

[Nate Miller]

a good way to think about it goes like this...now you have to know what notes are in each chord and what they are (i.e. the 3rd, 7th, 5th, whatever...)

but you put the 3rd and 7th on the D and G strings.

put any upper extensions or the 5th or root or whatever on the high B and E strings

keep your hands off the low E and A strings.

that's it. That's all there is to it

when chords move in the cycle of 5ths, the 3rd and 7th will move like this: 3 -> 7, 7 -> 3 in a stepwise motion

so your 3rds and 7ths always move in a stepwise motion when the roots move by 5ths

place your extensions on the upper strings as you hear them and let your bass player play the low notes

easy. All you need is to know what notes are in each chord and which one is the root, 3rd, 5th and 7th

so as long as you know what you are doing, this is an easy way to start playing jazz chords

[emanresu]

One thing you could do is to get a full diatonic pattern for the guitar, print it out, mark your desired chord notes and try them out like that. Some are too difficult, some doesn't sound so good. But then you can work them out quicker perhaps.

[Lionelsax]

Well, I've got exactly the same problem, I found a solution, I'm only playing on DGBE strings.
I'm working on an easy tune : Autumn Leaves because it's just II V I progression with sometimes IV and a turnaround.

For C-7 F7 BbM7 EbMaj7

I play :

C-7 : Bb Eb G C (b7 b3 5 R) or Bb Eb G D (b7 b3 5 9)

F7 : A Eb G C (3 b7 9 5) or another thing

BbM7 : C F A D (9 5 7 3) or A D F C (7 3 5 9)

EbM7 : Bb Eb G D (5 R 3 7) or G D F Bb (3 7 9 5)



For A-7b5 D7+9 G-

A-7b5 : A Eb G C (R b5 b7 b3)

D7+9 : Ab D F# C (b5 R 3 b7) tritonic substitution (Ab7)

G-7 : G D F Bb (R 5 b7 b3)


I play other voices too, but it's too long to explain... You can imagine than only one voicing can work for two or three different chords.

I would add that the best way is to find by yourself, you can also try the piano, it helps a lot.
I'm a sax player and I feel it's difficult to play with someone who only play chords and who are doubling the bass player, there not enough place and it sounds too commercial.

Comping is something very difficult !!!

[Nate Miller]

Well, I've got exactly the same problem, I found a solution, I'm only playing on DGBE strings.
I'm working on an easy tune : Autumn Leaves because it's just II V I progression with sometimes IV and a turnaround.

For C-7 F7 BbM7 EbMaj7

I play :

C-7 : Bb Eb G C (b7 b3 5 R) or Bb Eb G D (b7 b3 5 9)

F7 : A Eb G C (3 b7 9 5) or another thing

BbM7 : C F A D (9 5 7 3) or A D F C (7 3 5 9)

EbM7 : Bb Eb G D (5 R 3 7) or G D F Bb (3 7 9 5)



For A-7b5 D7+9 G-

A-7b5 : A Eb G C (R b5 b7 b3)

D7+9 : Ab D F# C (b5 R 3 b7) tritonic substitution (Ab7)

G-7 : G D F Bb (R 5 b7 b3)


I play other voices too, but it's too long to explain... You can imagine than only one voicing can work for two or three different chords.

this works out to be EXACTLY what I was talking about....look at your 3rds and 7ths on the D and G strings and your color tones on the B and E and you keep your mits off the low strings. Simple and it works and you sound hip while you do it

[Lionelsax]

this works out to be EXACTLY what I was talking about....look at your 3rds and 7ths on the D and G strings and your color tones on the B and E and you keep your mits off the low strings. Simple and it works and you sound hip while you do it

Sorry I haven't seen your post, but I explained it like a beginner to someone who wanted to read a very simple language, it took me time to write this... Sometimes people help me here, so I felt I had to help someone like me who finds some issues with voicings and comping.

[Nate Miller]

Sorry I haven't seen your post, but I explained it like a beginner to someone who wanted to read a very simple language, it took me time to write this... Sometimes people help me here, so I felt I had to help someone like me who finds some issues with voicings and comping.

I wasn't talking like you were stealing my idea or anything. I just wanted to "second" the idea you were putting out there

that system works and its easy to pick up

I had a good friend show me that when I was about 20. Its a real good place to start

[pkirk]

Reg has a pretty different take on this, as is often the case with his view, and is somewhat of a dissenting position from the normal. He doesn't use a ton of chord forms.

He'd say learn root-position diatonic voicings for 7, 9, 11 , 13, all chord qualities, on each scale degree. Then, work on "subbing" chords a diatonic third above and a diatonic third below the root of the "chord of the moment". So for Am7, as ii7 chord, sub Cmaj7 (Am9) or F#m7b5 (Am6). Reg calls these "extended diatonic" relationships.

Then, work on subbing larger chord patterns which work with these subs, like the Balt which you can associate with F#m7b5 etc. Anyway, that's sort of just the beginning, but there's some really hip stuff with blue note implications and all of that.

But it basically BEGINS with knowing some diatonic subs, which are, in a roundabout way, "inversions". You're also exploring harmony in a richer way , rather than simply focusing on arbitrarily learning four inversions of everything for the rest of your life.

I mean, you've got multiple string sets, multiple "drop chords", 7, 9, 11 , 13's for every diatonic chord of every scale degree of.... major , harmonic minor, melodic minor etc.? Then you've got symmetrical scales etc.

I think we all understand that it's a lifetime pursuit , but what reg is talking about gets you pretty quickly into the deeper harmonic stuff that you'd want to do eventually, anyway.... normally, as a completely separate study. Do you really need to know every inversion of every diatonic possibility in major BEFORE even approaching melodic minor/ altered voicings , for example?

Just a thought on slightly different approach.

this is pretty much the standard approach, and is real easy on guitar. Works for comping as well as soloing. Different people call the idea different things, back when I was starting out it was called "chord substitution," which I think is the term ted greene used in his chord chemistry book. One version of this that is frequently mentioned is minorization, which is associated with Martino, but many others, e.g. dave stryker told me he thinks that way.

In general chord substitution allows you to do a lot with a little, e.g. rather than think of inversions of Cmaj with the 3rd in the bottom, just use the Emin7 voicings you already know.

Most of it boils down to the following four "rules"

Cmaj7=Amin7=Emin7 (rel minor)
D7=Amin
D7=Ab7 (tritone sub)
Dm7b5=Fmi

since transposing is easy on the guitar once you understand these in one key, you have them in all keys. It's easy to learn: one exercise is to take a tune you already know well, apply these rules randomly to make a new lead sheet, and comp or solo with the new chords, against a bass line playing the correct chords.

once you start thinking this way it is pretty easy to take it far, e.g. take a look at jack Zucker's page Sheets of Sound Lessons Page to see how "out" this idea can go.

each "color" tone for one chord gives a different color for the sub, e.g. Ami(maj7)= D7(#11), Ab13=D7(b5 #9), etc. The advantage of thinking this way is that it doesn't take long to stop thinking of formulae or even chord names and instead to think of sound.

[BigDaddyLoveHandles]

I don't think I've seen this mentioned yet:

1. Play three note chords. And:
2. Take a four note grip and first play three of the four notes, then play three other notes of the four. If you are playing different top notes to do this, you get melodic motion for free and you open up your sound.

As LionelSax wrote, "I'm a sax player and I feel it's difficult to play with someone who only play chords and who are doubling the bass player, there not enough place [space?] and it sounds too commercial."

Smaller chords opens things up.

[Lionelsax]

Hum I would say :

Cmaj7 = Emin7 = Amin9

D7 = Am6

[pkirk]

Hum I would say :

Cmaj7 = Emin7 = Amin9

D7 = Am6

you can make it as complicated as you want! I've always found that abstraction simplifies playing jazz. In this case the abstraction comes from the fact that the same simple sound has many different names, so you want to hear/think the sound rather than memorize a ton of symbolic rules. Sure at some point you want to look more closely at the formulae. But for the most part, the four examples I gave get you in the ballpark.

[Lionelsax]

you can make it as complicated as you want! I've always found that abstraction simplifies playing jazz. In this case the abstraction comes from the fact that the same simple sound has many different names, so you want to hear/think the sound rather than memorize a ton of symbolic rules. Sure at some point you want to look more closely at the formulae. But for the most part, the four examples I gave get you in the ballpark.

Yes man, but I totally disagree, you think it's my problem but for 99,99 % of the tonal music, the third is the most important note in a chord.
Amin can't be considered as D7, there is no third... except if you play II V I in G but only in a modern quartal context.
That would sound more modal than tonal but if it runs fast there won't be any difference.

It is not complicated, I don't simplify : chords, voicings are notes, not simple shapes you've got in your hands.

That's how the tonal system has been working for three centuries and more.

[matt.guitarteacher]

Yes man, but I totally disagree, you think it's my problem but for 99,99 % of the tonal music, the third is the most important note in a chord.
Amin can't be considered as D7, there is no third... except if you play II V I in G but only in a modern quartal context.
That would sound more modal than tonal but if it runs fast there won't be any difference.

It is not complicated, I don't simplify : chords, voicings are notes, not simple shapes you've got in your hands.

That's how the tonal system has been working for three centuries and more.

There are no hard and fast rules. Those two chords absolutely "sub" for each other. There are myriad ways to justify it theoretically. Sure, the third is important, but that doesn't mean you can't omit it from a chord. Much is implied by the context of what happens before and after etc. Some would maybe agree more with what you're talking about, but in the end, it works. It's really not anything to get bent all out of shape about, but you're arguing with most teachers and players in jazz music.

[joe2758]

Amin can't be considered as D7, there is no third... except if you play II V I in G but only in a modern quartal context.
.

Take THAT, Wes Montgomery!!! I wish he were alive today so we could tell him

[Lionelsax]

There are no hard and fast rules. Those two chords absolutely "sub" for each other. There are myriad ways to justify it theoretically. sure, the third is important, but that doesn't mean you can't omit it from a cord. Much is implied by the context of what happens before and after etc. Some would maybe agree more with what you're talking about, but in the end, it works. It's really not anything to get bent all out of shape about, but you're arguing with most teachers and players and jazz music.

Personally I would never omit a third in a tonal context, I'm not saying it, the rules of tonal harmony are saying it.
I agree more with Joe Pass, there are just 3 kinds of chords, major, minor and dominant.
For him, II V I is just V I, we don't care about II : it's just announcing the V.
I must be very narrow-minded in fact, Amin can be F#minb5 without root that could be D9... But F#minb5 is already D9 rootless...

[matt.guitarteacher]

It works, because your ear hears context. You hear the third based on that context, whether it's there or not. It's not as quantifiable as everything else in life. Kind of like the Phantom appendage :-).

[Lionelsax]

It works, because your ear hears context. You hear the third based on that context, whether it's there or not. It's not as quantifiable as everything else in life. Kind of like the Phantom appendage :-).

I trust you but I disagree, even if I'm used to playing it during a solo but I totally disagree.

[bako]

Am7 can also be understood as a rootless D9sus in the same way that F#m7b5 is understood as a rootless D9.

[matt.guitarteacher]

Xxx433
xxx433
xxx12.12.10.
xxx12.12.10.
Xxx12.13.12.
Xxx12.13.12.
xxx12.12.10.

Xxx988
xxx988
xxx787
xxx787
xxx535 ???
Xxx535 ???
Xxx433

Or
Xxx988
xxx988
xxx787
xxx787
xxx575
Xxx575
Xxx433

Always struck me as strange, how the first one sounds more right , almost "more D7" than the one which actually HAS the third, because the voice leading is better.

I guess it's that it should technically have a fourth voice anyway, and the ear kind of "hears it" when the other voices lead well . Sounds more "correct" to my ears than the combination of what would otherwise be two separate voices, to make sure all of the "correct " notes are present. Anyway, I'm not really a theoretician.

[Lionelsax]

Well for me Amin triad sounds FMaj7 F#min7b5 or Amin it depends what was played before and what's coming...
Well, we won't fight for that !

[BigDaddyLoveHandles]

Am7 can also be understood as a rootless D9sus in the same way that F#m7b5 is understood as a rootless D9.

I glanced at this and thought at first you had written "toothless". Hmmm...