Chord Inversions and Harmonic Function

[grahambop]

The story 'Rameau's Nephew' by Diderot is worth reading, although possibly it's unfair to Rameau's real character, it has a surprisingly modern feel to it. I studied French at uni so always found French history and culture very interesting, especially Voltaire and the philosophes. And of course the music.

[Robertkoa]

Haha...Important Music History footnotes ..

[jads57]

As much as theory is a nescessary tool to understanding music language, it can be be way over thought at times. It seems as though we are all basically taxi/uber drivers on a particular course at a given time (Song). How we choose our routes is by mainly driving the different paths over and over, as well as exploring new ones.

That said the bass and melody are key to all, with the melody more or less being fixed. The harmony is what becomes interesting along with bass movement. Instead of focusing on one chord like a word, think in 2,4, even 8 bar phrases much like a sentance.
I try to see which direction the bass is going and with the melody always in mind, explore the in between.

Given our instrument of choice is guitar, it can be somewhat challenging. Due to not being able to see the bass movement as clearly as on a piano. Also the notes/intervals are sometimes a challenge. All that said it's the bass movement that determines the harmonic function for the most part. So I try to pay attention to that first. And follow with harmonic choices that I've usually worked out ahead of time.

Much like any language, we are just improvising things we already know, and or looking up new meanings of words! Best of luck, I know I need it,LOL!

[rpjazzguitar]

Hey hey,

I think I know the answer to this already but I'd like more light on the subject.
For example, the drop 2 voicing for Fmaj9 with C in the bass would also be C6, so would this chord be sub-dominant or tonic in the key of C major? I also realize the root of the chord (F) is omitted in this voicing but the 5th is present in the bass however, it's 5th (C) is tonic in C major.
Likewise Dm6/9 is also G13 with the root omitted. Dm is sub-dominant and G7 is dominant in C major, so which would it be?
Does the inversion of a chord and/or omitting the root (even if the 5th is present) alter it's function?
I assume Cm11 would still be tonic if C is in the bass but what happens to the harmonic function when you play it above F in the voicing? Furthermore, what happens when F is highest and C is the second highest note in the voicing?

Cheers

Every now and then I get into an anti-theory curmudgeonly mood.

The voicing you're referring to would be 8x798x. C A E G. Those are the exact notes of a C6, a rootless Fmaj7, an Am7, a truncated Dm11 and more. if you played x8798x, you'd have F A E G which is Fmaj9 no 5, among other possible names.

What is it functionally? Could be any of the above. You try it in a tune and see if you're pleased with the sound. If you stay on the original chord tones, you're "revoicing". If you stray from them, you're "reharmonizing".

It sounds good, or it doesn't. And, that will depend on the song, not the theory.

And, whatever you don't like, sooner or later, you'll hear somebody find a way to make it sound great.

[PMB]

yeah always taking those marathon harpsichord solos, when he said he didn't know how to stop, Rousseau said 'try taking your hands off the keyboard, m*f*er!'

I think you're mixing him up with John Rambo.

[Robertkoa]

Here's one voicing that probably made Rameau a little uncomfortable...

Most don't hear it as a D Major 7th....

2 - 4 - 4 - 2 - 3 - 2

Some call it a Minor b6 Chord which kind of makes sense ...

On ' Summer Breeze ' by Seals and Crofts we hear the F#minor 7th turn into a Dmajor 7th repeatedly on the Intro ...

When I saw Minor b6 Chord in IrealPro App- I wondered WTF they were talking about ..

I suppose it is distinctive enough to have it's own name , like the Minor 6th Chord

Sometimes the actual voicing becomes part of the Tune or leads into some composition ideas ..

Usually even with 9th in the bass Inverted Chords retain function but become more ambiguous in a good way .

Both the misnamed Minor 6th Chord and especially the misnamed Minor b6 Chord nearly but not really disprove Rameau's Inversion Theory ..

[christianm77]

That’s cos Rameau was wrong.

All the inversions have different functions.

The more I look into pre-Rameau approaches to legit harmony the more sense they make. That’s how professional composers thought about chords.... The old figured bass system.

Bass lines are really important. Root movement is a theoretical construct.

But my thoughts on how this relate to jazz are very half formed.

[Robertkoa]

That’s cos Rameau was wrong.

All the inversions have different functions.

The more I look into pre-Rameau approaches to legit harmony the more sense they make. That’s how professional composers thought about chords.... The old figured bass system.

Bass lines are really important. Root movement is a theoretical construct.

But my thoughts on how this relate to jazz are very half formed.

Very true....despite your vast Theory and Music History Knowledge ....your Theory on this IS half formed...

Figured bass with Roman Numeral Superscript works because the Function remains the Same not the same regarding how it RESOLVES but it's basic function within the KEY and it's basic Character - inversions substitute for each other because they are the same chord .

I 6/4 and a I 6/3 are BOTH still Tonics ..
They voice lead differently

Sure the I 6/4 might voice lead to a V chord and
the I 6/3 might go to the IV Chord etc. but the
BASIC FUNCTION remains they just tried to force voice leading with the Figured Bass or notate in shorthand or analyze with Figured Bass.

And every time you play a Tritone Sub ...you are paying Homage to Rameau - you are saying "Thank You Rameau ...I want your autograph ...too bad you are dead "

OK you might be doing that in an extremely obscure subtle indirect very subconscious level ...or maybe not..or maybe after this Post you will secretly have
Rameau imprinted on your Guitar Picks ?

Inversions have different colors and functions but the Basic Function remains even if there's a different function ADDED it still retains the First Function.

Figured Bass retained the Roman Numeral Function..

even with the 7th in the bass.


You are confusing or conflating a General Function

like [ I ] [ V ] with a specific function or usage or voice leading practices.

[christianm77]

I think you misunderstand me. My understanding of how 18th century practices relates to 20-21st century harmony remains half formed, not my ideas about jazz harmony which has room always to grow but forms a framework. I think the connection between the two is complicated. We can see resonances and similarities. We can also see massive differences and divergences.

I'm not going to debate the specifics of classical harmony and where Rameau parts company with tradition. I'll talk from a historical perspective about my beef with the R-dogg.

Rameau is the father of modern music theory. But his writings didn't help Bach write his fugues, Mozart his operas, and if some scholars are to be believed the old pre-Rameau system remained important to professional composers right into the 19th century, so he can't take much credit for Beethoven, Schubert or Rossini either. (Depends who you ask.)

So, what exactly is the point of him?

Well I think if you look at the context of his times, he was called the 'Newton of music.' So, he made music theory into a science and followed that trend towards unification (Newton unified physics). He made it into an area of study in itself, unconnected to the practicalities of writing music, where a 6/4 chord does something totally different to a 6/3.

Actually there's nothing really wrong with that - so I don't hate him. But I hate the confusion he creates.

'Theory' - grand ideas that don't relate to the nitty gritty of getting the fuck on with it and working on specifics, details and musical language.

I can see some parallels in jazz education. The fact that one knows what a half whole scale is and how it relates to a dominant chord under CST, for instance, doesn't mean that you can make it sound cool. Your understanding has to be more specific. Practical.

When it comes to Jazz, we are in a different realm in terms of harmonic thinking. Actually, in many ways jazz musicians don't think about inversions now - they think every bass note is the root, and your example of the m7b6 chord is a classic example, somewhat like figured bass, lol.

However, in jazz we may well be playing with a bass player, so the way we invert chords may not actually be that important. If I play Bm7b6 and the bass plays G, that will sound like a Gmaj9 chord.

It becomes important when we play on our own, or supporting a singer or horn. Then we can appreciate right away the difference between playing G, G/B or G/D in a song. Peter Bernstein commented on this... I probably mentioned that above.

In terms of chord functions - which I should point out comes from Hugo Riemann, a century and a half after Rameau - I do sometimes use this concept, although I am finding it less useful as time goes on. We can understand something like the V dominant scale as having elements of subdominant and dominant function, it doesn't really seem to matter whether we point out the distinction. Barry Harris's teaching is to treat the ii chord as part of the V chord, for instance. I'll leave that for others to puzzle over, I find it irellevant.

My role is teach the improvisor to make authentic jazz language out of raw materials. To me, that's not even theory, it's practice. Barry's teaching is good for that.

However the concept of inversion is important because, unlike musicians of the 17th or 18th century we are not working from bass - we are working from chords.

[Robertkoa]

Yes Christian- I get your beef about that.
And when you said you hated Rameau - I thought you were joking ..
So I definitely misunderstood .

Generally you think he gets too much credit as a Theorist cause he was scientific about Inversions- but nobody was seriously helped by that in Composition / Higher Learning/ Improv..

I get it it ..You can get really irreverent sometimes about Theory ( even though you are deep in the Subject ) so I thought initially you were joking !

How could anybody hate Rameau ? I get it now though.

When I heard on a Video Peter Bernstein talking about a Minor 6th Chord - I realized he WAS talking about a Minor 6th Chord with voice leading and melodic embellishment over it or part of it etc.

It was not soloed the way a Minor 7 b5 would be.


So in a way a Jazz Musicians may be calling for a more specific voicing.

I feel the difference when I solo over it ...unless I choose to ignore it...

I don't care much either way ..and I wrote a cute little Jazz Blues
kinda like Steely Dan and Jazz..much closer to Jazz than normal for me which extensively uses Minor b6

From a minor Tonic [ i - bvii minor b6 ] then iv and v
same thing then a 16 Bar Bridge...

The Bassline won't have to be as specific because the Guitar IS .

I will do full productions ....



So I consider the Minor b6 a specific type Major 7th Voicing ..

If the Bassline does the i - bvii thing I could sub the
REAL Major 7th Voicing for the bvii b6 BUT a different vibe and color - which is what YOU are talking about - Synonyms don't ALWAYS substitute for each other perfectly right ?


You HATE Rameau for saying ' stack up the Tones how ever you want - its the same thing ' lol.


..You need to call one of Rameau's descendants and Play that Minor b6 Voicing ten times ...then hang up ....


But with the plug and play liberal Substitution that especially Jazz Guitarists ( and Pianists ) use - where the Voicing itself often does NOT effect the Resolution ...it is another destination or a Synonym which does not affect the Harmony..

OR - substituting Relative Major Voicings in the Context of Minor or vice versa - Rameau was part of the basis for that.

His Theory of Inversion retaining function is demonstrably true...IMO.

[Reg]

Yea... so Maj/min functional harmony, Rameau...Riemann then Schoenberg etc...

There can be more than one tonal reference going on... and then we can... move away from Ionian as basis or guidelines for defining function. Jazz isn't really a written tradition... so you don't have simple answers. Dominant chords don't always have Dominant function etc...

The whole voice leading and whatever notes you choose to play for voicings or inversions.... can influence what harmonic function may be perceived or even realized in the moment, ..............but the point of using function... is having a Reference, and then defining a relationship.

Yea... it's not about how one can camouflage or realize...

Personally the inversions or voice leading, how we choose to realize or not.... are what we choose to play or notate.... Function is about have a reference with established guidelines for defining function.... whether we perceive what the function is... by how we realize that function with notes...is a different discussion.

Functional guidelines are there.... whether we hear them or not. Being aware and developing skills for using Functional guidelines... is part of our... artistry, what makes our sound movement,(function), personal, or stylistic.

And with jazz... there is that spatial thing going on.... the rhythmic organization, the layers of organization, harmonic function, melodic function... perceptions of harmonic movement with organization, function.

I still use three basic harmonic functions. Tonic or harmonic feel of stable, the basic reference, Dominant or least stable, the perception of a relationship with most gravity towards that Tonic, and sub dominant, all the middle harmony, can move either direction.

Even when using modal organization and Blue notes.

Context... can be reference to the Functional guidelines, or can be what we chose to play, as in the context of the performance. Which can be different...

Christian... I have used that 4th for subdominant organization for years, a modal thing.

[Robertkoa]

I agree that the Voicing itself is more important than the Inversion...when playing in full productions with a Bass and Keyboards etc.

But Inversions lead the way to different voicings and substitutions and related voicings and chord families etc. AND different interval stacks in the Voicings for different colors, substituting majors for minors etc.
And non dominant V chords and their subs .

Reg- many Jazzers are fully aware of Modern Classical Harmony but keep it mostly separate..

I suspect that your gradient use of substitutions in layers , overlapping but moving further and further away opening up other regions and resolutions OR referring/ pointing back to the original destination - ( correct if this is wrong ) comes from fusing Modern Classical with Jazz -

Is this correct ?

Which Classical Theory Books open this up ?

Is Schoenberg's Book good for this ?


I got basics from it long ago but less experienced then I use Regions Conceptually to avoid being trapped in a Key ..

[rpjazzguitar]

I agree that the Voicing itself is more important than the Inversion...when playing in full productions with a Bass and Keyboards etc.

But Inversions lead the way to different voicings and substitutions and related voicings and chord families etc. AND different interval stacks in the Voicings for different colors, substituting majors for minors etc.
And non dominant V chords and their subs .

Reg- many Jazzers are fully aware of Modern Classical Harmony but keep it mostly separate..

I suspect that your gradient use of substitutions in layers , overlapping but moving further and further away opening up other regions and resolutions OR referring/ pointing back to the original destination - ( correct if this is wrong ) comes from fusing Modern Classical with Jazz -

Is this correct ?

Which Classical Theory Books open this up ?

Is Schoenberg's Book good for this ?



Do you want to make some gradient Charts of primary , secondary, tertiary, etc. Subs for each chord family in PDF Form and charge us a bit for it ?

The subject is intriguing, but I find myself unable to follow it in the abstract.

Might you guys be kind enough to give an example or two within a specific tune?

[Reg]

Yea... I consider traditional theory part of jazz theory and harmony etc... Some of Schoenberg's approaches work... His Fundamentals of Music Composition... a straight ahead, not so abstract approach would be Leon Dallin's Techniques of Twentienth Century Composition.

rpjazzguitar... I would think any vid that I have posted on this forum world have examples of how I use a basic tune as the Reference... and create relationships.... use voicings and inversions of subs and related chords. The subs and related chords would be the relationships and then the development of those relationships would or could be... my application of using those subs and related chords.

I generally don't comp using organizations using inversions. I start with the reference... the implied chord and from analysis.. the function of that chord either within macro Tune Tonal implications...... or from using Tonal Target approach

Anyway I then comp.... using lead lines and usually a chord tone lowest note and fill in the inner part of voicing from that analysis using chord scale organization note collections that I like that compliments the style and context I'm performing in.

I have typical Chord patterns... that I generally use, much like most comp using the notated chord. That means... I play chord patterns instead of One chord and inversions.

When I see a chord or a few chords... I play many chords organized into chord patterns that take the place of what's actually notated.
This obviously take practice and understanding of what's implied by charts of tunes... from analysis. Both from memory and also in real time... that dreaded thinking process... you know the skill that makes what you play lifeless, fake, soulless no feel of in the moment qualities.

Sorry... having fun. Anyway I'm not sure you'll really going to understand my approach... you tend to put new information into existing understandings.... maybe like trying to put square or round boxes onto flat pieces of paper. Trying to count to 6 in base 5. Not wrong or bad... but generally doesn't work.

But pick a tune and lets try and go through the process...