what is a chord inversion

[ksjazzguitar]

Whew! I heard that the jazz police almost went on red alert!

Not really, more like the epistemology police. There was never an issue of actual performance, just in definitions and if it is proper to defend a wrong definition and put it on the same standing as the correct one. And at what point (if ever) are you allowed to get frustrated and started being insulting. (OK, that would be the politeness police.)

Peace,
Kevin

[mr. beaumont]

But I apologize if my tone offended anyone.

Accepted. But I'm not letting you off the hook so easily. Real talk here now.

You know your shit, I can tell. You also know a lot of stuff we haven't even tapped into--I can tell just by your vocabulary (and your grasp on logic when it comes to debate) that you've got a lot more to share. There's a lot we can learn from you.

But this is the second time I've seen you in a pissing match with someone, and I think of this community as above that. You have a lot of points to make, but I've kept a close watch on the often condescending way you approach memebers you disagree with/ know more than, and I don't like it. It pisses me off more because I like reading what you have to say, and just about every post of yours I've encountered has contained useful information. It'd be easy to write you off if you were just a useless asshole. You're not.

I just ask for the future that you be aware of a few things--one, we have members here of all levels who will help, whether their advice be spot on or not. I realize that's going to frustrate you, but use it as an opportunity to teach (which I can tell, deep down, you like to do) rather than talk down.

Secondly, the reminder I must give myself every time I log in: It's the internet. We can't see each other, we can't pick up on intended verbal inflections, sarcasm, etc. It makes it a lot more difficult to communicate in a colloquial way-- I have to catch myself as I post often to remember that what I'm typing might not "read" the same way I "hear" it in my head. For example, you stand by your zoo metaphor, and I stand by my assessment that that comment was a cheap shot, a low blow, meant to piss it's reciever off--and it worked. It was bullshit, and I think you know it--served absolutely no function in a "spirited discourse" other than to embarrass and say "gotcha" to the reciever, who'd now be more likely to fire a volley back at you than engage in actual conversation. That's an arguement starter, not a conversation booster.

I'm not asking you to change who you are--obviously a quick thinker, and a little less "laid back" than you've described yourself. I just ask that you remember that sometimes firing off lines the way we would if we were grabbing a beer (an offer I extend, should you ever be in Chicago) doesn't work here. Here we can think about, and craft responses (just think about what I'm doing now--typing over the course of 15 minutes or so, finding the right words, trying to make a point and not alienate or offend, as opposed to just going "old neighborhood" style and hitting somebody in the mouth like I would would four pints in me down at the corner pub) and it's our choice to decide whether we'll make that thought out response an eloquent statement, or a strategic attack.

[ksjazzguitar]

...But this is the second time I've seen you in a pissing match with someone, and I think of this community as above that.
...

Again, the thing that riles me to no end is people pretending to know things that they don't. I don't like people making things up. I don't like people talking on subjects on which they are clearly uninformed and passing off their misinformation as facts. Those things will always get me riled. I find them intellectually insulting. I absolutely, 100%, with out a doubt, have no problem with people not knowing everything - I certainly don't.

It is very difficult to distinguish fact from fiction on the internet. And a large part of that is people who don't know what they are talking about acting like experts. Compared to some of the other forums I've been on, this seems a fairly small community (I don't know how old it is.) One of the way these forums police themselves is by more knowledgeable members shutting down people shooting off their mouths with misinformation. Otherwise the forum degenerates into a swamp of fact and pseudo-fact. I'm glad to see that people have at least stopped defending Bako's completely incorrect definition, but that's where some of my frustration came from - Why am I the only one pointing out that this is misinformation? Why are people trying to get me to say that false definitions are just as valid as the true ones? For the sake of diplomacy?

Maybe you guys want a social club more than an exchange of knowledge. Diplomacy is nice, but it doesn't change the facts. If you want to have any kind of a real exchange of the ideas, then people making stuff up and pretending to know things that they don't - people have to take a stand against that. Again, if you go back through the thread you can see that I tried to keep it diplomatic and it was only after I was being confronted by more and more anti-reality attacks that I got flustered.

Again, I have no problem with people not knowing somethings - as long as they don't pretend to.

I have no problem with people making mistakes - as long they just fess up to it.

I don't mind people disagreeing and arguing against me - as long as they do it in an epistemological sound manner.

I don't mind people making up their own theories and terminology - as long as it is clearly defined and doesn't contradict established terminology.

Nearly every pissing match I have ever gotten into on the net has involved someone violating one of these basic rules of intellectual honesty. The sad thing is that I seem to be one of the few that cares. I was actually quite shocked that I seemed to be the only one who thought that giving incorrect definitions was a problem. I tried politeness, but in this case it didn't work. I am not going to just say, "OK, we'll compromise - you can say the sun revolves around the earth and I'll say the earth revolves around the sun. Let's just agree to disagree so everyone can be friends." There are some things that are subjective, but this question wasn't one of them.

You are upset with me because of my hostile tone. But I feel that someone pretending to know something they don't and making things up is a form of a lie. It is intellectual dishonesty, and (to me at least) that is much more offensive than someone's tone - it's a lie and that insults everyone. I hold myself to these standards and I also hold everyone who pretends to be engaging in an exchange of knowledge (not a dialogue where people can pretend to know things that they don't so they can feel smart.) There are plenty of things where I don't know the answer - so I shut up and listen, that's how I learn more.

It may be hard to believe, but I am a laid back and mellow guy. But when someone lies to me - even if hidden in a pseudo-intellectual statement - that sets me off. I try to rebut it politely, but if that doesn't work, my love of intellectual integrity compels me to push back. If the goal is not truth, then I don't know what it is.

Is politeness more important than truth? Why has no one told Bako: "Hey man, you made a mistake. Get your facts straight next time and don't argue a point once you realize you're wrong."? No, everyone was trying to straddle the fence. The problem is that one side of that fence was fact and the other side was misinformation. People focused on my last posts and decided that they didn't like my tone.

Peace,
Kevin

[Baltar Hornbeek]

Yo KS, you used the word "I" 369 times in this thread. Just sayin...

[JohnW400]

assumption. The first number could be the top note. Even if it is the bottom note, still he failed to make it clear that the bottom note is the only thing that defines inversion. I'm sorry, but anyone who says that anything other than the bottom note defines the inversion (for a given chord) simply does not know what they are talking about.
Can you find one point in his answer when he mentions the word "bass" or "bottom"? (I don't see how an accurate definition of "inversion" is even remotely possible without one of those words or their equivalent.) To the contrary, he even defends his "voicing" definition of "inversion" in later posts.




Peace,
Kevin

Two assumptions I made to help me determine what he meant. That we read left to right and that gravity dictates that things be constructed from the bottom up, not the top down.

[ksjazzguitar]

Yo KS, you used the word "I" 369 times in this thread. Just sayin...

True. Could be egomania. Could be that I felt I was defending myself. Could be that I just tend to write and write and write.

Hey, why choose? Let's call it all three!

Two assumptions I made to help me determine what he meant. That we read left to right and that gravity dictates that things be constructed from the bottom up, not the top down.

Perhaps. I actually think of chord voicings from the top down, liking to focus on what the melody is doing, like when voicing a sax soli. Even when comping, I pay far more attention to what the top note is doing than what the bottom note of my chord is doing. I guess I used to think that way (bottom/up) but my jazz arranging teacher cured me of that. Whatever works.

And for the record, where I live, gravity works top/down. Maybe not down there in the Antipodes. Besides I'm not really sure what gravity has to do with notes. If we must use a gravity metaphor, I guess I think of hanging the chord voicing off the top note. It's just how I was taught to think of chord voicing - that bottom note is just going to get buried in the texture anyway, let the bass player worry about the bass note.

And still, I would point out that not once in his "definition" of inversion did he mention anything about the bottom note being the defining note for inversion. That is the most important concept to express when talking about inversion. It would be like someone giving a definition of a bicycle but not mentioning wheels or the number "2" - it's the most important part of the definition. True, his voicings have bottom notes, but that's not really good enough for a definition.

Peace,
Kevin

PS Hey Baltar, what's my total now?

[bako]

What I actually said and my comments.

"inversion from Meriam Webster online: a reversal of position, order, form, or relationship."

This is a simple definition of the word inversion, not the musical definition.

I presented a chart of all permutations or voicings of 1357 arranged by bass note. Yes, meant to be read from left to right.
It was not an answer to mississippi's question but material provided for study for anyone in my community who found it useful.

"Thanks for providing a simple and technical answer, my Gemini brain doesn't always go to that place first."

I thanked Kevin for providing a clear response to what Mississippi was really asking.

"For me, the root position is also an inversion (perhaps the prime or initiative one)
I like to think of these voicings in an egalitarian way, equal until their sound proves them otherwise."

"I find it useful to think of all voicings as inversions, while observing similarities and differences in the bass, lead voice and inner voices.
For me theory is not about passing exams but using organized systems of information to assist me in the creation of music.
I like to be aware of the established orthodox thinking on a subject but feel no compulsion to be bound by it.
Thanks for the reminder."

These are not statements of what I think is the accurate definition of inversion, I think Kevin's explanation did a fine job of that.
This is a way of thinking that I find useful when navigating bass movements, lead lines and inner voices.
Inversions are defined by the bass note but these other details are also important musically.
I am very intrigued by the interaction between the way I organize my thoughts and and how that affects the musical results.
I try to keep an open mind and explore different avenues and will not limit myself to what is textbook correct.
I do however like to be aware of accepted wisdom, terminology correctly applied, historical precedent and culturally diverse viewpoints.
I do the best I can. I am neither a genius or stupid.
I thanked Kevin for helping me stay in touch.

A Kevin quote:
"Why has no one told Bako: "Hey man, you made a mistake. Get your facts straight next time and don't argue a point once you realize you're wrong."?

As Mr.B points out not everything is accurately understood on the internet.
I was not arguing a point but sharing a preferred personal thought process.
In reality I said very little and claimed responsibility for my viewpoints
"For me, the root position is..." "I find it useful to think of....."
My apologies if this distinction was not clear.

Best,
Bako

[Flyin' Brian]

Yo KS, you used the word "I" 369 times in this thread. Just sayin...

Really. I'm not a major contributor here, nor do I log in every day. But Kevin from what I've seen, your approach to discussion and the passing on of knowledge belies your standard "Peace" signature.

Style is as important in verbal delivery as it is in music. You're playing the right notes but your delivery is kind of harsh.

A little more dolce might be preferable.

[ksjazzguitar]

What I actually said and my comments.

"inversion from Meriam Webster online: a reversal of position, order, form, or relationship."

This is a simple definition of the word inversion, not the musical definition.

I presented a chart of all permutations or voicings of 1357 arranged by bass note. Yes, meant to be read from left to right. ...

But you're leaving out a part. You're conveniently redacting out the part where you tried to offer a definition. After your dictionary definition of "inversion" you tried a musical one, "With chords it is simply that.
Reordering the notes of a chord in different sequences will yield additional versions of the same harmony." (A rare case of someone quoting themselves out of context.)

It was not an answer to mississippi's question but material provided for study for anyone in my community who found it useful.

Sure. If you'd prefaced it with, "I don't really know what 'inversion' is, but here is some other stuff I found useful, then I would have no problem.

"Thanks for providing a simple and technical answer, my Gemini brain doesn't always go to that place first."[/i]

Sorry, I don't go in for Zodiac things. But my answer wasn't "technical" it was correct. It's not that mine was "technical" and yours was "pragmatic." Yours was completely wrong. Maybe if you'd have replaced the word "technical" with the word "correct," then I would have understood. I took your choice of words to mean that each answered the question "What is a chord inversion?" in different ways. No, we didn't.

I find it useful to think of all voicings as inversions, while observing similarities and differences in the bass, lead voice and inner voices.

But why stretch the word "inversion" to cover all of "voicing"? Why not have different words, one for the subtopic and one for the general topic. There is no value judgement there, that needs to be corrected with your "egalitarianism." Stating that inversion and voicing are related topics is fine. Stating that they are the same thing is factually incorrect. Can you really not see how conflating these two words can cause massive confusion?

For me theory is not about passing exams but using organized systems of information to assist me in the creation of music.
I like to be aware of the established orthodox thinking on a subject but feel no compulsion to be bound by it.

I can't remember the last theory exam I had. And theory is not about passing exams. People like to pretend that there is this imaginary disconnect between theory and practice. The entire point of theory is to describe practice. When the practice changes, theory changes to meet it. I'm sorry, but when I hear people complain about "being restrained by theory," it always sounds to me like someone who really just doesn't understand the theory. Theory simply describes and maybe suggests. It never proscribes except in the case of beginners when they use them as training wheels. No theorist ever expects a performer to be bounded by his "rules" - he would be mortified at the thought.

When I hear someone who complains about theory constraining them, I imagine someone who dropped out of the third semester of theory cause they got tired of all those "rules" they made you do to write 4-part counterpoint in the style of Bach. They don't realize that no real composer feels any constraint by those rules, the point is to abandon the training wheels once they've done their job.

There is nothing wrong with exploring your own theoretical constructs, but when you overlap it's terminology with existing terminology that is used on the same subject by every other educated musician in the Western world - that's begging to create confusion.

I try to keep an open mind and explore different avenues and will not limit myself to what is textbook correct.

C'mon, can you stop playing the victim? Can you show me one spot where I said "You cannot play that."? No. My beef was one of terminology and definition. Not once did I say anything bad about your voicing chart (it's pretty standard stuff for anyone who's studied arranging.)

Explore different musical avenues. But if you want to discuss it, it really helps if you get the terminology straight. (It's really easy to find. Using the accepted terminology will not affect how you play.

And for the record (this is another one of my pet peeves) theorists never tell anyone not to play something. Theory is descriptive not proscriptive - it is an a posteriori attempt to explain what sounds good. Anyone who thinks theorists are running around telling people what not to play doesn't understand what music theory is.


Look, we're obviously not going to convince each other, so I don't know what the point of continuing is.

...But Kevin from what I've seen, your approach to discussion and the passing on of knowledge belies your standard "Peace" signature.

Perhaps. I do tend to get passionate about intellectual topics. I put the "peace" at the end to half remind myself that this is a friendly debate among friends. I do mean it sincerely, that I mean no ill will. I often have heated debates with my friends and in the grad program. It's just how things are done in my world. But tone is hard to judge on the internet, and I get get a viper's tongue when rattled (If you guys only knew the things I censor...)

Style is as important in verbal delivery as it is in music. You're playing the right notes but your delivery is kind of harsh.

But is that worse than playing with great tone but hitting all the wrong notes? Now that is subjective. Since the exchange of accurate information (I assume) is the primary function of something like this forum, I prioritize that.

Again, I always start out with a gentle tone. It's not until people start defending misinformation or bad epistemolgies that I get gradually more belligerent. I try to politely correct people, but there comes a point when you just have to say, "You're wrong, you don't know what you're talking about." There are somethings that are subjective and nuanced and can be interpreted different ways. The definition of "inversion" is not one of them.

If Bako were here, I'd take him out for a beer so I could convince him he's wrong () in a friendlier enviroment. But it's just not an option.

Peace,
Kevin

[randalljazz]

"OK, we'll compromise - you can say the sun revolves around the earth and I'll say the earth revolves around the sun. Let's just agree to disagree so everyone can be friends."

actually, neither is true...they both revolve around the barycenter...

[jayx123]

No theorist ever expects a performer to be bounded by his "rules" - he would be mortified at the thought.

Aren't they kind'a theororists

[JohnW400]

Perhaps. I actually think of chord voicings from the top down, liking to focus on what the melody is doing, like when voicing a sax soli. Even when comping, I pay far more attention to what the top note is doing than what the bottom note of my chord is doing. I guess I used to think that way (bottom/up) but my jazz arranging teacher cured me of that. Whatever works.

And for the record, where I live, gravity works top/down. Maybe not down there in the Antipodes. Besides I'm not really sure what gravity has to do with notes. If we must use a gravity metaphor, I guess I think of hanging the chord voicing off the top note. It's just how I was taught to think of chord voicing - that bottom note is just going to get buried in the texture anyway, let the bass player worry about the bass note.

A Grammy Award winning guitarist that toured the world as part of the Phil Woods Six, and also played Carnegie Hall once taught me that ANY chord can work as long as it's supported by the bass line.

[cosmic gumbo]

Spanky's belly button is inverted. But I may be wrong, I'm not always right, like some people.

[bako]

"But why stretch the word "inversion" to cover all of "voicing"? Why not have different words, one for the subtopic and one for the general topic. There is no value judgement there, that needs to be corrected with your "egalitarianism." Stating that inversion and voicing are related topics is fine. Stating that they are the same thing is factually incorrect. Can you really not see how conflating these two words can cause massive confusion?"

This is an example of what good communication looks like. Very clear.
I will consider being more careful with using standard meanings of terms, separating the personal evolution of concepts and the words I choose to represent them.

When an object is inverted, generally it is reversed, upside down, placed on it's side wouldn't fit the definition.
A salad is mixed when it is tossed, not inverted. In music, 4 part chords have 4 inversions but 24 voicings (without doublings) for each and that is why my chart had 4 columns, separated by bass notes. Is there any structure in there that you would consider not an inversion?

"When I hear someone who complains about theory constraining them, I imagine someone who dropped out of the third semester of theory cause they got tired of all those "rules" they made you do to write 4-part counterpoint in the style of Bach. They don't realize that no real composer feels any constraint by those rules, the point is to abandon the training wheels once they've done their job."

2 concepts

Chord tones with chromatics and enclosures
Super imposed progressions

Each one will lead to a different musical result beyond the primary chord tones.
When I say constrained, I mean that I want to be free to use the thought process that will best lead to the results I seek.
Different tools for different jobs.

"C'mon, can you stop playing the victim? Can you show me one spot where I said "You cannot play that."?"

When I spoke about being open without limit and constraints I am talking about my thought process. If I know the solution to 10 problems then I want to approach the next one with the understanding that it may require something completely different. It has absolutely nothing to do with you.

"Perhaps. I do tend to get passionate about intellectual topics. I put the "peace" at the end to half remind myself that this is a friendly debate among friends. I do mean it sincerely, that I mean no ill will. I often have heated debates with my friends and in the grad program. It's just how things are done in my world. But tone is hard to judge on the internet, and I get get a viper's tongue when rattled (If you guys only knew the things I censor...)"

"If Bako were here, I'd take him out for a beer so I could convince him he's wrong () in a friendlier enviroment. But it's just not an option."


Communication style is what we make it. I love being challenged because it can either bolster my viewpoint or change it.
You have much to say that is engaging but your choice of trying to discredit and insult people only obscures the real points that you have to make. You have placed much importance on the precise meaning of inversion, consider the meaning of all that negative verbiage which to me comes across as nothing short of ill will. If that is not your intention, be aware that is a possible result. Your ideas have enough weight to stand on their merits alone.

It is an option for us to keep debate civil on this forum. We mostly succeed here, less so around economic, political issues.

[BigDaddyLoveHandles]

Spanky's belly button is inverted. But I may be wrong, I'm not always right, like some people.

Why yes, there does seem to be a lot of navel gazing going on here

[ksjazzguitar]

A Grammy Award winning guitarist that toured the world as part of the Phil Woods Six, and also played Carnegie Hall once taught me that ANY chord can work as long as it's supported by the bass line.

Hyperbole aside, I'm not contradicting that. I'm saying that in most playing situations, it is irrelevant what is the bottom note of the guitar chord because we are not playing the bottom note of the texture - the bass is.

I was taught that it is technically incorrect to think of or choice of chords as inversions since the bottom note is not the true bass note (unless the guitar is the lowest note.) I understand that some guitarists like to organize their voicings that way - that's fine. But it does not change the fact that what "inversion" the guitar player is playing has any affect on the "inversion" of the entire musical texture.

Additionally, in the three jazz arranging classes and 1 orchestration class that I've had, we were taught to build your voicings from the top down. True, the bass is playing that bass note down there, but then you go to the melody and build down from that. This is also how I've been taught to think of guitar chords, from the top down. I think that it is a crutch that guitar players in particular have to always want to build from the bottom up. To me, the bottom note is just going to get buried in the texture anyway, but the top note - I can build melodies and counter melodies with that. Every teacher I've ever had has tried to get me to stop thinking bottom up for chord voicing - I believe them. If it works for you, go for it. (Unlike the definition of "inversion," this is debatable.)

I usually don't even consider the bottom note of the guitar chord unless I'm playing solo or without a bass. There are (IMHO) more important things to consider.

When an object is inverted, generally it is reversed, upside down, placed on it's side wouldn't fit the definition.
A salad is mixed when it is tossed, not inverted. In music, 4 part chords have 4 inversions but 24 voicings (without doublings) for each and that is why my chart had 4 columns, separated by bass notes. Is there any structure in there that you would consider not an inversion?

Several problems with this logic. First, I'm not sure it matters how "invert" is used in common English - many words have different meanings in different disciplines. Is a "scale" in music used to weigh yourself? Does it live on the side of a fish? No, it has a meaning unique to music.

Secondly, you are assuming a meaning for "invert." The word comes from the Latin "invertere" which means "to turn within" or "to turn into itself." This of course is not the meaning of the word that use to day, but of course half a dozen centuries ago, all scholarship was done in Latin. I'm assuming that they used the word "invertere" and that just got translitereated into English. The fact that the English meaning of the word in other contexts has evolved into something else, is irrelevant.

And I fail to see how you conflation of "inversion" and "voicing" fixes the problem at all. You are just adding more mixture to the equation.

And again, it is all irrelevant, because different disciplines often use definitions of words that differ from common usage. To try and steam roll over the specialized language of every discipline to get it to fit common English would do a great disservice. If you want the entire music community to change it's meaning of these two words, then you have to show a benefit. I can't even see a shred of benefit.

[in response to my "theory does not constrain practice" argument]
2 concepts

Chord tones with chromatics and enclosures
Super imposed progressions

Each one will lead to a different musical result beyond the primary chord tones.
When I say constrained, I mean that I want to be free to use the thought process that will best lead to the results I seek.
Different tools for different jobs.

I'm confused. Are you saying that this is an example of theory constraining you? I don't see where. Those are two (of many) theories that will lead to different results. You are free to choose. Who is constraining you? I think that some of you guys imagine this "theory boogey-man" that is going to come and eat you if you color outside the lines. No, they won't. Do what you want. If it sounds good, they'll change the theory. That's what theorists do. Again, theorists don't proscribe, they describe.

When I spoke about being open without limit and constraints I am talking about my thought process. If I know the solution to 10 problems then I want to approach the next one with the understanding that it may require something completely different. It has absolutely nothing to do with you.

You brought it up in the context of this discussion. I was telling you you've got your definitions wrong. Getting the definitions right does not constrain thought practice. I have absolutely no idea where you are trying to go with this. Can you give an example of how using the common definition of the words "inversion" and "voicing" would constrain your music?

Communication style is what we make it. I love being challenged because it can either bolster my viewpoint or change it. ...

For someone who "loves" being challenged you sure put up a lot of resistance. You're still resisting. And this isn't some subjective topic. The definition of "chord inversion" is cut and dry, black and white. If this is how you push back on something so simple and clearly defined, I hate to think of what it's going to be like on something more fuzzy and subjective.

Again, you guys are focused on style. If you look, in my first post, I was rather delicate to you Bako (I had wanted to be more direct.) You pushed back, so I was a little stronger. So I got a little more insistent. It leapfrogged from there. Again, if on your second post, you'd just said, "Oops, I made a mistake." or "Oops, I better check my music dictionary." or "Opps, guess I misread the question." - then we wouldn't be here now. I'm not saying I'm proud of letting it get under my skin, but it doesn't diminish your intransigent insistence on changing common definitions.

But I may be wrong, I'm not always right, like some people.

I'll assume that that was directed at me.

Fair enough, I know it can seem that I feel that I'm always right. One of the things that allows me to have confidence in my knowledge is that I have studied extensively, in and out of school. I'm not just making these things based on something I kinda heard someone say once mixed in with a little creativity.

Secondly, (and perhaps more importantly) I don't pontificate on a subject unless I know what I'm talking about. If a question is asked, and I don't know the answer, then I shut up and listen. (Grandma always said, "You can't listen if your mouth is moving.") If I do feel I have something to add to a question on which I am not 99% confident in my knowledge, then I qualify it with something like, "I may be wrong, but I think ..." If you look at my post on Esp-chromatic section, you'll see that I started out with, "I'll have to admit that tunes like this really aren't my specialty, but since you asked ..." This is a perfect example. There are also plenty of times where I don't post because I don't feel I have the expertise. If Bako had started out his answer with, "Well, I haven't actually taken the time to learn these basic definitions, but here's how I think of them ..." then we might not be here now.

Lastly, I acknowledge that some things are less cut and dry. Somethings are more subjective. Some things are more a matter of opinion.

True, you don't catch me saying "I made a mistake" very often. But it's not because I'm smarter. And (I hope) it's not because I'm more arrogant. It's because I'm more careful not to shoot off my mouth on subjects on which I am not confident in my knowledge. There have been a few times where I have been corrected (I don't think yet on this forum) and I have graciously thanked the person. Unlike most people, I don't keep desperately trying to defend a losing position.

That is respect for my fellow posters. To me, not to do that is rudeness. You guys gleefully point out my eventual rudeness in style. I question why you don't see that there can also be a hidden lack of respect in content - from uninformed opinions masquerading as fact and bad rhetorical, dialectical, and epistemelogical process. To me that is the greater insult as I tend to focus more on content than on style, in intellectual matters at least. But I guess we differ there.

The point is that I'm not always right. I just try to keep my mouth shut when I'm not. I wish more people had that courtesy.

Peace,
Kevin

[mr. beaumont]

I question why you don't see that there can also be a hidden lack of respect in content - from uninformed opinions masquerading as fact and bad rhetorical, dialectical, and epistemelogical process. To me that is the greater insult as I tend to focus more on content than on style, in intellectual matters at least. But I guess we differ there.

I think you need to stop taking someone being "wrong" as a personal insult.

"uninformed opinions masquerading as fact"-- a little dramatic, dontcha think?

I don't have time to go back and reread the whole thread, but I don't remember anyone actually or ostensibly denounced your correct definition for their "made up reality."

[JohnW400]

Hyperbole aside, I'm not contradicting that. I'm saying that in most playing situations, it is irrelevant what is the bottom note of the guitar chord because we are not playing the bottom note of the texture - the bass is.

No one said you were. I just stated a piece of information that was shown to me a long time ago. Ant it's no exaggeration. With context you can make any chord work as long as the bass line supports it.

Additionally, in the three jazz arranging classes and 1 orchestration class that I've had, we were taught to build your voicings from the top down. True, the bass is playing that bass note down there, but then you go to the melody and build down from that. This is also how I've been taught to think of guitar chords, from the top down. I think that it is a crutch that guitar players in particular have to always want to build from the bottom up. To me, the bottom note is just going to get buried in the texture anyway, but the top note - I can build melodies and counter melodies with that. Every teacher I've ever had has tried to get me to stop thinking bottom up for chord voicing - I believe them. If it works for you, go for it. (Unlike the definition of "inversion," this is debatable.)

I usually don't even consider the bottom note of the guitar chord unless I'm playing solo or without a bass. There are (IMHO) more important things to consider.

Not where I went to school. The melody speaks for itself and does not need the chord. Doesn't make a difference how you build the chord. The chord is there to help the melody.

The professors at WPC where more interested in how it sounded and that all the charts were correctly notated (using a #2 pencil and staff paper. LONG before notation software ) rather than how you built your chord. Thad Jones was the Jazz Arranging professor.

But as you say, Whatever works for you.

[ksjazzguitar]

I think you need to stop taking someone being 'wrong' as a personal insult.

Being wrong is not an insult. Being wrong, knowing you don't have a basis for thinking you are right, but pretending that you are ... that is an insult to the listener's intelligence. It is essentially a lie of omission or a lie of implied authority. That's just the way I was raised.

"uninformed opinions masquerading as fact"-- a little dramatic, dontcha think?

No, I don't. I find it quite common on forums like this. I find a lot of people going on and on about things that they obviously have not really studied, implying that they know what they are talking about. It is especially insulting when they could set themselves straight with a simple 45 second jaunt onto Wikipedia or crack a music dictionary. That they have so little respect for their audience that they can't even be bothered to do that - yes, I find that insulting.

When the tone of your statement is "This is how it is ..." instead of "This is just my opinion ...", then you are implying that you have some authoritative knowledge on the subject. Unfortunately, the anonymity of the internet let's people get away with it. (Try going to university and getting away with that!) Unfortunately all this misinformation leads to facts and fiction mixed together. Unless self-policing takes place. On many forums, if someone were to do that, they would get jumped on from 10 directions - that's how you keep people honest. They start checking their facts.

I don't have time to go back and reread the whole thread, but I don't remember anyone actually or ostensibly denounced your correct definition for their "made up reality."

Perhaps no one was trying to tell me that my definition was "wrong," but there was a lot of fence straddling trying to be diplomatic that both were "valid" and implying that they have equal value. No, there is only one answer to the question "What is a chord inversion?"

Bako spent a lot of time trying to straddle the fence between admitting he'd made a mistake and saying that his answer was kinda right. No, Bako gave a decent answer to "What are some organizational techniques for chord voicings?" but gave an absolutely incorrect answer for the questions "What is a chord inversion?" Not only did he go far, far beyond inversion in his answer, not once did he even define it - not once do I see the words "bottom," "bass," or "lowest" in there. Even now, in his last post, he is still trying to defend his unilateral redefinition of the words "chord inversion" and playing the victim that all this theory is somehow repressing his creativity (the battle cry of the anti-theorists.)

A few came to Bako's defense or at least tried to diplomatically straddle the fence, implying that both definitions were equal in merit. No, they weren't. Again, it's not my definition of "chord inversion" but the definition of the entire educated music community and it has been for over 500 years. I wasn't defending my opinion, I was defending a fact of musical definition.

As it stood, any new person reading this thread would come to the conclusion that Bako's "voicing" definition of "chord inversion" and the real "bass note" definition of chord inversion had equal merit. Diplomacy, fence straddling, style concerns aside - they don't. And that is the danger on the internet of people pontificating on subjects they don't understand - it is very difficult for the listener to tell fact from fiction. Unless there is some self-policing going on in the forum, and that's what I try to do. Politely at first, but less so as people keep defending undefendable positions. There are some things that are a matter of opinion. The definition of a "chord inversion" is not one of them. I know it doesn't jive with our I'm-OK-you're-OK and Everyone-is-right-in-their-own-special-way world that they tried to shove down our throats in kindergarten, but there are still a few things that are black and white. Yes, there are some topics where opinion and subjectivity rightly rule. There are even some more objective subjects where things are not so clear cut and fence straddling may be appropriate. But fence straddling is inappropriate when one side of the fence is right and one is wrong.

Peace,
Kevin

[mr. beaumont]

I'm one of the folks who defended Bako's answer as a nice example. Omitting the root position voicings which are not inversions, are the other examples he presented not? I took them to read low to high (and I think that's pretty self-explanatory), which would mean that he gave examples of the ways one could voice a 1st, 2nd and 3rd inversion. All we'd have to do is get rid of the root pos. voicings, add your definition, and label his chart "Ways of voicing 1st, second and third inversions for four note chords" and we'd have a pretty good answer for our OP to work with.

Maybe that's what needs to be done--that when when folks search this site in the future they get a definition, some examples, and none of our now too long discourse following.

[timscarey]

Additionally, in the three jazz arranging classes and 1 orchestration class that I've had, we were taught to build your voicings from the top down. True, the bass is playing that bass note down there, but then you go to the melody and build down from that. This is also how I've been taught to think of guitar chords, from the top down. I think that it is a crutch that guitar players in particular have to always want to build from the bottom up. To me, the bottom note is just going to get buried in the texture anyway, but the top note - I can build melodies and counter melodies with that. Every teacher I've ever had has tried to get me to stop thinking bottom up for chord voicing - I believe them. If it works for you, go for it. (Unlike the definition of "inversion," this is debatable.)

not to compare size, but in the 8 years of counterpoint, 4 years of jazz arranging, and 2 years of jazz orchestration I've had, I find that voicings are often built from the outside in, starting with a 2 voice "outline" and filling in as needed for texture.

Furthermore, I've found that in a creative situation working with original material, voicings can be formed many different ways, be it from the thechnical limitations of an instrument, individual monophonic lines fitting together, straight up counterpoint, ostinato, hellza different ways, voicing down form the melody is very usefull but I find some other methods to be, well, more "me"

but you're right, inversion just refers to the lowest sounding pitch. Voicing is different.

[ksjazzguitar]

...Omitting the root position voicings which are not inversions, are the other examples he presented not? I took them to read low to high (and I think that's pretty self-explanatory), which would mean that he gave examples of the ways one could voice a 1st, 2nd and 3rd inversion. All we'd have to do is get rid of the root pos. voicings, add your definition, and label his chart "Ways of voicing 1st, second and third inversions for four note chords" and we'd have a pretty good answer for our OP to work with. ...

Perhaps that would be a way to clean it up. My point was never that his inofrmation was worthless, just that it was an exercise in voicing, not in inversion. To read his post, I would have come to the conclusion that
"inversion" was the reordering of all the chord voices (a position he confirmed by later defending it.) Go ahead and leave on the root position combinations, just make it clear that all the voice scrambling is not inversion - only the bass note determines inversion. Bako gave a great exercise in voicing.

It appears that he did intend it to be read low to high, but I remember seeing very similar voicing charts in my arranging classes that went the exact opposite direction. Again, when you write a sax soli, you (usually) write the melody first and write the other voices down from there. I think (IMHO) this guitar player obsession with thinking bottom up comes from our beginning bar chord days when we looked at the bottom note to figure out what the chord was - I seemed to observe in my arranging class that guitarists had the hardest time thinking that way. But that's a kvetch for another time ...

Man, I wish we could all go out for a beer.

...I find that voicings are often built from the outside in, starting with a 2 voice "outline" and filling in as needed for texture. ...

Interesting. I've never heard anyone think of it that way. I tend to think of the melody as being the most important voice, and the bass (true bass) being the 2nd most important, but that may just be my "Baroque" mind. By "2 voice 'outline'" do you mean guide tones? I sometimes build chord voicings (for guitar voicings or horn pads) like that, but when I'm arranging for horns (violins) that have the melody, I always start with the melody. I try to make sure that the guide tones are in there and get resolved, but I "hang" everything off the melody. It's the same approach I use for chord soloing, I focus on the top note.

Furthermore, I've found that in a creative situation working with original material, voicings can be formed many different ways, ...

Definitely. I was overgeneralizing there for emphasis.

voicing down form the melody is very usefull but I find some other methods to be, well, more "me"...

Definitely. Ultimately you have to do what works best for you. I think we should try them all (as it sounds that you have) but you have to find your own way of doing things. Nothing wrong with that, as long as it comes from informed judgment (IMHO) and it sounds good.

Peace,
Kevin

[JohnRoss]

I have lots of reading to be getting on with instead of ploughing through his stuff, especially Kevin's lucid but lengthy-and-beginning-to-be-repetitive posts. So can we all agree that what Bako offered was interesting and valuable to many, but that Kevin is right, a root position triad is not an inversion? I do understand his quest for truthfulness, etc., and desire to rid the Internet of frauds who don't know what they are talking about, although in this particular case it really doesn't matter a damn if a root position triad is just another inversion or the parent of its inversions. Now all we have to do is say "Yes, Kevin," with a gentle recrimination to Bako for not being able (at his age) to admit that he was wrong.

[ksjazzguitar]

...Kevin's lucid but lengthy-and-beginning-to-be-repetitive posts. ...

My wife actually fell over laughing at that. I mean it, she is on the floor right now and can't get up because she is laughing so hard. I think if she could talk, I think she would agree with you. OK, I think I can discern the word "yes" now.

...although in this particular case it really doesn't matter a damn if a root position triad is just another inversion or the parent of its inversions. ...

Just to be clear, that really wasn't my beef. That is a small nitpicky point that with which I agree, but is a minor point. The main problem for me was the conflation and confusion of the topics of "inversion" and "voicing" (and the subsequent fence straddling.) If someone thinks of "root position" as an inversion is not that big of a deal - if someone is teaching that inversion is the subject of all possible voicing combinations - that is a big deal (IMHO.)

You're all spared from my usual loquacious, rambling screed as I'm pretty sure I need to get my wife to the emergency room. Thanks John, are you going to pay our deductable?

Peace,
Kevin

[JohnRoss]

John, are you going to pay our deductable?

My lawyer tells me I should always deny all responsibility. In fact, I am not really John Ross but an imposter who has illicitly obtained his username and password.