-
That's what Mark Levine keeps mentioning on the pages of his 'Jazz Theory book'. After I encountered this "revelation" again on page 104 I decided to ask you what he means by 'strongest'. As he puts it there "...all things being equal triads sound strongest in second inversion."
I recently did some surface level study of the Classical harmony and I know the second inversion triads are considered the most unstable of all three positions, root position being the most stable.
There is however difference in interpretation of the terms inversion/position in Classical/Pop terms (Jazz using the Pop terminology of course).
In Pop terms you will often see examples of a three note chord, the triad in different inversions and that's what is called an 'inversion'.
In classical terms of Harmony and Voice Leading the 'inversion' is defined by the Bass(root of the roots) note. What comes on top is almost irrelevant as long as it outlines the chord in question. So all Pop "inversions" in this case are being equal in respect to naming the chord because they simply represent different positions of top three voices.
What Mark Levine calls a triad inversion is actually a position in Classical terms but since he uses these second inversion extensions over the foreign root (like F/C for instance) the Classical terminology does not apply any longer.
Anyway, what does Mark mean by "strongest" in respect to the second inversion triad? Does he mean "brutal", "in your face"?
-
07-26-2015 08:31 PM
-
In calssical harmony there are three sapects
1) Posintion in reference of bass - (root position and inversions)
2) Position in reference to intervals between voices (close, open, mixed)
3) Position in reference of soprano voice (sometimes called 'melodic postion')
So in practical classical harmony triad should be represented in 4 voices and could be descibed wit hthese three qualities..
Like 'C-major 2nd inversion in close position with 5th in melody'.
From your post I do not quite get the reference you use to classical 'position'.
you mean that Pop harmony operates with 3 voiced trids? And the inversion of the bass oice causes authomatically the inversion of melodic voice? I never saw it actually...
since he uses these second inversion extensions over the foreign root (like F/C for instance) the Classical terminology does not apply any longer.
F/C means jsut that you play F tirad with C in the bass voice... (at least as we see it like here out of context) ... so it's common classical second inversion.. (in classical harmony will be written as 6 4 chord)
PS
to be true the idea of inversion as it is already presumes certain harmonic concept... of course if we use the term with meaning - not just borrowing 'word' from claasical...
if we treat C6 as C major triad with A over it - ort as an inversion of A-7 chord - it depends on the context and it shows how we understand harmonic relations in the songLast edited by Jonah; 07-27-2015 at 06:53 AM.
-
As per sounding 'strongest'... I do not have a book around now...
But I can suggest that he could mean cadential 6/4 chord?
-
No, he mentions it out of context, just like "the triad sounds strongest in second inversion". Cadences are not considered along with mentioning the inversion.
I suspect by "strongest" he means most unstable, wanting to go somewhere. Does it make sense?
-
I think what Levine may be referring to is the consonance of the chord in isolation. (He does say "all things being equal", which I think we can take as "ignoring any context".)
In terms of frequency ratio, a root position major triad is 4:5:6 (assuming pure intonation for the sake of argument).
A 2nd inversion triad is 3:4:5.
The theory being that the smaller the figures the more consonant the chord. (Seeing that, as intervals go, 1:1 unison is most consonant, 2:1 octave next, 3:2 5th next, etc.)
The theory that a 2nd inversion is dissonant is a contextual one. The cadential 6/4 as Jonah says. Classically, we expect that chord to progress to a V and then a root position I.
Before I knew the classical theory (and before I read Levine) I always considered a 2nd inversion major chord highly consonant. It just sounded like that to me.
It was when I listened with the classical concept in mind that I heard what was meant by the dissonance - that a I6/4 chord sounded more like a suspended V than a resolved I. IOW, I learned to hear it in a different way: an educated way rather than a natural way.
In what I call the "natural" way of hearing, the lower 5th in the chord simply supports and strengthens the root. It doesn't have to go below the root - because the acoustic principle is that the real root is way below that anyway.
IOW, in a 4:5:6 or a 3:4:5 chord (or any other ratio), the real acoustic root is the "1" of that ratio, the common factor.
A major chord in any voicing (in this hypothesis) sounds "right" because all its notes represent overtones of a single root, even if that's a virtual note an octave or two below the nominal root.
The simple example is an A major triad of 440:550:660 (pure tuning again). The acoustic root is an A of 110, which will have all those 3 frequencies as overtones. And of course those overtones also include 330:440:550, E-A-C#, which is arguably stronger in being closer to the 110 root.
In the cadential 6/4, the bass note is much more significant. It's heard as the V (dominant) note of the key, and as such is waiting to move to the I - either up a 4th or, with more finality, down a 5th.
BTW, it's also worth saying that Levine's own context for his assertion is right-hand chords only. The 2nd inversion triads are all in the right hand, over different bass notes. So the first C chord (G-C-E in right hand) is over a C in the bass. So really it's a root position chord after all! (1-5-8-10 in intervals).
And it's at the beginning of the chapter on "slash chords", and the other chords he shows are the other 11 major triads (all in 2nd inversion) all over a C bass note, just to illustrate how the symbols work.
In addition, his sense of "strength" might refer to the fact the 3rd of the chord is on top - and the 3rd is jazz's favourite chord tone (in a triad). It's the most expressive chord tone, and this voicing is also "strong" because it's "close" - unlike, say, an open voiced root position, such as C-G-E. (Just guessing here...
)
Last edited by JonR; 07-27-2015 at 08:49 AM.
-
It does.. in the context.. as cadential 6/4 chord))I suspect by "strongest" he means most unstable, wanting to go somewhere. Does it make sense?
Context I mean not necessarily certain piece of music.. but in genral some harmonic conception...
The chord cannot have tension in itself - it's a relative quality
-
So it looks like for Levine the only sence is about absolute position of three notes
c-e-g root
e-g-c 1st inv
g-c-e 2nd inv
and that's for 'the right-hand chord' (by the way, JonR, this quote is from Jazz Theory or Jazz Piano - what's the right-hand refers to in the context - piano?)
It looks like for him inversion means only changes in melodic position?
-
Theory.
Originally Posted by Jonah
Yes. Originally Posted by Jonah
Not necessarily. It's really only a passing reference in the context of explaining slash chords. He's just giving a string of examples of RH major triads (all voiced 5-1-3) all over the same bass note, to show the slash chord symbol for each. He just makes that comment about 2nd inversion being "strongest", with no further explanation. Originally Posted by Jonah
I'm sure he knows very well that "inversion" only refers to bass note, with no implication about voicing (even though in his examples it only refers to his RH chord!). I was only trying to guess what he might mean by "strongest".Last edited by JonR; 07-27-2015 at 05:56 PM.
-
Ok I see...
by the way - concerning initial question...
Considering inverted triads - like ceg, egc, gce... - seems that 'gce' really sounds more stable...
and from pov of functional harmony I do not think it is possible to explain.. at least I cannot
Sounds like position of root in the middle makes it more stable...
Probably there is 'natural' or 'modal' logic behind it... like Phillipe Gleass' treatment of triads for example... it's the same way of hearing it...
for example if we hear it like this and play
g-c-e and then ab - c - eb
the secong chord does not sound like Ab major triad (functionally I mean)..
It sounds like we just alter tones in C scale... and it's because it stays the same and it is in the middle
Other voices are just like shifting around it
If we play c - e- g for example and then c - eb - ab.. it will have mouch stronger colour of changing harmony
to me one of the strongest sign of modal logic (modal in broad sence) is functional dependence of sounds on position in texture.
-
I don't really know Mark or the slightest thing about where he's coming from, so I may be way off base...but my initial interpretation was that it has to do with the energy of the sound based on the intervals within the inversion
The root position inversion has a P5 in it from the R up to the 5th. This interval is just about the most stable sound there is...besides maybe the octave. Super structural and stable. That, mixed with the fact that the root note is in the bass, makes this inversion sound unbelievably grounded to me.
The 1st inversion has nice, pretty intervals. 3rds and 6ths. Just gorgeous. To me it's like the prettiest and most versatile of all the inversions. There's nothing controversial about it. I find I can get away with more 'weird' stuff if I put all (or at least most) of the chords in 1st inversion. It gives a softness and a fluidity that I don't feel in the root position triad. Or in the 2nd inversion.
The 2nd inversion has the P4...or if it's an open triad, maybe an octave and a 4th. To me the 4th is suuuuuuuper punchy. I mean...just think about McCoy Tyner comping in 4ths behind Coltrane. It's just pure power. There's something about those quartal chords that are just like getting punched in the gut over and over.
That was my 1st thought for what Mark was talking about. But again, I'm completely unfamiliar with his work and ideas so I may have misunderstood the point.
But for me, when I'm playing chords (especially triads, but any types of chords)...I find the root position is the most stable and normal sounding, the 1st inversion is the softest, most fluid, and prettiest inversion, and the 2nd inversion has a strength and a crunchiness that sort of weighs it down.Last edited by jordanklemons; 07-29-2015 at 02:49 AM.
-
Jordan,
The 1st inversion has nice, pretty intervals. 3rds and 6ths.
1nd inversion also contains 4th inside
and consider that as JonR noted here most probably by inversion just rotation of sounds in triad is meant (ceg,egc, gce)
I am not sure what you mean by 'open'... to my mind open position of a triad makes sence only in normal classical terminology...The 2nd inversion has the P4...or if it's an open triad, maybe an octave and a 4th.
like 2nd inversion
G - e1-g1-c2 (close)
G - e1-c2 -g2 (open)
Here it seams that inversion says 'rotation of three basic sounf of a triad in close postion' - so open position will turn it into something different form this pov (g-c-e close; g-e-c open)
The idea of 'normal inversion' - when it's used within classical harmony is mostly to harmonize bass line...
When you describe your impressions from the inversions I do not get what it really comes from... wh is 1st inversion 'most versatile of all the inversions.'?
I mean i cannot understand the harmonic concept you hear it in like this
-
Sure, but that's not what Levine was saying. Originally Posted by jordanklemons
He was clearly referring to a 2nd inversion triad, ignoring the root in the left hand. The notation shows a G-C-E triad over a C bass (technically root position overall), but then goes on to an Ab-Db-F triad over C, A-D-F# over C, etc., demonstrating slash chords). IOW, he's clearly talking about the RH triad, disregarding the bass note.
(BTW, to be pedantic, root position is not an "inversion". It's just "root position".)
I think you could be on the money there. He's definitely big on modal jazz, which involves a lot of quartals and sus chords. So he would naturally like that 4th between 5th and root, with the close 3rd on top to give it character. Originally Posted by jordanklemons
Obviously you get the 5th-root 4th on top in a 1st inversion chord too (E-G-C), but then having the 3rd on the bottom (3rd of the chord, and also a 3rd interval) is a different feel - as you said.
-
Right. Or a 5th if it's open. All 3 are made up of the same 3 notes. So we're going to end up with basically the same set of intervals...or at least the complimentary inversions of those intervals (4-5, 3-6). Originally Posted by Jonah
I suppose I worded this badly. Forgive me, it was 2am and I was exhausted and falling asleep. Thought I'd get a quick 1 or 2 posts up before going to bed.
I was referring to the lowest interval. The interval between the 2 lowest notes. To me, this low interval is like the foundation that a chord sits on top of. If I'm arranging out for a horn section, and I put the root in the lowest voice and the 5th in the next voice up...I know that the chord is going to have a very particular feel. Like the jazz version of a power chord. Just super structural and stable. Other intervals will bring different feels to them.
I probably shouldn't have said 1st inversion has 3rds and 6ths as that was a different format and confused the issue.
I didn't realize that triads, open or closed, would only make sense in certain styles of music. To me that's like saying DNA only makes sense in certain living things. Triads are the inner workings of everything. An open triad is just a triad that voiced out over more than an octave. Aside from a couple of years of required classical guitar study in college, I've never really played classical...but I still use triads all the time. Open and closed. Originally Posted by Jonah
Sorry. I did my best to explain it. It's just how I hear things. But it's like asking someone to describe blue, yellow, and red. Not an easy thing to do. If it's something you're interested in hearing, just pick a key (or not) and practice playing triads all around the fretboard aiming for nice voice leading and a melodic sounding line in the top voice. Perhaps you'll hear what I'm talking about. Or perhaps you'll hear it differently and find that the 3 inversions have a different energy to you than to me. It's not a theory I read in a book anywhere. It's just what I hear when I'm exploring with them. Originally Posted by Jonah
-
Ah... Originally Posted by JonR
Well like I just said to Jonah, I read your post and responded at about 2am last night. I completely missed anything about left hands, right hands, or otherwise. So I was just basing my response only on the different qualities I hear in each inversion of the triad.
IF....
A piano player played a C note in the left hand and G-C-E in the right hand simultaneously, and then took their hands off the piano without playing anything else...and they asked me to define what they played is simply as possible. I'd call it a root position C major triad. And my ear would hear it that way.
IF....
A piano player did that, but rather than stopping there, began moving the G-C-E up in half steps while maintaining the C note in the left hand and asked me to explain it....I would say he was playing a series of 2nd inversion triads moving chromatically over a pedal.
-
Mine too. Originally Posted by jordanklemons
Right. That would be the sense in which Levine was talking about them. Originally Posted by jordanklemons
(But we still have to guess what he meant by "strongest".)
Last edited by JonR; 07-29-2015 at 12:12 PM.
-
Well assuming the latter is the case, I would personally still interpret the meaning of the word "strongest" the same as I mentioned before. But without knowing Mark or his message, I can only understand it based on my own experience and explorations of triads. So who knows. Honestly, Mark's the best person to ask since he's the only one that can can speak from his own experience as to what he was trying to convey. I imagine he probably has a way to contact him through his website...and I'd assume if you told him you had his book and were interested in his ideas but confused that he would clear it up.
-
Don't you think that it's really modal thinking - in a broad sence?
Originally Posted by jordanklemons 
IF....
A piano player did that, but rather than stopping there, began moving the G-C-E up in half steps while maintaining the C note in the left hand and asked me to explain it....I would say he was playing a series of 2nd inversion triads moving chromatically over a pedal.
Right. That would be the sense in which Levine was talking about them.
(But we still have to guess what he meant by "strongest".)
-
any notion makes sence in a concept (DNA too btw)...I didn't realize that triads, open or closed, would only make sense in certain styles of music. To me that's like saying DNA only makes sense in certain living things. Triads are the inner workings of everything. An open triad is just a triad that voiced out over more than an octave. Aside from a couple of years of required classical guitar study in college, I've never really played classical...but I still use triads all the time. Open and closed.
I wrote that if we take triad in a sence Levine meant it in that excerpt - as just 3 notes in kind of 'absolute form'... then inversion involves changing both in bass and in melody c-e-g, e-g-c, g-c-e...
If you apply to this open/close/mixed position criteria .. it will change the idea of inversion here
e-g-c will turn into e - c1 - g1 ... bass stays the same but melodic voice changed... it's not the same thing any more.
-
Hey Jordan,Sorry. I did my best to explain it. It's just how I hear things. But it's like asking someone to describe blue, yellow, and red. Not an easy thing to do. If it's something you're interested in hearing, just pick a key (or not) and practice playing triads all around the fretboard aiming for nice voice leading and a melodic sounding line in the top voice. Perhaps you'll hear what I'm talking about. Or perhaps you'll hear it differently and find that the 3 inversions have a different energy to you than to me. It's not a theory I read in a book anywhere. It's just what I hear when I'm exploring with them.
i did not mean that you should explain why you hear it like this... on the contrary I am myself always try to make a direct hearing expereince as a starting reference point...
But for me it was interesting what could be there behind it.. there is always some feel of integrity in any personal impression.. so i just tried to understand what concept is there behind your impressions (even if it is applied unconciously)
-
here's triads that seem to be functional but non-fucntional
-
Scales are to music as letters words are to language.
-
I think precision is important in analogies...Scales are to music as letters words are to language.
letters are wirtten signs that represent sounds (at least in phonetic writing sysytem).. they are out of semantical system of language. So it is signs of notation that can be compared to letteres
words represent notions, those are sematical units..
in music - though in many cases motives can have more or less clear meanings like - I cannot see any exact equivalents to words in music except fixed notions like 'cross motive' or ' lamento' in baroque music for example...
Scales in music is more complex system of organization.. if we want to compare scales with linguiaticals tools we should first of all state that we do not compare it with any language - we compare it with artistic language, with verbal arts, it is literature..
so scales can be compared some tools of orgazization of text in literature.. like system of rhyming for example
-
In the context of slash chords, I see where he's coming from.
-
Yes.. I have to admit... I did not get the idea when I read the OP...In the context of slash chords, I see where he's coming from.
After al the posts in the thread I see it as you said...
That's how it works - you speak wit hthe peopple, you learn a bit)))
Reply With Quote
New authentic Rhodes
Today, 11:53 AM in Other Styles / Instruments