Drop 3 Chords Naming

[JonR]

guys - it's simply one type of open position chord voicing. Berklee refers to these voicings in their harmony and arranging courses, it's not just a guitar thing.

Who says it is?

so how many approaches do we guitarists know for open voicings for: piano, horns, strings, voical ensembles anyway?

Depends how much we're into arranging...

to repeat - yes this particular type of open voicing works well on the guitar for seventh chords, but it's not just about the guitar.

Right. The guitar has special limitations on choices of voicing, which is why the issue is a little different for guitar, and why I guess some guitarists who teach it treat it as if it is some kind of exclusive guitar thing - making your chords more "interesting" without explaining the purpose of it (beyond the sound of the guitar).

[fumblefingers]

i studied classical music and theory in college, as well as "Contemporary" (Jazz, Pop, Rock). since then i have focused on contemporary.


in recollecting off the top of my head, the terms tetrad, hexad and 4th inversion aren't frequently used in contemporary/jazz harmony.

[fumblefingers]

No it's very simple because it is limited to only a small subset of chords. If the principle were extended to cover any type of chord, the complexity would increase. I posted an example of the complexity that would arise above.



The above statement is true if you follow this way of thinking to it's natural conclusion. I look at that statement and think to myself that this is rather too complicated. Since the drop voicing (we are discussing) is limited to tetrads, the concept is instead very simple. It's this limitation that makes me lose interest to a degree. If I were to think in terms of dropped voices, I would not limit myself to tetrads. Doing so doesn't make much sense. Otherwise; the concept is sound in principle and (from a practical players point of view) produces a few good left hand exercises which I would also recommend.

Edit
Please understand that the terminology used in Jazz is often alien to many virtuoso musicians on this planet - not that I'm one of them. It is becomming more interesting to me as I take on a wider range of guitar students. I reserve the right to judge the merit of each idea based on its strengths and weaknesses as I see them.

Edit2: To all those who were around at the time.
I am happy to be corrected if I'm wrong about something, but I won't accept amateurs telling me I know nothing, that I stole the identity of another player and that I make theory up just because you never heard of it. I hope that those who joined in the abuse will be able to let bygones be bygones. If someone reopens that can of worms, I'll simply vanish.

wow, is that a threat?

and how do you know who is an amatuer? how do you define amatuer?

[fumblefingers]

I never did get all that 'drop this and that' stuff. As guitarists we tend to learn a whole bunch of chord shapes that have been tried and tested for decades already on the instrument. Then you get into jazz and you have to learn some slightly more fancy ones. I basically got all my jazz chords out of the Joe Pass chord book and that's still 80% of what I use probably. Over the years I've adapted them a bit so that I can play them with or without roots.

Then I've added a few more modern sounding ones (out of Steve Khan's chord concept book for example).

But I couldn't tell you what kind of 'drop' any of them are!

well it's helpful to understand things if we are to teach or explain things, especially if they actually have some organized conceptual basis. a mind is a terrible thing to waste.

sure, one can always memorize something without understanding it, that's no great accomplishment in and of itself. it just means that they're not mentally challenged/stupid.

and if one becomes a teacher and doesn't understand something (like these chord voicings), they are left to say something like - "learn these shapes, man" or "do it like this, man".

yeah. the old "do it like this man" guitar teacher. we all have one of those in our past, no doubt.

[matt.guitarteacher]

No it's very simple because it is limited to only a small subset of chords. If the principle were extended to cover any type of chord, the complexity would increase. I posted an example of the complexity that would arise above.

Don't think I'm understanding what you're getting at. You could voice ANY chord as a drop 2, drop 3 etc.

[fumblefingers]

you could.

but the typical reference is of seventh chords in close position voicings, and in all inversions.

then what is yielded is a very specific set of voicings over one of four chord tones as bass notes.

[czardas]

wow, is that a threat?

Not a threat: I can take it or leave it.

and how do you know who is an amatuer? how do you define amatuer?

I am quite happy to call anyone who resorts to attacking others, and then to attack one of the Europe's finest conservatoires, an amateur. If a person feels the need to compensate their lack of knowledge in that way, that's all it takes in my book. So do not focus on my spelling mistakes, typos or trying to catch me out because I might not know how to spell the word amateur.

[czardas]

jordanklemons

I've been thinking about your top to bottom chord construction and I think it's a fascinating concept. I envisage the extended notes as forming their own chord sequence, independant of the basic triads they are associated with, probably in an altogether different key. I guess this can be another method of relating distant keys and may introduce some cool sounding pedal points. The other side of the coin tells me that the original key will become totally obscured, unless you allow some notes from the triads to remain. There may be circumstances where two or more keys end up vying to dominate and subdue the rest. While this concept is easy to envisage, it is probably very hard to implement artistically. Of course many composers have experimented with similar ideas - but to construct chords from the top down sounds like a totally new approach to me.

[czardas]

Don't think I'm understanding what you're getting at. You could voice ANY chord as a drop 2, drop 3 etc.

You are confusing me now: when I did that with a hexad, mr. beaumont didn't like it.

[grahambop]

well it's helpful to understand things if we are to teach or explain things, especially if they actually have some organized conceptual basis. a mind is a terrible thing to waste.

sure, one can always memorize something without understanding it, that's no great accomplishment in and of itself. it just means that they're not mentally challenged/stupid.

and if one becomes a teacher and doesn't understand something (like these chord voicings), they are left to say something like - "learn these shapes, man" or "do it like this, man".

yeah. the old "do it like this man" guitar teacher. we all have one of those in our past, no doubt.

Just saying I learned all those chords long before I ever heard them referred to as 'drop' voicings. The books I used did not call them that (e.g. Joe Pass and Steve Khan).

I understood the musical content of the chords perfectly well, just not by that particular terminology.

[matt.guitarteacher]

Voicing chords on guitar is largely about deciding which chord tones to omit or replace. It's common practice to replace root with 9th, 3rd with 11, etc. Even there, drop voicings are a great basis for working through all inversions of 9th chords, or to play around with melodic chord ideas involving roots and 9ths.

They're particularly helpful for harmonizing melodies/lead lines because they ARE top down chords.

[targuit]

Although I know and understand the concept of drop voicings, I don't generally think about them or practice them, but rather just 'know' them. I think that happens in the context of getting better at voice leading. I just hear them as the voicings that work well in the transitions up and down the neck in the context of the melody and harmony. I do credit a lot my practice routine of arranging solo chord melody style things and even my piano playing.

[fumblefingers]

Most people probably don't play all inversions of drop 2 and 3 chords, and from all applicable string sets. That's when the terminology and concept become more useful. Playing a few of them in root position is no big deal, I can't deny that.

[fumblefingers]

Not a threat: I can take it or leave it.



I am quite happy to call anyone who resorts to attacking others, and then to attack one of the Europe's finest conservatoires, an amateur. If a person feels the need to compensate their lack of knowledge in that way, that's all it takes in my book. So do not focus on my spelling mistakes, typos or trying to catch me out because I might not know how to spell the word amateur.

What conservatory is that?

[destinytot]

A wonderful resource.

[czardas]

What conservatory is that?

Rotterdam. Anyway I want to forget all that nonesense about this being an English speaking forum, and theoretical music concepts taught outside English speaking countries being wrong. You know who I'm refering to. He isn't here to defend himself (fortunately), so lets put this subject to bed please.

[jordanklemons]

jordanklemons

I've been thinking about your top to bottom chord construction and I think it's a fascinating concept. I envisage the extended notes as forming their own chord sequence, independant of the basic triads they are associated with, probably in an altogether different key. I guess this can be another method of relating distant keys and may introduce some cool sounding pedal points. The other side of the coin tells me that the original key will become totally obscured, unless you allow some notes from the triads to remain. There may be circumstances where two or more keys end up vying to dominate and subdue the rest. While this concept is easy to envisage, it is probably very hard to implement artistically. Of course many composers have experimented with similar ideas - but to construct chords from the top down sounds like a totally new approach to me.

Huh, that's an interesting way to look at it.

My ideas and the way I'm currently exploring come from my teacher who is a fantastic vibraphonist. It really causes few if any problems for me, however yes...it does set up 2 different progressions. At least at the beginning. But the more you practice this stuff and think this way, the more it just starts to make sense and not be confusing and separated.

He sets up what he calls the harmonic progression (which we all know and think about and see when we open the iRealB app) and the melodic progression...which you have to learn to see. The melodic progression is based on the triads being used in the upper structure of each chord. And because they exist in the upper structure, and because the sound of the triad is so strong, the melody notes will naturally gravitate towards them...they will be the resolution points.

So a quick example might be a 2 5 1 in C Major....

chord /// harmonic progression /// melodic progression
D-11(9) /// Dmin7 /// C Major
G7#9#5 /// G7 /// Eb Major
CMaj9 /// CMaj7 /// G Major

This info could be used in a ton of ways. All we're really saying is that when you put a C Major triad on top of a Dmin7 chord, you get D-11(9).....Eb triad over G7 gives G7#9#5...etc. So obviously we could use them as single note ideas to improvise through changes in less convention ways.

Or what I'm doing, is restructuring the chords starting with the triad at that top. We could ONLY play that triad, but to me it just starts to sound forced and contrived...so we add a 4th note...usually from the lower structure like you said...and then we can start to build small 4-note voicings that have some of the lower structure notes, but really accentuate the colors from the upper structure...especially when played against the bass player playing the root note.

And you mentioned the pedal ideas....oh yeah! There's some really cool stuff with this. Once you learn to quickly see which upper structure triads exist within a lot of different chord types, you can keep the upper structure triad and the melodic progression the same, and you can change the lower structure and harmonic progression in the weirdest and most random ways you want...because the melody will be so stable. I hear Robert Glasper do this stuff a lot!

Maybe you have an Ab Major triad as the pedal...so here's a chord progression I'm writing with no instrument in hand randomly based on the idea of keeping the Ab triad in the upper structure....no idea what this will sound like, but I'm going to try it later once I have my guitar in hand...and I'm guessing it'll sound cool...or at least acceptable.

EMaj#5 /// Bb-11(9) /// DbMaj9 /// AMaj7#11#9 /// DbminMaj9 /// F-7 /// GbMaj13(#11,9)

[mrcee]

jordanklemons

I've been thinking about your top to bottom chord construction and I think it's a fascinating concept. I envisage the extended notes as forming their own chord sequence, independant of the basic triads they are associated with, probably in an altogether different key. I guess this can be another method of relating distant keys and may introduce some cool sounding pedal points. The other side of the coin tells me that the original key will become totally obscured, unless you allow some notes from the triads to remain. There may be circumstances where two or more keys end up vying to dominate and subdue the rest. While this concept is easy to envisage, it is probably very hard to implement artistically. Of course many composers have experimented with similar ideas - but to construct chords from the top down sounds like a totally new approach to me.

Is this similar to Parker's famous Epiphany at the Chili House in the early 40s? Briefly, Parker and a bass player were looking for a place to jam and did so at a Harlem chili restaurant they would frequent. The bass ran the changes to Cherokee and Parker blew over them. He said that it was the first time he got what he'd been hearing in his head for a while. By playing the upper partials of harmonically extended chords and avoiding triad tones.

[pingu]

I never did get all that 'drop this and that' stuff. As guitarists we tend to learn a whole bunch of chord shapes that have been tried and tested for decades already on the instrument. Then you get into jazz and you have to learn some slightly more fancy ones. I basically got all my jazz chords out of the Joe Pass chord book and that's still 80% of what I use probably. Over the years I've adapted them a bit so that I can play them with or without roots.

Then I've added a few more modern sounding ones (out of Steve Khan's chord concept book for example).

But I couldn't tell you what kind of 'drop' any of them are!

yeah i'm not very methodical
I just find the notes where i can
to make up harmonies
and pick up/steal ideas here and there

its a hotch potch

how bout this
Amin4 ??
xx753x

oh yeah !

[mr. beaumont]

You are confusing me now: when I did that with a hexad, mr. beaumont didn't like it.

Its not that i didn't like it, i was simply coming at it from a jazz guitar perspective, since this is jazzguitar.be

Fwiw, fumble had it right from the getgo, and grahambop speaks for most jazz players--its a friggin chord, not rocket surgery.

Apparently, this thread has become the "look how fucking pedantic i can be thread," so i'm out.

[jordanklemons]

Is this similar to Parker's famous Epiphany at the Chili House in the early 40s? Briefly, Parker and a bass player were looking for a place to jam and did so at a Harlem chili restaurant they would frequent. The bass ran the changes to Cherokee and Parker blew over them. He said that it was the first time he got what he'd been hearing in his head for a while. By playing the upper partials of harmonically extended chords and avoiding triad tones.

Yeah maybe mrcee. I don't want to be so bold as to tell anyone what Bird was thinking about or experiencing. But I've talked about my thoughts and feelings on harmony and the corresponding note groupings (unconventional "scales") that I explore to learn how to manipulate specific harmonies and tonalities even when I'm improvising single note lines on this forum a good bit...and every now and then someone brings up this Bird story, or the one about Miles and asks if it's the same thing. So maybe...seems like it reminds everyone of similar ideas at least. I don't know.

Based on my teacher's advice, I tend to approach each chord with 4 specific notes that are appropriate to that chord. They're generally the upper structure triad (or the upperist structure triad that exists if it's not a big extended chord), and then I add one single note from the lower structure. It doesn't mean I don't use other notes in and around that chord when I'm soloing, especially in a performance. But I'm trying to build my vocabulary on a very strong foundation...similar to what Bird may have been talking about.

Here's a quick video of me shedding some of these 4-note mini scales over a couple different chord types. I'm currently going through a phase of skipping over notes and creating that leap frog movement through them....and then creating the four types of movement within that.

Up-Up Down-Down Up-Down Down-Up

It brings about some great patterns and sounds. I think I was shedding on E-11(9) and E7(b9,b5) in this video.

[czardas]

@mr beaumont: This is just about dropping voices. The confusion I encountered was with the terminology: where this basic idea is attached to the term chord. I think it should be refered to as Drop 2nd/3rd voice - because that's exactly what it appears to be. The unique set of chord spacings that occur from tetrads in close spacing are a small subset of all the possibilities. I do see the advantage of studying them as guitar chord sequences.

@jordanklemons: Don't worry about my crazy ideas. What you said made me think of this. Two independant chord sequences in different keys - each with an independant main melody which could stand alone - placed on top of one another. A tricky challenge for any composer. Maybe it's too difficult, but I think it should be possible.

[jordanklemons]

Jazz + Jazz = Jazz

hahahahaha

[czardas]

Okay you solved that ^^. Now here's another challenge:

Write a melody and accompaniment in such a way that you can rotate the page 180 degrees and play the music upside down and backwards. The bass becomes the top voice etc... Make it so that both versions can be played simultaneously, by two musicians facing one another with the music laid flat on a table placed between them. All versions should sound good when played separately. Over-reliance on symmetry is cheating.

If this happens to exist as a musical form, I don't know what to call it. It's similar to a round. Maybe someone can come up with a name for it.

[jordanklemons]

Love it man...I think I remember hearing about a "duet" the was composed once on a single staff. You laid the page out flat on a table and had 2 musicians read of the same page...but each was looking at it from the other side. Like you're talking about...upside down.

Anyone else know about this? Maybe Mozart? I can't remember now. I'm pretty sure it's a real thing for a legit composer, but I honestly don't remember where I heard about it, how long ago, or any of the details.

That said...at the moment, my goals are a little too specific with my composing. I do sometimes flip pages upside for sight-reading practice...doubles the materials I have to work on my reading with. But for composing, I usually stick with trying to get the stuff out of my head onto paper.

Maybe one day I'll get a little more experimental with it.