Chord Inversions

[christianm77]

I tend not to have books of voicings - I try and work them out myself. Slow at the start, but I think I remember them better.

Also by doing this, I am practicing the process of coming up with chord voicings.

[Nate Miller]

I tend not to have books of voicings - I try and work them out myself. Slow at the start, but I think I remember them better.

Also by doing this, I am practicing the process of coming up with chord voicings.

that's what I always did. I had a book of 100 million guitar chords or something like that when I was a kid, like 10 years old, and that was the last time I remember ever using one.




and not to change the subject, but thanks PMB for telling me what that CAGED stuff was. No kidding, I really didn't know what that was all about. I mean, naturally I know my inversions, and of course I know my scales and I know how to play over changes, but none of the teachers I ever had used or taught that system.

but you know, back in the caves, they just drew a picture of a bison on the cave wall, and we all knew what they were talking about

[Jonah]

I tend not to have books of voicings - I try and work them out myself. Slow at the start, but I think I remember them better.

Also by doing this, I am practicing the process of coming up with chord voicings.

I think basic jazz grips (like all drops) should be studies because they bring in the sound that is associated with style...

But then we can just derive voicing from music... voicing as voicung not as 'grip'

like on piano... you choose voicing you need musically - you do not think of 'grips'


though physical nature of guitar playing and organization of fretboard always bring us back to 'grips'...

especially considering the fact that almost any grip can work as almost any chord in jazz context...

it's just simpler

[MarkRhodes]

It's just over 50 pages so by no means comprehensive. I'm pretty certain that you would have played all the shapes in that book, Mark. What is does offer is an alternate method for constructing chords so probably it's worth checking out for that reason alone. The most inspiring books/DVDs can sometimes be the ones that suggest different insights rather than more information.

Right. I hate comprehensive chord books---I don't want 5000 chords. Overkill. I want something short and solid that provides an overview of how to order voicings so that they blend well.

One thing I'm working on now is being able to play all the arpeggios of a major key (I ii iii IV V7 vi vii) in one area. (Also horizontally along the neck but that's a different study.)

I'm less concerned with single grips---they are what they are and I know a lot of them---than with groups of grips that work well together. So I do all this in a different key every day. In a way, I want to narrow my options, not expand them.

[Jonah]

I think it's also Reg's idea to explore chords through changing one or two notes in basic shapes and see what chord we come to

soon you see that you come to the same chord shapes from different original chord shapes
like

2334

we come to it from 2433 (E-7) by lowering B to Bb, and raising G to Ab
and so we get E-7b5 (b11)

or

we come to it from 3333 (G-7) by lowering F to E, and raising G to Ab
and so we get G-6 (b9)

or

we com to it from 2314 (C7) by raising C to D and G to Ab
and so we get C9 (b13)

etc


It seems to be very practical and effective
THis way you can derive any chord to basic 7th chord and so you get it in harmonic context

[Nate Miller]

as long as you know, without thinking about it, what the scale degree is of each note in your chord you do not need to think about "grips" or "shapes" or any of that really

and yes, you absolutely should work with moving around the notes in your chord to see what you get. In voice leading, any note can be moved chromatically. See what is right near by. In fact, if you are moving more than one note, move them in parallel and then contrary motion. Every note in your chord can be moved chromatically in parallel or contrary motion.

[matt.guitarteacher]

Right. I hate comprehensive chord books---I don't want 5000 chords. Overkill. I want something short and solid that provides an overview of how to order voicings so that they blend well.

One thing I'm working on now is being able to play all the arpeggios of a major key (I ii iii IV V7 vi vii) in one area. (Also horizontally along the neck but that's a different study.)

I'm less concerned with single grips---they are what they are and I know a lot of them---than with groups of grips that work well together. So I do all this in a different key every day. In a way, I want to narrow my options, not expand them.

Yep. Me too. Simplicity. I'm going to spend my summer transcribing chord patterns from Reg videos. If you pay attention, the small number of voicings he uses is just ridiculous. He basically just "subs things in" from other diatonic areas. So, the actual "implied chord" is always something new, but the number of fundamental voicings it's very limited, and so are the actual number of patterns he uses. Almost like the way the triad guys talk about using the four basic triads in a million different ways. I want to learn to use the ones I've got plus a few I don't.

After a few months of really working melodic minor, (learning to see it/hear it), you can see that it's the basis for a lot of what he's doing with chords (and everything else). But once you learn to see it, the patterns seem to be somewhat plug-and-play. I guess, learn the patterns, and then you're just working on learning new applications?

[MarkRhodes]

Yep. Me too. Simplicity. I'm going to spend my summer transcribing chord patterns from Reg videos. If you pay attention, the small number of voicings he uses is just ridiculous. He basically just "subs things in" from other diatonic areas. So, the actual "implied chord" is always something new, but the number of fundamental voicings it's very limited, and so are the actual number of patterns he uses. Almost like the way the triad guys talk about using the four basic triads in a million different ways. I want to learn to use the ones I've got plus a few I don't.

Good point, Matt. It is amazing how much the great players get out of a few basic things. Meanwhile fools like me juggle dozens of balls and soon have to duck when they start landing on my head!

[Jonah]

Yep. Me too. Simplicity. I'm going to spend my summer transcribing chord patterns from Reg videos. If you pay attention, the small number of voicings he uses is just ridiculous. He basically just "subs things in" from other diatonic areas. So, the actual "implied chord" is always something new, but the number of fundamental voicings it's very limited, and so are the actual number of patterns he uses. Almost like the way the triad guys talk about using the four basic triads in a million different ways. I want to learn to use the ones I've got plus a few I don't.

It's actualyy very simple...
I think it's approxamately like I described with chords a few posts up there...

We just should distinguish certain voicing in context and chord as functional unit in harmonic concept we use

and to be able relate these two

In that sence...

absolitely any voicing can be used for absolutely any chord

the question is only what musical concept we use behind it... it can be really expended..

As Nate said - if we know scale degree of the notes in the voicing we know it all immediately - this is the same thing '... but this knowledge it is not fixed... it's about implication...

Musically...
one of the most important things that Reg speaks about regularly in his post is that it is us who imply the realations...


By the way...
I do not want to go to philosophy but to me this is really a way to personal maturity as a musician...
you choose it accroding to your concept of hearing, you imply it to your practice, and you are resposible for it.

(and no misinformation issues)

[JimmyK]

Thanks for all the comments. I've enjoyed reading all your suggestions and am going to apply them. The Drop 2,3 etc., is over my head, however the idea of treating the inversions as a separate chord with the root in a different position simplifies memorizing the inversions up the fretboard in sequence, e.q. G-7 on 3rd Fret, then G-7 with root on 5th fret, then G-7 with root on 2nd string 8th fret etc., now I'll just think of them as separate chords which opens (for me) an easier and new door to memorizing, and facilitate finding the notes of the chord on the fretboard.

My objective is to "Remember" to play an inversion rather than the same old boring chords when accompanying someone, also to stay in the vicinity instead of jumping all over the fretboard and lastly to play the jazz type chords and single notes without ever looking at the fretboard. I keep loosing my place when reading sheet music.

Improvising in Blues is not a problem since I only need the key and away we go.

You've all helped a lot, Thanks for taking the time out of your busy days.

Regards,

Jimmy

[PMB]

Hey Jimmy, sorry if the posts drifted off from your original question (tends to happen here!).

You might like to check out my Autumn Leaves post (#19 on this page: Jazz Chords Revelation). Sounds like it may help in terms of hearing inversions in context over fundamental chord progressions.

[Jonah]

to play the jazz type chords and single notes without ever looking at the fretboard

For this you should practice strong and simplereference system... I mean the one that involves phisiology of playing guitar...

however the idea of treating the inversions as a separate chord with the root in a different position simplifies memorizing the inversions up the fretboard in sequence, e.q. G-7 on 3rd Fret, then G-7 with root on 5th fret, then G-7 with root on 2nd string 8th fret etc., now I'll just think of them as separate chords which opens (for me) an easier and new door to memorizing, and facilitate finding the notes of the chord on the fretboard.

This is exactly what I would call 'reference system' - you had reference by chord root, this freference reflects harmonic concept (namely functinal diatonic harmony where you treat inversion as a chord with non-root scale in the bass).
this is good but this is not really convinient in concern of guitar fretboard organization.

When you have reference 'bass on 6th string' - this gives much stronger transperent point of reference... and helps for 'blind playing'


But after all you should know all of it of course