-
I had an interesting discussion with one of 'students' (I do not teach actually - but sometimes someone insisits and I find it fun too...)
He said he did not like certain voicing... and my question was - why? He said: I don't know just do not like how it sounds... we started to investigate why... and it is really a good analytical excercise. You cannot avoid analysing it harmonically and contextually.
Even myself - I was going to the office in the morning tring to figure out what's there that makes me avoid some common guitar vocings..
For example
Fm9
1x1113
I would really prefer to have 3rd below G. 5th makes it sound empty and feels like the melody voice is to thin and distance from the harmony
Em11
x7x785
the clash between G and A is not really problem as it is, what I do not like is that D below that interacts with both making 4th and 5th. Puts the chord out of balance to me.
Possible option like xx2435 (G dropped out) I do not like much too. To me it really sounds like A in melody with 'something' below... E-B-D-A.. all the possible intervalic combinations between these notes do not make a solid harmonic sound. 3rd is important.
I would prefer 0x5435 maybe... but this chord sounds much more mellow and stable than previous voicings, probably becuase it can be heard much like G 9 13... all the tones are set closely
Of course any voicing could be used in the context and sound good, we should not choose by general preference. But still this analyzing helps to understand how we hear harmony and what we actually want to hear.. and also to avoid some common shapes only because they are there... but use them as real musical voicings.
-
02-13-2017 06:48 AM
-
It's all contextual. A lot of the drop 2 voicing sound pretty meh on their own, but are fantastically useful for harmonising melodies etc.
So, for example the top of that chord 1113 is a very useful little fragment. You often get the 3rd of the key on a ii chord in standards so you will inevitably end up using that voicing in basic chord melody style guitar.
Secondly that boring chord can be made to sound more interesting through use of compelling voice leading.
Other voicings which sound terrific on their own can be a bit unwieldy in other situations. Putting a 9th under a minor 3rd sounds beautiful in some contexts, but obviously not textbook for harmonising a 3rd.... but then you could do it you did some resolving of the dissonance.
-
t's all contextual.
Of course I agree absolutely... and I mentioned that in my opst above.
You cannot think musically without context.
Besides the more you think about voicing as of 'true voicing' (in choral style) rather than one of the possible chord shapes the more you feel free about using any of them contextually.
But still... I find this game quite effective - especially for players in process of integration of their fretboard knowledge.
exactly! That's why I put it with the bass up there... to me the thing is that bass-less Fm9 sounds much like Abmaj7 (even when it is inteded as Fm9 by the context, and often even if the bass player plays F... difference in tone sets bass apart from a chord a bit).o, for example the top of that chord 1113 is a very useful little fragment.
-
Those stupid close piano voicings.
Can't reach.
Stupid pianos.
-
To me lot's of drops voicings sound horrible. And it frustrates me a bit when I try to practice voiceleading through a specific drop type.
Like
Gmaj7
x.9.9.x.8.10.
Cmaj7
7.3.5.x.5.x.
A7
3.x.2.2.2.x.
Gm7
1.x.0.3.x.3.
These are all with the 7th as the lowest note.... Love this one for Cmaj7 though
8
8
9
9
-
hm... I like this one... though I agree it sounds strange but I use it quite often especially when I do some pedal bass voicings... (keep G as a bass moving chords above)A7
3.x.2.2.2.x.
-
For me, as with others, it's very much about the context. What's happening in the melody? The purpose of a voicing should be to 'harmonize' the melody... literally to create harmony with... to embrace it, accept it, create union... essentially the voicing or ideas we're utilizing in the harmony should help breathe life into the melody. The most brilliantly deep and lush harmony, to me, will sound terrible and not work if it's being used underneath a melodic structure that it doesn't fit. I always feel that the harmony should show the utmost respect for the melody... and likewise, the melody and our improvisation ideas should respect the changes (not necessarily by just running through them). In terms of function music (classical, trad jazz, swing, bebop, fusion modern, etc... anything that follows some semblance of tonality, even if it's not functioning traditionally), this is what makes everything work within my ear. When we get into non-function 'free' music... we can pretty much not worry about a lot of these types of issues.
I of course have a lot of opinions and feelings and views on HOW to create harmony that respects the melody and vice versa. But ultimately, however we choose to do that is sort of secondary to the intention of choosing to do so.
-
Man, I love unusual chord voicings. There's a place for everything, somewhere. The more you push your fingers (and ears) to learning new shapes and sounds the easier it becomes.
If anyone wants a very thorough investigation into all possible 4-note voicings for guitar (and other instruments as well), you will find a fascinating explanation here:
TedGreene.com - Teachings - V-System
It was Ted Greene's "pet project" and one that he was proud of: "The V-System" or Voicing Groups system. It's not for the faint of heart - but as Ted would probably have said, "just find one or two things that you love and dive into that, and put the rest aside."
You'll find some ones you love and can use right away.....And you're going to find a lot of shapes you just downright HATE!
Last edited by jayv999; 02-13-2017 at 09:55 PM.
-
Speaking of harmonizing the melody, I have been trying to do that for some time (using the melody note as the root of the chord). But there is something that bugs me a little or at least need clarification. Lets say the top note gives out a sound that would make sense to harmonize it with a major chord.
Usually it makes sense for me to use a Major 6 (or min7 whatever you call it) chord shape and it well sound great along the melody note. Case in point the melody note is C (in key of C) so im using the A-7 shape:
A min 7 -> 1 - 5 - b7 - b3 or you can call it A - E - G - C
It sounds great. But if I were to move that 'A' note up a whole step it would give me a C major 7 chord such as this
C maj 7 -> 7 - 3 - 5 - 1 or you could say B - E - G - C
This C maj 7 shape is easier for me to play than that first chord I showed you (just to let you know I play in major thirds tuning). I don't know how I feel about this chord. It doesn't sound bad to my ears but I'm not sure if I could or should use this to harmonize the melody even though I attempted a few times. I think I even recall reading a few times in other threads that putting the major seventh as the bass note of a maj 7th chord is not optimal (probably even sucky!).
Call me paranoid but I don't know if I should trust my ears on this one chord..
EDIT: Actually I may have found an actual use for this major 7 chord! It doesn't sit well if the melody note of the song is the tonic but it does work fine with the 4th degree melody note in the key of C, F maj 7. Nevermind my ramblings haha, moving onLast edited by jazznylon; 02-14-2017 at 04:19 PM.
-
When playing with others, they all have their place, and when you finally use them at the right time, you learn to love the ones you thought you didn't really like.
-
The major seventh sounds the most unstable of all those as the lowest note UNTIL you add bass/piano. Are we talking about the guitar on its own? (And of course, even solo, the bass note could be a passing tone.)
Originally Posted by yaclaus
Last edited by BigDaddyLoveHandles; 02-15-2017 at 11:09 AM.
-
Why not go the full Holdsworth?
-
Makes a great G lydian sound chord though. Originally Posted by yaclaus
The only voicings I don't like are the ones I lift from piano and they don't sound nearly as cool on the guitar.
Like for example, dig the Aimee Nolte video from a few days ago, where she dissects the intro to "Blue in Green." How can that first chord sound so beautiful on piano and so boring on guitar?
-
Another thing: some chords that sound bad plucked together sound great arpeggiated.
Try it with FMaj13: x85755
-
[QUOTE=yaclaus;742022]
A7
3.x.2.2.2.x QUOTE]
I love this chord. I will often use this to go into a D/F# or D/F
Third and first inversion chords used in alternation can give a fresh perspective to a backcycling progression. Very classical actually.
Also often used as a Lydian sound
Also this is a transposition of the first chord of 'I can't take my eyes off you'
-
Here are a few that I find difficult to deal with, aside from the sound of the chords themselves, there's the sound of my screaming behind the music.
David
-
[QUOTE=christianm77;743472]
When I was a teenager, I used to marvel at this same chord used in The Beatles song "In My Life". The first chords, A Maj, E Maj, F# min, and then the bass moves up a semi-tone to a G natural, the upper notes of the F# min then fuction as A Maj, the G bass note being the b7 , and setting up the move to the D Maj then D Min. I thought it was genius ! Originally Posted by yaclaus
-
[QUOTE=pubylakeg;744608]
Yes ! I was knocked out by that chord and always thought the Beatles use of chords was so solid and often Genius in addition to their Melodies and from a Songwriter Point of View...many of their songs had 2 "hooks" [ the super catchy Chorus part ]. Originally Posted by christianm77
And just about every Beatles Tune even early on has at least one very unique ,distinctive Guitar part...and usually more.
I saw one Video where it looked like Harrison actually played the Solo on
'Till There Was You'..which would be pretty amazing if so sounds like straight up Jazz Solo to me .Right ?Last edited by Robertkoa; 03-29-2017 at 12:13 PM.
-
735x5x.........Who, if anyone, plays this? Originally Posted by yaclaus
-
[QUOTE=Robertkoa;748679]
Right !. Yes, George does "make the changes" on "Til There Was You" and also includes "the Gretty Chord" in his solo. The "Michelle" solo is another that outlines the changes as well (I think McCartney played that). Originally Posted by pubylakeg
I have wondered how much a trained musician like George Martin might have helped them with certain voicings etc. I'm pretty sure he must have had some input.
-
Jobim loved that voicing. Aguas do Marzo sp?
-
Actually, now that I think about it, I don't like the "Gretty Chord" see above. 1,3,X,2,4,4,. Particularly because it (followed by a descending F minor pentatonic scale) was the favourite "nervous tic" noodle of a local musician.After every tune. Every gig. Year after year.
-
[QUOTE=Robertkoa;748679]
George Harrison massively underrated guitarist IMO. I understand that he started off being influenced by Django and Chet Atkins as well as rock and roll? Originally Posted by pubylakeg
Anyway, to me this is all a case in point regarding what I think of as the decline in functional harmony in popular music. Functional harmony used to be everywhere - George might be playing changes, and probably knew a fair few old standards but that didn't make him a jazz musician.
Nowadays we associate tin pan alley songs and functional harmony with jazz, but it wasn't always so.... People just played that stuff.
In the same way that if you are piano player you will probably end up playing some old standards at some point whether or not you play jazz. You might even be able to improvise a bit on changes but that doesn't make you a jazz musician per se.
Now guitar music is all modal and blues stuff, and the average guitar player doesn't play old standards. (But, pianists do.
Post rock era everything is very different. That's why we are in Barry Harris's 'dark ages' - because from his point of view musicians have lost the connection with functional harmony and old fashioned song writing. These things are not themselves jazz, but they are what jazz are built on. So in order to teach straightahead jazz, it is now necessary to teach also Western functional harmony AND the tin pan alley repertoire and THEN how to play jazz on that stuff. That's a lot of ground to cover!Last edited by christianm77; 04-01-2017 at 07:16 AM.
-
Context can be an issue when assessing chord voicings. I agree with Peter Bernstein that root position drop 2s in the middle string set generally sound terrible in a straight-ahead jazz context (post-bop and rock is another matter). Taking Dmaj7 as an example, he most often plays it as an extended shell voicing (x5467x) rather than with the conventional grip (x5767x).
-
[QUOTE=christianm77;757557]
This is a good observation: Originally Posted by Robertkoa
Myself- growing up on typical Rock and R&B - I was only slightly exposed to Jazz- the " crossover" Jazz that was played on Radio and maybe Brubeck somewhere. I always wanted to not be trapped in one Key... but very very few Rock or R&B Tunes did that.
It is very odd that there was such a huge split between the Tin Pan Alley ' Professional ' Songwriters and Rock and Roll and R&B and Blues.
We had the Beatles, Steely Dan, Stevie Wonder, Seals and Crofts ( 'Diamond Girl' is really close to Jazz ) and a handful of others but the sophistication and
Harmonic Skills of the earlier Era were kind of 'Gone'.
AND the skills of most of those Tin Pan Alley Writers
did NOT enable them to 'take over 'or make a big 'dent' in the Marketplace with rare exceptions.
So why couldn't the Tin Pan Alley Songwriters continue ultimately into the 60's and 70's ?
Were they hit by a Meteor like the Dinosaurs ? No.
It would be interesting to hear Jazz Players / Writers
thoughts on this.
My general take is that in the Pop Marketplace:
Strong Product wins over Strong Technical / Functional Music MOST of the time.
So strong' Hooks' [ Choruses ] like the Beatles and Brit Invasion and Motown Stax won the Battle over the Pro Tin Pan Alley Songwriters for being easily sung and remembered .
And Rhythms changed- should have been easy for the Pros to change but dumbing down is not the same as having a feel for different Harmonic Rhythms possibly.
Also there may have been some Tin Pan Alley Pros who wrote for Elvis etc...but they were no longer dominant.
It's still odd to me how strict the Jazz Standard type Songs and the Rock, R&B, Pop Songs so nearly completely split into two Branches...
And Fusion did NOTHING to meld them together - just said -OK now you need chops like THIS on Guitar to wow people.
A weird split don't you agree ?
In Rock ( even acoustic Rock-) and R&B I think we exagerrate the Harmonic Rhythms more than in Tin Pan Alley stuff.
And the Jazz that catches my ear more does that too.
Maybe it was the Song " Glad All Over" by the Dave Clark Five that caused the Tin Pan Ally Pros to say
"OK ...that's it I refuse to compete against this simplistic junk." ?
When I hear 'Rock Around the Clock' it reminds me a little of ' In the Mood ' or 'Boogie Woogie Bugle Boy '
But I guess the ' big split ' started in the 50's maybe with the early Rock and Roll and DooWop and early R&B..
Most Scientists agree the Dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago...but 'Standards ' stopped being Pop at some point really abruptly - when was that ?
Jazz stopped being Dance Music like some Classical was long ago..( and stopped).Last edited by Robertkoa; 06-12-2017 at 01:34 AM.
Reply With Quote
New LEDs Day
Today, 07:28 PM in Other Styles / Instruments