Another way to look at the fingerboard

[enalnitram]

Every couple of years, I will invent a system for deriving harmonic or melodic content, and then relearn an aspect of music-making on the guitar. I’ve been doing this for about 35 years. I have found that I learn best by working things out.

The first time I ever did this, was when I was an undergrad music student (many decades ago). I’ve never explained it online, so I thought I might take a stab at it here, since y’all are a thoughtful bunch.

Halfway through that degree, I began to feel very unsatisfied with my harmonic vocabulary. For example, I was painfully aware that I had only a few ways to play each type of chord: usually only a 5^th-string root and a 6^th-string root. And when I wrote tunes, they looked like real book tunes, always using the same 5 or 6 chord qualities. It felt like piss-poor way to go about composing. I wanted to get richer, go deeper, and in different ways.

I had been listening to Ravel and Stravinsky. The vocabulary seemed so rich. And I had been noticing that my favorite guitarists had a lot of facility with chord voicings and were using voice leading.

I felt that it was a problem that I had let theory explain music, for me. I had begun thinking that a chord was only a “chord” if it had function or a name, or if it could be used in a jazz standard or rock tune. I wanted to get away from this. But at the same time, I wanted to play jazz better and get more going on, in my vocabulary and with fluidity on the instrument.

I also began to feel that if I could make up a system to derive voicings from, it could be a way for me to visualize the guitar neck up and down the length of the neck, rather than across six strings in one position.

I took inspiration from the concept of wabi sabi and “less is more”. I wanted to see if I could achieve expanse through limitation.

In another thread I explained how I learned the notes on the guitar by going from the notes on the 5^th and 6^th strings, which I knew from playing power chords. The 1^st string is a repeat of the 6^th string. This left those remaining inner 2^nd, 3^rd and 4^th strings. After playing jazz chords for a little while, I began to notice that many or most of the voicings in guitar books had notes on these inner strings, and a bass note on the 5^th or 6^th string.

So, using this concept, I worked out every possible voicing or shape, when using 4 frets on these inner 3 strings.

Voicings that repeat are excluded. For example, in the first position, notes on these 3 strings on the first fret, are the same shape or group of intervals, as the same 3 strings on the second fret. So that shape is excluded.

=

Octaves are also excluded. Voicings that include an octave have two notes instead of three, so I don’t include those:

[enalnitram]

[part 2 of 4]

When I worked this out, I found that there are 33 possible voicings.








To use this chart, I began working out where the voicings lay on the fingerboard, when realizing different four-note chord voicings that were the basis of a lot of jazz harmony. “DI” means the voicing doesn’t invert.

[enalnitram]

[part 3 of 4]

And for quartal harmony, also. (The grey and black alternating patterns are just to differentiate the voicings as they move up the neck).

(Doh: the first string should be "x" not open)

[enalnitram]

[part 4 of 4]

By working this out, I began to notice things, such as how stacked fourths resemble a min7#5, and all of the other harmonic synonyms.

But the benefit of this approach, and how I have come up with my guitar materials ever since, is in working from the instrument and letting patterns emerge. I then use my ear, to determine if it is useful. This is the opposite of using an approach where theory explains the instrument, and then you play what a theory tells you to play, such as with CAGED, or many of the common approaches.

Above, I just worked out some useful patterns using these shapes. But what about the shapes that do not invert, and that don’t fit into a useful functional scheme with a familiar name? Such as this one:

I use those in original tunes, and sometimes I play them in tonal settings as passing chords or for color. There are 5 of these “impractical” chords. The system gave me these.

And you can explore these further by applying bass notes on the 5^th and 6^th strings, and with all of the 33 voicings, for that matter. It’s just a system that can be applied, but it also lends itself to aural discovery and to newness, new thinking and new ways of realizing harmony on the instrument.

I think of the unusual voicings that cannot be named very simply, just like words that get used infrequently. If music is like a language and we are like poets or authors, these little-used sounds are worth exploring.

Some principles:

• I wanted to be inspired by sounds that couldn’t be explained easily with theory, and to use those in my music.
• When thinking of voicings on these inner 3 strings, and applying a bass note, every chord is a slash chord
• All voicings are useful. It’s only a matter of when, where and how.

[Mick-7]

Constructing chord scales can lead one to a similar conclusion, and it's a good way to organize them. How do you organize them mentally, by their shape?

The last chord you posted is a Emaj7 chord (no 5th) and it does "invert" however ackwardly (if I understand your use of the term).

x-x-2-1-4-x-x >> x-x-6-8-5-x-x >> x-x-13-9-9-x-x - etc.

Re: your other "DI" patterns:
141 = Cm#7
142, 143 & 414 = can form partial chords, e.g., #143 for Emaj#5 but they're actually tone clusters, which I like to use for effect.

No 414 moved down a string is what I call a Derek Bailey chord [with open strings]: 0-13-13-10-0-0

[princeplanet]

[part 4 of 4]

By working this out, I began to notice things, such as how stacked fourths resemble a min7#5, and all of the other harmonic synonyms.

But the benefit of this approach, and how I have come up with my guitar materials ever since, is in working from the instrument and letting patterns emerge. I then use my ear, to determine if it is useful. This is the opposite of using an approach where theory explains the instrument, and then you play what a theory tells you to play, such as with CAGED, or many of the common approaches.

Above, I just worked out some useful patterns using these shapes. But what about the shapes that do not invert, and that don’t fit into a useful functional scheme with a familiar name? Such as this one:

I use those in original tunes, and sometimes I play them in tonal settings as passing chords or for color. There are 5 of these “impractical” chords. The system gave me these.

And you can explore these further by applying bass notes on the 5^th and 6^th strings, and with all of the 33 voicings, for that matter. It’s just a system that can be applied, but it also lends itself to aural discovery and to newness, new thinking and new ways of realizing harmony on the instrument.

I think of the unusual voicings that cannot be named as easily , just like words that get used infrequently. If music is like a language and we are like poets or authors, these little-used sounds are worth exploring.

Some principles:

• I wanted to be inspired by sounds that couldn’t be explained easily with theory, and to use those in my music.
• When thinking of voicings on these inner 3 strings, and applying a bass note, every chord is a slash chord
• All voicings are useful. It’s only a matter of when, where and how.

I like the way you think Thinking outside the box like this will give you a point of difference for sure. Totally valid approach to just be guided by your ear, and only introduce theory when you hit a snag (to hopefully solve a problem). Nice work

[enalnitram]

How do you organize them mentally, by their shape?

Sometimes by individual shapes and sometimes grouped with other shapes if they form a context, like with the diagram I made of maj7 going up the neck.

I have to wonder if Walter Becker worked out something very like this, I mean check out the intro to "Deacon Blues". In the music I will write, I will move bass notes around on a shape, or move one finger in shape, etc. I think of them the way I named them: 112, 213, etc. Some have more uses than others.

The last chord you posted is a Emaj7 chord (no 5th) and it does "invert" however ackwardly (if I understand your use of the term).

x-x-2-1-4-x-x >> x-x-6-8-5-x-x >> x-x-13-7-7-x-x - etc.

Re: your other "DI" patterns:
141 = Cm#7
142, 143 & 414 = can form partial chords, e.g., #143 for Emaj#5 but they're actually tone clusters, which I like to use for effect.

No 414 moved down a string is what I call a Derek Bailey chord [with open strings]: 0-13-13-10-0-0

You're right! Thanks for this! I wasn't thinking of those voicings as clearly name-able, and therefore didn't put them into an invert-able use, but they are!

[Mick-7]

You're right! Thanks for this! I wasn't thinking of those voicing as clearly name-able, and therefore didn't put them into an invert-able use, but they are!

I appreciate your post, I did something similar when I first got interested in jazz, but as I suggested, I approached it by constructing chord scales. I suppose there were people like George Van Eps who used such a system but I had never heard of him at the time (I am mostly self taught, never had any formal music schooling).

I think that just about any chord structure one can play on the guitar can be inverted, like your DI patterns, but it gets more complicated because those are partial chords - missing the third, 7th or whatever. However, they can be useful for altered chord sounds, I've heard Jim Hall, Ben Monder, et. al., use them.

[wolflen]

When I first discovered Ted Greene via Chord Chemistry..the guitar vs music war started to ease.

It was a great turning point..how serious was I about being a musician?

and for whatever reason..I found that I could study with Greene..and I did..for two years

First thing that happened was I discovered I knew nothing about chords-what they were-how they worked.

In time and many long study/practice days..I began to understand chords as frozen melody notes/and melody notes became liquid harmony

As the charts above show..the discovery of harmonic secrets unfolds a bit with systematic movement of each chord tone.

In doing this type of study with all chord types and inversions in each of the 12 keys and with melodic and harmonic minor chords..
slowly the clouds lift and the mystery unravels..Eb7#9/A13b5 are related..a Major chord can be a minor chord..or even an altered dominant chord!

For me listening to musicians who use this kind of stuff..Wayne Shorter..Ben Monder..and many Fusion based players Govan..Tom Quayle and more

These guys break harmonic/theory rules and open our ears to what is beyond the safety of basic harmonic/melodic structures.

Of course one of the first steps in doing this is not to fear the second (and third) inversion of ANY chord.

[wolflen]

let's see..hmmm..EMA7 no 5th and that can be move into inversions..things like this you often have to change string sets- the second inversion of
this being on the top 3 strings 9 9 11

and yes it can be named other things but the note arrangement is the same,,as often said on this forum--CONTEXT rules!

I played with the quartal grid-using some diminished chords between some of the forms works fairly nice..as well as some dimi runs.

[Mick-7]

let's see..hmmm..EMA7 no 5th and that can be move into inversions..things like this you often have to change string sets- the second inversion of
this being on the top 3 strings 9 9 11

I presume that enalnitram chose the middle strings so that one could add notes above or below them (he may correct me if I'm wrong)

Take pattern #214:

EM7 (no 5th) on Same string set:
(1) x-x-2-1-4-x-x >> (2) x-x-6-8-5-x-x >> (3) x-x-13-9-9-x-x

Bass or treble (melody) notes added:

EM7/EM9
1) x-(2)-2-1-4-(4) [3rd doubled] or (7)-7-6-8-(7)

2) (7)-x-6-8-5-(7)

3) x-x-13-9-9-x-x - becomes unplayable so maybe: [E6/9/13] (12)-(11)-14-11-14-(11)

But that's getting pretty complicated, I have no desire to become as obsessive as Ted Greene or Ben Monder about this. I prefer players like Jim Hall or Ed Bickert who have mastered the art of doing more with less chord-wise.

Chords with a semitone in them are going to be hard to invert, like the patterns 214 & 141 (Cm#7)

[Tal_175]

I felt that it was a problem that I had let theory explain music, for me. I had begun thinking that a chord was only a “chord” if it had function or a name, or if it could be used in a jazz standard or rock tune. I wanted to get away from this. But at the same time, I wanted to play jazz better and get more going on, in my vocabulary and with fluidity on the instrument.

I also began to feel that if I could make up a system to derive voicings from, it could be a way for me to visualize the guitar neck up and down the length of the neck, rather than across six strings in one position.

I took inspiration from the concept of wabi sabi and “less is more”. I wanted to see if I could achieve expanse through limitation.

In another thread I explained how I learned the notes on the guitar by going from the notes on the 5^th and 6^th strings, which I knew from playing power chords. The 1^st string is a repeat of the 6^th string. This left those remaining inner 2^nd, 3^rd and 4^th strings. After playing jazz chords for a little while, I began to notice that many or most of the voicings in guitar books had notes on these inner strings, and a bass note on the 5^th or 6^th string.

So, using this concept, I worked out every possible voicing or shape, when using 4 frets on these inner 3 strings.

If I'm understanding it correctly you came up with this system for two reasons, learning the notes in the middle strings, and learning chord vocabulary so you can move voices horizontally up an down the fretboard freely.

I'm a bit confused because I don't understand how working out 33 shapes combinatorially would help you address either of these issues. It seems to me that you still have to learn the note names and you still have to learn the chord scales. What am I missing?

Let me put it this way, suppose the chord of the moment is A7alt, what is your process to create horizontal movement with your shapes within A7alt's funcion without first relating them to the A7alt intervallically or mapping them "diatonically" to the altered scale? Do you just do trial and error by ear?

[enalnitram]

If I'm understanding it correctly you came up with this system for two reasons, learning the notes in the middle strings, and learning chord vocabulary so you can move voices horizontally up an down the fretboard freely.

I already knew names of the notes when I came up with this thing. Yes, I wanted to be better at visualizing the neck, so I came up with this and other methods to help me to do that.

I'm a bit confused because I don't understand how working out 33 shapes combinatorially would help you address either of these issues. It seems to me that you still have to learn the note names and you still have to learn the chord scales. What am I missing?

I already knew the names of the notes, and I'm not talking about realizing melodies or scalar applications here.

Let me put it this way, suppose the chord of the moment is A7alt, what is your process to create horizontal movement with your shapes within A7alt's funcion without first relating them to the A7alt intervallically or mapping them "diatonically" to the altered scale? Do you just do trial and error by ear?

What I was trying to do here was give myself some new chord voicings. That's all. It's not my complete method for realizing harmony on the guitar, obviously, because it's half of the guitar. I didn't work out something using half of the guitar and then stop. I have worked out other things, too. Some of the shapes in this particular scheme do relate to A7 alt. Many of them don't. Scales and melodies are a different topic. Once you understand the basics of harmony, chord/scale relationships are a lot easier than many make them out to be, in my opinion, and I would love to discuss that in another thread. I'll tag you.

[Mick-7]

I gathered that he orients them by the two bottom strings, you can see that he has Root/3rd/5th/7th mapped out on them. Joe Pass used that approach.

Of course you'll also need to know your chord synonyms but the shape similarities make them easier to identify, e.g., the Maj.7 & m7b65 triad shapes are identical, as are the Dom.7 and Dim chord shapes, etc.

"suppose the chord of the moment is A7alt"

If he adds the augmented triads (which are all the same), he'll have the alt chords covered by them and the dom7 and half-dim. chords.

[Tal_175]

I already knew names of the notes when I came up with this thing. Yes, I wanted to be better at visualizing the neck, so I came up with this and other methods to help me to do that.


I already knew the names of the notes, and I'm not talking about realizing melodies or scalar applications here.


What I was trying to do here was give myself some new chord voicings. That's all. It's not my complete method for realizing harmony on the guitar, obviously, because it's half of the guitar. I didn't work out something using half of the guitar and then stop. I have worked out other things, too. Some of the shapes in this particular scheme do relate to A7 alt. Many of them don't. Scales and melodies are a different topic. Once you understand the basics of harmony, chord/scale relationships are a lot easier than many make them out to be, in my opinion, and I would love to discuss that in another thread. I'll tag you.

I agree chord/scale relationships are easy. Especially once you stop looking at the fretboard in compartmentalized way like most guitarist do. By compartmentalized I mean having separate references for arpeggios, scales and chords instead of a unified view. But based on your original post:

I had been listening to Ravel and Stravinsky. The vocabulary seemed so rich. And I had been noticing that my favorite guitarists had a lot of facility with chord voicings and were using voice leading.

I felt that it was a problem that I had let theory explain music, for me. I had begun thinking that a chord was only a “chord” if it had function or a name, or if it could be used in a jazz standard or rock tune. I wanted to get away from this. But at the same time, I wanted to play jazz better and get more going on, in my vocabulary and with fluidity on the instrument.

I thought you were trying to increase your chord vocabulary towards more fluidity. I am trying to understand how you achieve that with this organization in the context of jazz? Say if you are comping in a trio format, how do you use these 33 shapes to expand on the voices you play over the chords and voice lead them?

[enalnitram]

I presume that enalnitram chose the middle strings so that one could add notes above or below them (he may correct me if I'm wrong)

Thanks for your examples and comments! You've given me some work to do, and some new ways to think about this.

I'm infatuated with those middle three strings! It has always seemed so cool to me, how the jist of so many common and useful voicings fall on those three strings, using a bass note on the fifth or sixth string. On sixth string roots, the first string has: maj7, root, b9, 2nd/9th. On fifth string root chords, it has: #4, fifth, #5, 6th/13th. M3 and b7 are mostly out of reach.

The b9 and the #4 can be found on that first string depending upon what you're playing, but so much content of interest can be found and realized just using those 2/3/4 strings. So, that gave me a lot to work with. 33 voicings is a lot, but it is not unmanageable. If I had added the first string the number of possibilities would have been out of control.

[Mick-7]

"If I had added the first string the number of possibilities would have been out of control."

It's more important for relating chords to melodies, however, it's the same as the bottom E string so you can view it the same way - but upside down.

[enalnitram]

Say if you are comping in a trio format, how do you use these 33 shapes to expand on the voices you play over the chords and voice lead them?

A young guitarist is playing in a combo that includes a bass player. The tune is going along, and all of a sudden, there is a ii-V-I in G major.

Young guitarist probably knows:

E|-----------
B|--5--5--3--
G|--5--5--4--
D|--5--4--4--
A|----(5)----
E|-(5)---(3)-

and

E|--------------
B|--12--12--12--
G|--12--11--11--
D|--10--10--12--
A|-(12)----(10)-
E|-----(10)-----


This was most of my whole vocabulary for that situation, after I had been playing for a year or two.

After working out all the possibilities on the 2/3/4th strings, and applications for each, you can begin to see:

E|--------------
B|--3--3--3-----
G|--5--5--4-----
D|--5--4--4-----
A|-------------- or
E|--------------

E|--------------
B|--8--7--7-----
G|--5--5--4-----
D|--7--7--7-----
A|-------------- or
E|--------------

E|--------------
B|--8--7--7-----
G|--7--9--9-----
D|-10-10--9-----
A|-------------- or
E|--------------

E|--------------
B|-10-10--8-----
G|--9-11-11-----
D|-10-10--9-----
A|-------------- or
E|--------------

E|--------------
B|-12-12-12-----
G|-12-11-11-----
D|-14-14-12-----
A|-------------- etc
E|--------------

[Tal_175]

A young guitarist is playing in a combo that includes a bass player. The tune is going along, and all of a sudden, there is a ii-V-I in G major.

Young guitarist probably knows:

E|-----------
B|--5--5--3--
G|--5--5--4--
D|--5--4--4--
A|----(5)----
E|-(5)---(3)-

and

E|--------------
B|--12--12--12--
G|--12--11--11--
D|--10--10--12--
A|-(12)----(10)-
E|-----(10)-----


This was most of my whole vocabulary for that situation, after I had been playing for a year or two.

After working out all the possibilities on the 2/3/4th strings, and applications for each, you can begin to see:

E|--------------
B|--3--3--3-----
G|--5--5--4-----
D|--5--4--4-----
A|-------------- or
E|--------------

E|--------------
B|--8--7--7-----
G|--5--5--4-----
D|--7--7--7-----
A|-------------- or
E|--------------

E|--------------
B|--8--7--7-----
G|--7--9--9-----
D|-10-10--9-----
A|-------------- or
E|--------------

E|--------------
B|-10-10--8-----
G|--9-11-11-----
D|-10-10--9-----
A|-------------- or
E|--------------

E|--------------
B|-12-12-12-----
G|-12-11-11-----
D|-14-14-12-----
A|-------------- etc
E|--------------

Alternatively, these are all drop2 or drop3 reductions (depending on whether you're omitting the bass voice or the treble voice). You arrived them with a different approach, that's cool. What I'm curious about is the process you use to come up with voicings for a given chord type.

After working out all the possibilities on the 2/3/4th strings, and applications for each ...

So in other words I'm wondering about your process of "working out all possibilities". Let's take Amin (the ii chord in the example).
The way I'd work out possibilities for Amin in the middle three strings is to build intervals. I'll start with, say,
x
5
5
5
x
x
These are (bottom to top) G, C and E or 7th, 3rd and 5th. Now I can create different voicings by experimenting with moving each voice. If I move the 5th one step lower I'd get the 11th:
x
3
5
5
x
x

I can move the middle voice (C) up a step and get the 9th etc.
x
5
7
5
x
x
The resulting shapes would correspond to some of your combinatorial possibilities but I'd arrive them through exploring each voice within the context of the chord I'm building voicings for (Amin in this case).

You seem to be going the opposite direction, starting with shapes and finding applications for them, right? What would your process be for the A minor example?

[enalnitram]

What I'm curious about is the process you use to come up with voicings for a given chord type.

That was in post #3. I don't have every chord quality spelled out there, but there is an example for Min7.

You seem to be going the opposite direction, starting with shapes and finding applications for them, right?

I don't think I'm going in the opposite direction. In this one particular way of looking at the fingerboard, I DO start with shapes and find applications for them. This approach helped me to learn the fingerboard better. HOWEVER, when I'm in the moment, I'm thinking about what is happening in the tune, I'm hearing what the melody or the soloist is doing, I'm reacting to it, I am considering what I just played or where my hand is, and I realize the next chord using all the tools that I have available. Thinking about shapes helped me learn the fingerboard and put stuff together. While playing chords during a tune, I'm not necessarily thinking this shape/that shape... I'm thinking of the harmony context aurally and musically, and being in it. While I'm playing, I'm thinking/hearing the characteristic chord tones as colors, etc. But working out the shapes beforehand, prepares me to grab them quicker, in the moment.

Thanks for asking these questions. I am revisiting all these old materials in an effort to get the cobwebs off. Lol! It was a helpful exercise to attempt to explain in it a way that made sense. I'm not a teacher any more. It's helpful to be challenged and have to explain wth I'm talking about.

[Mick-7]

Alternatively, these are all drop2 or drop3 reductions (depending on whether you're omitting the bass voice or the treble voice). You arrived them with a different approach, that's cool. What I'm curious about is the process you use to come up with voicings for a given chord type.

So in other words I'm wondering about your process of "working out all possibilities". Let's take Amin (the ii chord in the example).
The way I'd work out possibilities for Amin in the middle three strings is to build intervals. I'll start with, say,
x
5
5
5
x
x
These are (bottom to top) G, C and E or 7th, 3rd and 5th. Now I can create different voicings by experimenting with moving each voice. If I move the 5th one step lower I'd get the 11th:
x
3
5
5
x
x

I can move the middle voice (C) up a step and get the 9th etc.
x
5
7
5
x
x
The resulting shapes would correspond to some of your combinatorial possibilities but I'd arrive them through exploring each voice within the context of the chord I'm building voicings for (Amin in this case).

Thing is, every chord has more than one name - it's synonyms - e.g., the two examples you gave:
Am6 = F#m7b5 & A11 (no 3rd) = Em7

For the purpose of organization, I'd label all these chord patterns according to their most common usage.

For example, I'd call pattern #131 Cm7 rather than Gb7sus, #213 E7 rather than Bb7b5 (it's tritone sub), #411 Ab7 rather than D7b5 (tritone sub), #413 Bb7#5 rather than E9 (tritone sub, the E bass note would not be nearby).

And the "4" chords: #123 = F13, #341 = G11, #412 = Dmaj7b5/#11. Just calling them "4" chords is not going to help me know where to use them.

[Tal_175]

Thing is, every chord has more than one name - it's synonyms - e.g., the two examples you gave:
Am6 = F#m7b5 & A11 (no 3rd) = Em7

Grips have multiple names, not chords. I don't name chords by grips. A grip corresponds to different chord tones in different contexts. I see and hear the chord tones. So Min7b5 is not just a different name for a Dom9 chord in the way I relate to the fretboard and harmony.

[Mick-7]

"Grips have multiple names, not chords."

These chords (and others) contain the same notes, you don't pay any attention to that?
Am7 = C6
Am7b5 = Cm6
Tritone subs like: G9 = Db7#5#9

[Tal_175]

"Grips have multiple names, not chords."

These chords (and others) contain the same notes, you don't pay any attention to that?
Am7 = C6
Am7b5 = Cm6

Many different type of chords have the same "set of" notes but I don't call them the same chords with different names.

[Mick-7]

Many different type of chords have the same "set of" notes but I don't call them the same chords with different names.

o.k, what do you call them?