Super effective chord voicings system

[B3N]

Hello,

Edit : I did include an example of the following in this post.

I thought of a really simple system to quickly build super effective chord voicings needed for basic jazz standards, blues, funk, bossa-nova...


It has limitations :
- it does not include inversions, slash chords, etc... This one is only for the root in the bass.
- some complex chords may not be possible. Up to you to find a solution
- these are basic chords shapes, nothing new, nothing fancy. Just regular chords that get the job done.

To build efficient jazz chords voicings you need :

- a root : one of the two bottom strings
- guide tones (3 and 7, maybe be replaced by a 4th or a 6th) : the two inner strings
- tensions : 9's, 11's and 13's, or "fill" the chord with a fifth or additional root if you don't want tensions : the two upper strings


The system "rules" are the followings :

Strings 6 and 5 are used solely for the root ! So 5 and 6 strings are never used together. It sounds muddy.

Strings 4 and 3 are used solely for the guide tones : thirds and sevenths, which may eventually be replaced by a 4th, a 6th or a diminished 7th.
If you need to make a sus4 chord, replace the 3rd by the 4th on one of these strings.
If you need to make a 6 chord or a dim7 chord, replace the 7th by the 6th on one of these strings.
If you need to make a m7b5 or a dim7 chord, with the root on the 5th string, play the b5 on string 4.

Strings 2 and 1 are used for tensions : 9ths, 11ths, 13ths. If you don't want tensions : there is room left for a fifth, or an additional root.
If you need to make a m7b5 or a dim7 chord with the root on the 6th string, play the b5 (= #11) on string 2.
If you need to make a m7b5 or a dim7 chords with the root on the 5th string, play the b3 (=#9) on string 2

Here are the charts : one for a root on the 6th string, and one for the 5th string :

The bold notes represent the intervals you get on a given fret. Each interval written on the left is a fret down and so on. Each interval on the right is a fret up and so on.

e .................R......b9......9......#9
B 11....#11.....5......b13....13.......
G .................b3......3......4.........
D .........6......b7......7.................
A ..............................................
E .................R.........................

e 11....#11.....5......b13.....13
B R.......b9......9......#9.........
G ..........6......b7....7...........
D b3.......3......4......b5.........
A ..................R..................
E ......................................

So :
- You pick a root : 2 possibilities : choose the one closest to your previous/next chord if you want few melodic mouvements.
- You pick the guide tones you need. one possibility
- Try tensions...or not. At that point, you already have something consistent. All you have to do, if you don't know harmony well, is to try things. Try tensions, all of them and see what you get. This system has very little possibilities and that's why it is efficient : it limits voicings possibilities to 2 for each given chord.

Let me give you an example. Blues :

I - IV - V

let's say, in C : 1st possibility : start on 6th string :

C7 : 8 x 8 9 x x
F7 : x 8 7 8 x x
G7 : x 10 9 10 x x

2nd possibility :

C7 (I) : x 3 2 3 x x
F7 (IV): 1 x 1 2 x x
G7 (V) : 3 x 3 4 x x

Give it a try. All the blues is in there. Anything you play, will rely on these shapes. See what the guides tones are doing ?

I : somewhere.
IV : goes down one fret
V : goes up one fret.

And guess what, no matter the possibility, the guide tones behave the same. That's the kind of discovery I made with that.

Also the notes are in a logical sequence : root - guide tones - tensions. Therefore it will always sound clear. If you master that you are able to comp on any jazz standard. Forget about slash chords and inversions, leave that to the bass player.

This is a very good start, in my opinion, to study applied harmony in a systemic way. Learning chords without knowing what the intervals are takes so much more time...and is so much harder to memorize.
Learning notes take time because their name change (#,x, b or bb), and you have 12 possibilities for each chord construction. Learn the intervals, and no matter the notes, you have the fretboard's architecture in mind.
All you need is a reference chart to know what the chords are made of. But this is another subject.

Please let me know what you think ! It took me quite a time to write that thread, some feedback, positive or not, is always welcome. Thank you for reading, and hope it helps !

Enjoy,

Ben

[SunnyDee]

Originally Posted by B3N

This is a very good start, in my opinion, to study applied harmony in a systemic way. Learning chords without knowing what the intervals are takes so much more time...and is so much harder to memorize.
Learning notes take time because their name change (#,x, b or bb), and you have 12 possibilities for each chord construction. Learn the intervals, and no matter the notes, you have the fretboard's architecture in mind.
All you need is a reference chart to know what the chords are made of. But this is another subject.

Please let me know what you think ! It took me quite a time to write that thread, some feedback, positive or not, is always welcome. Thank you for reading, and hope it helps !

Enjoy,

Ben

Hi, I wouldn't have thought of this as a jazz thing, but that's a cool take on it. I'm a big fan of encouraging people to understand intervals as they apply to fretboard architecture exactly for the reason you say, "Learning chords without knowing what the intervals are takes so much more time...and is so much harder to memorize."

A useful way I've found to learn chords is to know the spelling/pattern/formula as well as the intervals the guitar creates in standard tuning and then form them on the fly. I've never thought of it as applying to certain strings, exactly, but, I posted something somewhat related about voicing (Tip on Finding Notes in Chord Shapes) that I think touches on the same fundamental principles.

I'll look at this more closely. Thanks for the post.

[rick-slo]

Given time enough time in a very slow piece you could do that to a degree I suppose, but really playing something fluently is about using what you have memorized and can use without thinking about, whether it be such things as chord shapes, scale patterns, chord progression sequences, the specifics of a particular piece of music, etc..

[Wyllys]

It looks like you're on your way to systematizing your experience so far. Chances are you'll eventually simplify it while making it more flexible and comprehensive at the same time.

Your supposition regarding building efficient jazz chord voicings at this point is a bit vague and didactic at the same time to really be efficient, but with some refinement and less strictured thinking can be made workable. It might be good to take a look here for a more developed approach:

http://all-guitar-chords.com/index.php?ch=C&mm=7b5&v=0

So much of jazz comping and voicing involves substitutions. Building chords, working inversions and voucings are all good, but taking that next step to harmonize arrangements utilizing personal chord substitutions might be said to be what it's about.

I'm closing in on 60 years of playing, 50 professionally, and things are still opening up like flowers blooming. I think you're on the right track but would offer the caveat regarding systemization contained in the last line of my signature.

Play first, analyze later. Be led by the sound, not the system. Theory is the post mortem of music.

[B3N]

Originally Posted by rick-slo

Given time enough time in a very slow piece you could do that to a degree I suppose, but really playing something fluently is about using what you have memorized and can use without thinking about, whether it be such things as chord shapes, scale patterns, chord progression sequences, the specifics of a particular piece of music, etc..

Let me give you an example. Blues :

I - IV - V

let's say, in C : 1st possibility : start on 6th string :

C7 : 8 x 8 9 x x
F7 : x 8 7 8 x x
G7 : x 10 9 10 x x

2nd possibility :

C7 (I) : x 3 2 3 x x
F7 (IV): 1 x 1 2 x x
G7 (V) : 3 x 3 4 x x

Give it a try. All the blues is in there. Anything you play, will rely on these shapes. See what the guides tones are doing ?

I : somewhere.
IV : goes down one fret
V : goes up one fret.

And guess what, no matter the possibility, the guide tones behave the same. That's the kind of discovery I made with that.
You obviously can't play anything without the smallest amount of work.

[B3N]

Originally Posted by Wyllys

It looks like you're on your way to systematizing your experience so far. Chances are you'll eventually simplify it while making it more flexible and comprehensive at the same time.

Your supposition regarding building efficient jazz chord voicings at this point is a bit vague and didactic at the same time to really be efficient, but with some refinement and less strictured thinking can be made workable. It might be good to take a look here for a more developed approach:

http://all-guitar-chords.com/index.php?ch=C&mm=7b5&v=0

So much of jazz comping and voicing involves substitutions. Building chords, working inversions and voucings are all good, but taking that next step to harmonize arrangements utilizing personal chord substitutions might be said to be what it's about.

I'm closing in on 60 years of playing, 50 professionally, and things are still opening up like flowers blooming. I think you're on the right track but would offer the caveat regarding systemization contained in the last line of my signature.

Play first, analyze later. Be led by the sound, not the system. Theory is the post mortem of music.

Did yougive it a try ?

How can you tell a beginner to play first and think afterwards?
You obviously have to learn something. And if that something is systemic, organized, logical and with the least possibilities, it allows you to work on a smaller area, and therefore dig much more efficiently. You spend less time thinking and more time playing.

I'm sorry but this system is the opposite of theory. It's the guitar mechanics. People playing by ear understand the guitar mechanics probably more than anyone. They may not know notes names, chord names, but they sure know their intervals.

I don't believe in "never learn theory and you'll be a better, true, artistic musician". I just don't buy that.

[rick-slo]

Leading tones anywhere in the chord, bass or harmony.

Composing something I would probably start out cagey. For example:

8-10-8-9-8-8 to x-8-7-8-x-8 to x-10-9-10-x-10

and pare back. Any string could be the source of a leading tone.

Regarding your post above, developing a good ear should be your primary goal.

[B3N]

Originally Posted by rick-slo

Leading tones anywhere in the chord, bass or harmony.

Composing something I would probably start out cagey. For example:

8-10-8-9-8-8 to x-8-7-8-x-8 to x-10-9-10-x-10

and pare back. Any string could be the source of a leading tone.

Regarding your post above, developing a good ear should be your primary goal.

And why would you think this is not the case ?

I really don't get the thing that you somewhat have to choose between think about guitar mechanics or having a good ear.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leading-tone

The only leading tones in your proposal are guide tones : 8-10-8-9-8-8 to x-8-7-8-x-8 to x-10-9-10-x-10

[rick-slo]

Originally Posted by B3N

And why would you think this is not the case ?

I really don't get the thing that you somewhat have to choose between think about guitar mechanics or having a good ear.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leading-tone

The only leading tones in your proposal are guide tones.

Not either or, both of course, but ear is primary.

Leading tones (tones a half step away usually, sometimes a step) not shown of course, just some of the various strings you could use to play one from. In the composing stage, limiting your thinking to starting out from three note chords reduces your options.

[B3N]

Originally Posted by rick-slo

Not either or, both of course, but ear is primary.

Leading tones (tones a half step away usually, sometimes a step) not shown of course, just some of the various strings you could use to play one from. In the composing stage, limiting your thinking to starting out from three note chords reduces your options.

I didn't sell a system to compose, be a creative musician, or anything. Just a method to play a tune with 7th chords that is quick because it involves only 2 forms per chord. And these chords are used by anyone comping. Every jazz guitarist uses these forms. Because it falls in the mechanics of the guitar and that a root, 3rd and 7th are the quintessence of jazz, and blues, and brazilian music, and classical music.

And why do you think I'm limiting myself in any way while composing ?

[Wyllys]

Originally Posted by B3N

Did yougive it a try ?

How can you tell a beginner to play first and think afterwards?
You obviously have to learn something. And if that something is systemic, organized, logical and with the least possibilities, it allows you to work on a smaller area, and therefore dig much more efficiently. You spend less time thinking and more time playing.

I'm sorry but this system is the opposite of theory. It's the guitar mechanics. People playing by ear understand the guitar mechanics probably more than anyone. They may not know notes names, chord names, but they sure know their intervals.

I don't believe in "never learn theory and you'll be a better, true, artistic musician". I just don't buy that.

Yes, I understand where you're going with it. You'll work out a clearer way to express it over time. What you'll end up with is the CAGED system or very close.

As to "play first, think afterward", that's exactly what you're doing: systematizing your experience into a method. That's the CONTEXT necessary for integrating experience and theory. Any method incorporates a theory QED.

Your practical example regarding the CFG changes offers much more to the beginner than your entire first post by providing CONTEXT. I didn't say theory is unnecessary nor did I advocate not learning it. The problem with systems and theories without the context of applcation is that you're trying to learn a single, over-arching body of knowledge when the more practical approach would be to learn one song at a time, compare and contrast them as your repetoire increases and distill the relationships into your own system/theory according to your experience.

Music is the context. All else follows.

Edit:

While I use triads such as your contextual examples, I think using a triad against a bass note is a bit more informative. Here are some chord forms which would be a beginning menu of related forms for basic jazz/blues sounds:

C : 8 x 10 9 8 x
Maj7 : 8 x 9 9 8 x
C7 : 8 x 8 9 8 x
Maj6 : 8 x 7 9 8 x

Further variants are easily found and added to ones repetoire/library as they're encountered song by song on a need to know basis: augmented, diminished, flat 5, etc. When you need a SOUND, you find the chord which gives it.

Sound first...

[B3N]

Originally Posted by Wyllys

Yes, I understand where you're going with it. You'll work out a clearer way to express it over time.

As to "play first, think afterward", that's exactly what you're doing: systematizing your experience into a method. That's the CONTEXT necessary for integrating experience and theory. Any method incorporates a theory QED.

Your practical example regarding the CFG changes offers much more to the beginner than your entire first post by providing CONTEXT. I didn't say theory is unnecessary nor did I advocate not learning it. The problem with systems and theories without the context of applcation is that you're trying to learn a single, over-arching body of knowledge when the more practical approach would be to learn one song at a time, compare and contrast them as your repetoire increases and distill the relationships into your own system/theory according to your experience.

Music is the context. All else follows.

On all that I have to agree. I should have put that example in the first post...

But I like your last sentence much better than your last line signature :-) context is everything.

[Wyllys]

B3...

Check your PM's.

[stanron]

Let's imagine a gradient scale with 'like music, dance to music, sing music all together' at one end of the scale and 'worship cleverness, respect understanding of rules and bow to superior technical knowledge in music', at the other. Where do you place yourself?

It seems to me that either end of the scale can exist without acknowledging the existence of the other. Can one accept both ends at the same time.

If you feel that this definition of the two ends of the scale is wrong, please supply your own.

[B3N]

Originally Posted by stanron

Let's imagine a gradient scale with 'like music, dance to music, sing music all together' at one end of the scale and 'worship cleverness, respect understanding of rules and bow to superior technical knowledge in music', at the other. Where do you place yourself?

It seems to me that either end of the scale can exist without acknowledging the existence of the other. Can one accept both ends at the same time.

If you feel that this definition of the two ends of the scale is wrong, please supply your own.

You know what ? I don't like scales, nor "sides". Never liked. I prefer circles.

I enjoy Nirvana today as much as when I was 14. And I'm stunned by Kurt Rosenwinkel's genius the minute after.

I play some Bach pieces on acoustic but I just got out of a recording session where my amp was on 10 with 3 dirt boxes and a wah on. Just making dirty noise, instead of a solo.

So yeah, to answer your question, I'm on both sides of the scale, and all the places in between. I like to think, talk, share, learn from others and most of all play music.

Not sure I clearly got your tone on that post but I'm sure you got mine :-)