I never felt like minor 7th chords are all that dark.
Minor 6th on the other hand…
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Inversions...
- Thread starter mjnyc
- Start date
I never felt like minor 7th chords are all that dark.
Minor 6th on the other hand…
This is one of the most information-rich threads I've read on TB. I've already used lessons from this thread in two recording sessions this week. Thanks to Wasnex, Steve, BassClef, et al for taking the time to discuss these points of theory and technique, especially those where theory and technique meet practical application.
Quote: “What I find very difficult is triad inversions. My thinking is very root-centric, so starting on a third or fifth is just unnatural for me, and nowhere near as automatic as starting on a root. Even the sound of an inverted triad is strange to me.”
Honesty compels me to confess that I am the thickest member of my family.
So, you will appreciate what a great help it was to me when as a very young boy, my eldest brother using a piano keyboard, took the trouble to explain triads.
This opened the tremendous vista of harmony to my understanding. I had been learning the guitar so was familiar with chords, but now had a proper understanding of the relationship between disparate notes that harmonised.
It also opened me up to a lot of abuse. The uber simple, boring sheet music my piano teacher required me to play could be augmented with harmonising notes, not written in the score.
My reward for this sterling effort to improve the sound of my performance, was being continually wrapped across the knuckles with a wooden ruler, for every additional note that created a more musical and impressive sound.
In those days (I don’t see them now) a singular range of guitar books would provide a wide range of chords, and display each chord in three variations.
They would call them 1st inversion chords (because the root name of the chord occurred on the 1st string and formed the most common F shape fingering).
2nd inversion chords (because the root name of the chord occurred on the 2nd string and formed the most common C shape fingering).
And 3rd inversion chords (because the root name of the chord occurred on the 3rd string and formed the most common A shape fingering).
And each named chord, featured a picture of the fretboard that gave all 3 different inversions of the same named chord, in its 3 most commonly utilised versions throughout the major length of the fretboard.
There was a book with a blue cover for the majority of standard chords and a red book featuring rarer, far more advanced chords. I can’t understand why such books do not seem to be available today?
Of course, the number of variations of different inversions of chords utilising the same name is much greater that just these three.
However, for most common types of chordal playing, on the guitar they sound the best and have the advantage with the use of the barre finger, of being played at any position on the fretboard.
Therefore, when you had learnt to play (utilising the Barre finger) just these three chord fingerings. You can play them in any key whatever, without the need to change fingering at all, which is simultaneously a great aid to muscle memory and brain power to boot.
However, as basic starting points go, I would argue that this particular starting point for learning chord inversions is most exemplary, and far superior to what seems to be taught in tutors these days.
Clearly some mastery of instruments that inevitably major on the use of chords, like piano and guitar would appear to be a tremendous advantage in developing a proper grasp and wider understanding of the multi various uses and variations possible of chords.
In particular, the chord shapes and relationship of notes on the fretboard of the guitar can to a substantial degree, be directly transferable to the bass.
Indubitably, as already stated, the variety of variations that differing inversions provide, far exceed this basic starting point.
Specific genres of guitar music feature less commonly utilised variations of chord inversions. Jazz guitarists in particular often use “substitute chords” for common standard offerings.
In addition, rather than strumming for four bars on one chord, they will “work the neck” moving from inversion to inversion, up and down the neck, to add to the spontaneous diversity going on around them.
Rather than play full six strings chords, it is common for them to play chords that utilise the inner strings omitting the high and low outer strings.
Thereby, they can play a complex variety of differently named chords, changing on every beat, simply by moving a single finger that formed a part of a particular chord shape.
Many such chord inversions involve the sounding of the lowest 6th string, only for the next string to be mute, and the rest of the strings sounded. Clearly, to play such chords well, requires the development of a considerable degree of extra skill in technique.
Some require stupendous stretches of the fingers, across many frets, therefore to play such complex inversions one can understand why Gibson jazz guitars featured a scale length of 24 ¾ inches rather than 25 and a half. Even Fender jazz guitars with their off-set bodies have much shorter scale.
It may be that shorter scales basses and 5 and 6 string basses come further into their own, if chord playing is envisaged as a major preoccupation of the bassist.
As a Musical Director, I remember visiting a guitarist friend at his home one day and he asked if I could help him?
He had been transcribing the chords from a record and could not get the correct sound as hard as he had tried to do so.
After listening to the record. I explained to him that the reason he couldn’t get his guitar to sound right was because the song required a slash chord.
In other words, the guitar and upper middle chords instruments sounded one chord whilst the bass instrument sounded a different note altogether, and most certainly not the root note of the named chord of the other instruments.
This is a great musical device to heighten musical interest, create and sustain musical tension, and enhance and beatify transition points where a piece is required to modulate to a completely different key.
As well as his exotic changes in time signature, Burt Bacharach was a composer who often utilised slash chords to increase and sustain tension in the choruses of songs for some considerable time before finally resolving them to the home key.
Although slash chords are different to straightforward chord inversions per say, if is worth becoming familiar with the concept, as it requires a development of the ears tuning of acceptability. In the same manner that such advancement may be necessary for certain inversions of chords to fall on the ear and brain, as they should.
In life its great to know where you have come from and where you are going.
It is just the same in musical composition. Thus, you might readily appreciate that a chord of C for 4 beats followed by two beats of F and G could project more impressively if the bass sounded two notes of C, two of E, two of F and two of G.
The E leads quite naturally to the F.
Likewise, a G chord resolving to a C chord could utilise a B to lead to the note C.
A Dm7 that will ultimately resolve to a C chord, could be enhanced with a G bass, without the upper chords doing likewise, although this is another slash chord.
Although it trend has gone away a bit now, for a time certain composers and bassists used unusual inversions of chords to determine the bass note utilised.
This gave their compositions a completely different character to that of the conventional pop material they competed with. As you may be aware, sounding different is important to creating distinction, especially in an over crowed market.
The more you grasp the possibilities of the notes available in differing inversions of a given chord, the more you will be open to the many types of passing and following notes that decorously heighten its movement to other chords.
I’m not suggesting this approach should replace the approaches taken by particularly great bassists that differs.
However, it suddenly comes to mind that Carol Kaye (my bass teacher many years ago) actually transitioned from the guitar to the bass.
And although she would first ask “what style” a song was? And created a great many impactful hit bass lines, she was always very clear that her thoughts were fundamentally “chordal” in her approach.
It appears to have served her well. Moreover, as I mentioned earlier, jazz players often use “substitute chords”. And there are many different chords that actually use most or all of the same notes, although they have completely different names.
If you know this. Its possible to utilise inversions of chords that might not at first seem relevant at all to the musical situation.
Expanding, extending and enhancing a musical augmentation that takes one beyond the standard everyday renditions that are the musical common offerings.
To do that, so it falls readily on the ear, effortlessly, with genuine musicality, involves a great deal of study effort and most of all, practise. Till is second nature, and you move into a different league of bass playing altogether.
Finally, I would suggest that chord playing on bass, is usually at its best in the same way that most “devices” are.
Like special effects, the worst aspect is their overuse. In the right place and musical setting, they can heighten the entire piece.
But overused, they become clichéd and their texture cloying to the ear of all but the bass enthusiast. So, I think the most important aspect of chord inversions is the increased awareness of individual notes they provide.
For the creative, agile and interesting to listen to bass player, their most positive contribution as I see it, is a better developed accessibility to all points of the fingerboard. Mobility in short, finding one’s way around to heighten musical interest, which is especially useful when the “compositions” are somewhat boringly simple, musically.
Its one reason, great session players are required.
To make the ordinary, extraordinary!
Honesty compels me to confess that I am the thickest member of my family.
So, you will appreciate what a great help it was to me when as a very young boy, my eldest brother using a piano keyboard, took the trouble to explain triads.
This opened the tremendous vista of harmony to my understanding. I had been learning the guitar so was familiar with chords, but now had a proper understanding of the relationship between disparate notes that harmonised.
It also opened me up to a lot of abuse. The uber simple, boring sheet music my piano teacher required me to play could be augmented with harmonising notes, not written in the score.
My reward for this sterling effort to improve the sound of my performance, was being continually wrapped across the knuckles with a wooden ruler, for every additional note that created a more musical and impressive sound.
In those days (I don’t see them now) a singular range of guitar books would provide a wide range of chords, and display each chord in three variations.
They would call them 1st inversion chords (because the root name of the chord occurred on the 1st string and formed the most common F shape fingering).
2nd inversion chords (because the root name of the chord occurred on the 2nd string and formed the most common C shape fingering).
And 3rd inversion chords (because the root name of the chord occurred on the 3rd string and formed the most common A shape fingering).
And each named chord, featured a picture of the fretboard that gave all 3 different inversions of the same named chord, in its 3 most commonly utilised versions throughout the major length of the fretboard.
There was a book with a blue cover for the majority of standard chords and a red book featuring rarer, far more advanced chords. I can’t understand why such books do not seem to be available today?
Of course, the number of variations of different inversions of chords utilising the same name is much greater that just these three.
However, for most common types of chordal playing, on the guitar they sound the best and have the advantage with the use of the barre finger, of being played at any position on the fretboard.
Therefore, when you had learnt to play (utilising the Barre finger) just these three chord fingerings. You can play them in any key whatever, without the need to change fingering at all, which is simultaneously a great aid to muscle memory and brain power to boot.
However, as basic starting points go, I would argue that this particular starting point for learning chord inversions is most exemplary, and far superior to what seems to be taught in tutors these days.
Clearly some mastery of instruments that inevitably major on the use of chords, like piano and guitar would appear to be a tremendous advantage in developing a proper grasp and wider understanding of the multi various uses and variations possible of chords.
In particular, the chord shapes and relationship of notes on the fretboard of the guitar can to a substantial degree, be directly transferable to the bass.
Indubitably, as already stated, the variety of variations that differing inversions provide, far exceed this basic starting point.
Specific genres of guitar music feature less commonly utilised variations of chord inversions. Jazz guitarists in particular often use “substitute chords” for common standard offerings.
In addition, rather than strumming for four bars on one chord, they will “work the neck” moving from inversion to inversion, up and down the neck, to add to the spontaneous diversity going on around them.
Rather than play full six strings chords, it is common for them to play chords that utilise the inner strings omitting the high and low outer strings.
Thereby, they can play a complex variety of differently named chords, changing on every beat, simply by moving a single finger that formed a part of a particular chord shape.
Many such chord inversions involve the sounding of the lowest 6th string, only for the next string to be mute, and the rest of the strings sounded. Clearly, to play such chords well, requires the development of a considerable degree of extra skill in technique.
Some require stupendous stretches of the fingers, across many frets, therefore to play such complex inversions one can understand why Gibson jazz guitars featured a scale length of 24 ¾ inches rather than 25 and a half. Even Fender jazz guitars with their off-set bodies have much shorter scale.
It may be that shorter scales basses and 5 and 6 string basses come further into their own, if chord playing is envisaged as a major preoccupation of the bassist.
As a Musical Director, I remember visiting a guitarist friend at his home one day and he asked if I could help him?
He had been transcribing the chords from a record and could not get the correct sound as hard as he had tried to do so.
After listening to the record. I explained to him that the reason he couldn’t get his guitar to sound right was because the song required a slash chord.
In other words, the guitar and upper middle chords instruments sounded one chord whilst the bass instrument sounded a different note altogether, and most certainly not the root note of the named chord of the other instruments.
This is a great musical device to heighten musical interest, create and sustain musical tension, and enhance and beatify transition points where a piece is required to modulate to a completely different key.
As well as his exotic changes in time signature, Burt Bacharach was a composer who often utilised slash chords to increase and sustain tension in the choruses of songs for some considerable time before finally resolving them to the home key.
Although slash chords are different to straightforward chord inversions per say, if is worth becoming familiar with the concept, as it requires a development of the ears tuning of acceptability. In the same manner that such advancement may be necessary for certain inversions of chords to fall on the ear and brain, as they should.
In life its great to know where you have come from and where you are going.
It is just the same in musical composition. Thus, you might readily appreciate that a chord of C for 4 beats followed by two beats of F and G could project more impressively if the bass sounded two notes of C, two of E, two of F and two of G.
The E leads quite naturally to the F.
Likewise, a G chord resolving to a C chord could utilise a B to lead to the note C.
A Dm7 that will ultimately resolve to a C chord, could be enhanced with a G bass, without the upper chords doing likewise, although this is another slash chord.
Although it trend has gone away a bit now, for a time certain composers and bassists used unusual inversions of chords to determine the bass note utilised.
This gave their compositions a completely different character to that of the conventional pop material they competed with. As you may be aware, sounding different is important to creating distinction, especially in an over crowed market.
The more you grasp the possibilities of the notes available in differing inversions of a given chord, the more you will be open to the many types of passing and following notes that decorously heighten its movement to other chords.
I’m not suggesting this approach should replace the approaches taken by particularly great bassists that differs.
However, it suddenly comes to mind that Carol Kaye (my bass teacher many years ago) actually transitioned from the guitar to the bass.
And although she would first ask “what style” a song was? And created a great many impactful hit bass lines, she was always very clear that her thoughts were fundamentally “chordal” in her approach.
It appears to have served her well. Moreover, as I mentioned earlier, jazz players often use “substitute chords”. And there are many different chords that actually use most or all of the same notes, although they have completely different names.
If you know this. Its possible to utilise inversions of chords that might not at first seem relevant at all to the musical situation.
Expanding, extending and enhancing a musical augmentation that takes one beyond the standard everyday renditions that are the musical common offerings.
To do that, so it falls readily on the ear, effortlessly, with genuine musicality, involves a great deal of study effort and most of all, practise. Till is second nature, and you move into a different league of bass playing altogether.
Finally, I would suggest that chord playing on bass, is usually at its best in the same way that most “devices” are.
Like special effects, the worst aspect is their overuse. In the right place and musical setting, they can heighten the entire piece.
But overused, they become clichéd and their texture cloying to the ear of all but the bass enthusiast. So, I think the most important aspect of chord inversions is the increased awareness of individual notes they provide.
For the creative, agile and interesting to listen to bass player, their most positive contribution as I see it, is a better developed accessibility to all points of the fingerboard. Mobility in short, finding one’s way around to heighten musical interest, which is especially useful when the “compositions” are somewhat boringly simple, musically.
Its one reason, great session players are required.
To make the ordinary, extraordinary!
Nice video. Just curious, in the end of the video you talk about combining two triads. Bb and C over G minor. How do you decide which triads you use? And which one you combine?
Here's my guess.
He mentioned Gm7 (G,Bb,D,F) and G Dorian ( G,A,Bb,C,D,E,F). If you harmonize G Dorian using Bb and C as the roots, you get Bb,D,F and C,E,G. The only note missing from G Dorian is A natural.
You could harmonize two other notes in the same way. Some triads will be more out than others. Notice with the example above you have Gm7 (G,Bb,D,F) + two additional notes (C,E). So these two triads are fairly in...I would say the Bb Maj triad is really in and the C Maj triad is sort of out...so by alternating between inversions of these two triads you create sort of a wavering harmonic tension.
As to why G Dorian? Dorian is used frequently in jazz over any m7 chord...including the tonic. Here's an article if you are interested: Everything You Don't Know About Minor Harmony • Jazzadvice
Last edited:
I know, but could as well be a Dm or F triad. It seems a bit arbitrary. So I was curious about the thought process.
As interesting as this is, inversions are not formed this way - it is all about which note is the lowest pitched in the arrangement, which might in reality be played by someone else. If the root is lowest pitch the chord is 'Root position; if the 3rd is in the bass then it is 1st inversion, 5th in the bass = 2nd inversion and 7th in the bass is 3rd inversion. That's it - the arrangement of notes above the bass is of no consequence.
The thing with guitar chords, particulary the basic shapes used for strumming, is that they almost invariably have the root as the lowest pitched note intentional note. Some open shapes work ok with all strings played (intentional or not), for example with an open C you can allow the low E string to ring for 1st inversion (3rd in the bass). Likewise for A and Am shapes you can allow the E string to ring for 2nd inversion (5th in the bass), or let the A string ring in the 'D' shapes, again for 2nd inversion. But the naming convention you describe, and the reasoning behind it, sounds very guitar-specific and is not recognised that way in general music theory.
YMMV
This not only makes sense to me, it is most practical and helpful and I believe reading it again and again will help in creating bass lines for the alt rock originals band I play in where the chord structure is full of minors and 6ths and movement between chords could greatly enhance the songs.
thank you.
I'm with @SteveCS , that sounds completely incorrect.
The movable chord shapes on a guitar neck are NOT inversions, they are voicings.
I suspect you (or the book you refer to) are confusing terms like "position" or "voicing" for "inversion".
I wonder which book it is?
I know a lot about music theory. I tend not to think in terms of inversions, and definitely don’t think in terms of first, second, or third inversions.
Don’t get me wrong, inversions happen a lot in music. Pianists play them all the time. I am not suggesting that we ignore them — just think of them in a different manner. For bassists inversions Usually occur in the form of slash chords. C, C/E, C/G. I feel that it is much more important to know that while you are playing that E or that G, that a C major chord is happening above you, and if you decide to improvise a fill, it is much more important to know that you are filling based upon the notes in a C chord, rather than particular inversions with specific low and high notes.
Don’t get me wrong, inversions happen a lot in music. Pianists play them all the time. I am not suggesting that we ignore them — just think of them in a different manner. For bassists inversions Usually occur in the form of slash chords. C, C/E, C/G. I feel that it is much more important to know that while you are playing that E or that G, that a C major chord is happening above you, and if you decide to improvise a fill, it is much more important to know that you are filling based upon the notes in a C chord, rather than particular inversions with specific low and high notes.
I wouldn't say its arbitrary because the example stays diatonic to G Dorian, rather than playing random unrelated notes. You can choose different notes for G Dorian for the triad roots...which will result in a different characteristic sound. You might call these different sounds moods or tensions, and you will probably think some combinations sound better than others.
Most of us would need to work this approach out and play it in. The idea is to practice until you can use various moods or tensions intuitively without thinking about it. Eventually you should be able to hear when the approach fits and do it on the fly. The specific way you handle it mentally could depend on your priorities and the way you think.
You probably want to identify and focus on the triad combinations you think sound good, as you could probably spend life-time practicing this approach and never fully master it.
True perhaps, but we as bass players also need to understand that if we drop a big fat low A under that C chord it is no longer C but Am7.
Quote: “I'm with @SteveCS , that sounds completely incorrect.”
With respect, it was not my intention to contribute academic, musical theory, per say.
Its why, when first referring to the books, I wrote: “They would call them 1st inversion chords”.
Rather, my impression was the original poster is looking for some practical ways, to think about inversions of chords in performance situations, as opposed to strictly academic theory.
In all probability, the original poster is most likely to perform mainly with guitarists, rather than any other instrument. The intention behind sharing what has rightly been described as a very guitar concentric methodology...
Is because I have found when working with other musicians, if you relate to them in a manner that is readily understandable to them, it helps massively. Next to the greatly beloved Bert Weedon’s Play in a Day Guitar Method, the books I referred to were by far, the best-selling Chord Books in the U.K. through the late fifties, the sixties, seventies and beyond.
So, most guitarists I knew, understood the ideas portrayed in these two books. They sold massively because people found them helpful, but not because they perfectly accorded with the rudiments and theory of music. So, I hope you will forgive the fact that I approached the original posters concerns, in an easy to grasp, similar manner that appears to have worked so well, for so many, for so long.
If musical theory per say is what people wanted to learn. They normally purchased the little red book published by The Royal Schools of Music, another book I heartily recommend.
Rudiments and Theory of Music : Based on the syllabus of the theory examinations of the Royal Schools of Music: Amazon.co.uk: No author.: Books
If you were to apply standard musical theory to a guitar method designed to illustrate lots of chords in every position throughout the fingerboard.
It would inevitably result in vastly increased, unnecessary complexity, conflicts involving unneeded explanations, greater difficulty in understanding and slow the learning process.
The books were a publisher’s dream and best-sellers for decades, simply because they greatly facilitated and enabled guitarists to have an easy to comprehend, way of visualising vast amounts of chords in every key.
Nowhere in the books or indeed in my post, is this method or way of visualising chords, claimed to be standard musical theory.
When you get into complex extended chords, there are certain anomalies, differences between English, French, Italian and German understanding of particular chords, the augments 6th is one example.
I had thought to add a link to a quality musical theory site as it would provide all the note pertinent of all the standard chords. But chose not to, out of concern that any innate complications would undesirably obfuscate the original poster.
The first becomes the root (instead of the first).
The second becomes the first (instead of the second).
And the third becomes the second (instead of the third).
See what I mean?
Being correct academically does not necessarily mean that approach is most helpful or appropriate.
Because, another huge advantage of this “guitaristic” methodology, is that because the root notes occur on the first second and third strings, it helps players who learn this method of learning chord shapes, (that is its purpose) to memorize at least some of the notes names, at every position on the fingerboard.
Something guitarists are generally not the first people one thinks of as excelling in this important area
You may rightly regard the book is as academically and theoretically incorrect, and I would totally agree.
However, I have yet to see any alternative method that conveys so much genuinely useful, practically applicable information in musical situations.
My observation of players who have gone through this methodology, is that they develop into competent musicians, masterly able to command their fingerboards "chordally".
In my head I can still hear Carol saying that as a bassist, she thinks "chordally".
Its not a technical, theoretical way of thinking, but musical, melodically and harmonically.
Whilst its understandable that bassists think strongly in term of root fundamentals. Perhaps rightly so?
With respect, I think its entirely erroneous to think of guitar chords as requiring the necessity of a root in a similar fashion as some assert.
For sure, there are basic cowboy chords and simple to finger chords utilising the open strings, some of which that will feature strongly in particular genres.
Yet the history of the modern evolution of the guitar demonstrates that the lower bass notes are not inescapably required or indeed the fundamental root of the chord.
Go back 100 years or more and in big bands everywhere the chordal rhythm instrument of choice was the banjo.
As instruments go, faced with an accompanying ensemble of brass and woodwind, the edgy tonality of that instrument could cut through and rhythmically make itself heard.
(The triangle and tambourine can similarly cut through a full symphony orchestra).
As the guitar became an increasingly popular instrument, F hole guitars appeared.
By the way, historically guitar necks met the body at the twelfth fret. Increasing neck length so that they joined at the fourteen fret, evolved, purely to accommodate banjo players.
The were used to longer necks with easy access to upper frets, and as the star of the banjo waned and band players transferred to the rising star of the guitar, they required this accommodation from manufacturers.
If you examine early Gibson’s F hole guitars, often called tenor guitars, they feature the longer necks banjo players liked and just four strings, which suited them well. The lower strings simply did not cut through well in big bands and for both these reasons, were at first, excluded.
Gibson TGL-7 Arch Top Acoustic Tenor Guitar (1934) | RetroFret
Although the 14 fret neck is often hailed as a Martin invention, Gibson actually produced a 14 fret neck guitar a full 12 years before them.
Later, as large bodied F hole Jazz Guitars appeared with greater acoustic projection, and especially with the appearance of the guitar pickup and amplifiers. The bottom two strings refound their place.
Unless Jazz players are playing unaccompanied, their exotic and extended chord choices are overwhelmingly and invariably, four or five string inversions, and often utilised, simply for their ease of movement from chord to chord.
The salient point is, I have often found that the best guitarists I have known often will choose a better, more stringy sounding 4 or 5 string chord over a full six string chord.
And that, even when a complete six string chord is just as easily played. It is often the case that they sound different, and where a good bassist is involved, unhelpfully invade their territory in the lower mid’s.
Excluding elements that actively compete for the same frequency range is simply a part of good musical arranging and orchestration in my world.
Therefore, the notion that guitarists should be required to utilise chords that feature a root fundamental, seems entirely suboptimal.
I can think of two of the most revered guitarists in the world who take that approach. One of them often performs with no 6th string.
With the greatest possible respect, I would have thought that of all the people in the world that should rightly understand this point.
Bassists should be foremost.
With respect, it was not my intention to contribute academic, musical theory, per say.
Its why, when first referring to the books, I wrote: “They would call them 1st inversion chords”.
Rather, my impression was the original poster is looking for some practical ways, to think about inversions of chords in performance situations, as opposed to strictly academic theory.
In all probability, the original poster is most likely to perform mainly with guitarists, rather than any other instrument. The intention behind sharing what has rightly been described as a very guitar concentric methodology...
Is because I have found when working with other musicians, if you relate to them in a manner that is readily understandable to them, it helps massively. Next to the greatly beloved Bert Weedon’s Play in a Day Guitar Method, the books I referred to were by far, the best-selling Chord Books in the U.K. through the late fifties, the sixties, seventies and beyond.
So, most guitarists I knew, understood the ideas portrayed in these two books. They sold massively because people found them helpful, but not because they perfectly accorded with the rudiments and theory of music. So, I hope you will forgive the fact that I approached the original posters concerns, in an easy to grasp, similar manner that appears to have worked so well, for so many, for so long.
If musical theory per say is what people wanted to learn. They normally purchased the little red book published by The Royal Schools of Music, another book I heartily recommend.
Rudiments and Theory of Music : Based on the syllabus of the theory examinations of the Royal Schools of Music: Amazon.co.uk: No author.: Books
If you were to apply standard musical theory to a guitar method designed to illustrate lots of chords in every position throughout the fingerboard.
It would inevitably result in vastly increased, unnecessary complexity, conflicts involving unneeded explanations, greater difficulty in understanding and slow the learning process.
The books were a publisher’s dream and best-sellers for decades, simply because they greatly facilitated and enabled guitarists to have an easy to comprehend, way of visualising vast amounts of chords in every key.
Nowhere in the books or indeed in my post, is this method or way of visualising chords, claimed to be standard musical theory.
When you get into complex extended chords, there are certain anomalies, differences between English, French, Italian and German understanding of particular chords, the augments 6th is one example.
I had thought to add a link to a quality musical theory site as it would provide all the note pertinent of all the standard chords. But chose not to, out of concern that any innate complications would undesirably obfuscate the original poster.
The first becomes the root (instead of the first).
The second becomes the first (instead of the second).
And the third becomes the second (instead of the third).
See what I mean?
Being correct academically does not necessarily mean that approach is most helpful or appropriate.
Because, another huge advantage of this “guitaristic” methodology, is that because the root notes occur on the first second and third strings, it helps players who learn this method of learning chord shapes, (that is its purpose) to memorize at least some of the notes names, at every position on the fingerboard.
Something guitarists are generally not the first people one thinks of as excelling in this important area
You may rightly regard the book is as academically and theoretically incorrect, and I would totally agree.
However, I have yet to see any alternative method that conveys so much genuinely useful, practically applicable information in musical situations.
My observation of players who have gone through this methodology, is that they develop into competent musicians, masterly able to command their fingerboards "chordally".
In my head I can still hear Carol saying that as a bassist, she thinks "chordally".
Its not a technical, theoretical way of thinking, but musical, melodically and harmonically.
Whilst its understandable that bassists think strongly in term of root fundamentals. Perhaps rightly so?
With respect, I think its entirely erroneous to think of guitar chords as requiring the necessity of a root in a similar fashion as some assert.
For sure, there are basic cowboy chords and simple to finger chords utilising the open strings, some of which that will feature strongly in particular genres.
Yet the history of the modern evolution of the guitar demonstrates that the lower bass notes are not inescapably required or indeed the fundamental root of the chord.
Go back 100 years or more and in big bands everywhere the chordal rhythm instrument of choice was the banjo.
As instruments go, faced with an accompanying ensemble of brass and woodwind, the edgy tonality of that instrument could cut through and rhythmically make itself heard.
(The triangle and tambourine can similarly cut through a full symphony orchestra).
As the guitar became an increasingly popular instrument, F hole guitars appeared.
By the way, historically guitar necks met the body at the twelfth fret. Increasing neck length so that they joined at the fourteen fret, evolved, purely to accommodate banjo players.
The were used to longer necks with easy access to upper frets, and as the star of the banjo waned and band players transferred to the rising star of the guitar, they required this accommodation from manufacturers.
If you examine early Gibson’s F hole guitars, often called tenor guitars, they feature the longer necks banjo players liked and just four strings, which suited them well. The lower strings simply did not cut through well in big bands and for both these reasons, were at first, excluded.
Gibson TGL-7 Arch Top Acoustic Tenor Guitar (1934) | RetroFret
Although the 14 fret neck is often hailed as a Martin invention, Gibson actually produced a 14 fret neck guitar a full 12 years before them.
Later, as large bodied F hole Jazz Guitars appeared with greater acoustic projection, and especially with the appearance of the guitar pickup and amplifiers. The bottom two strings refound their place.
Unless Jazz players are playing unaccompanied, their exotic and extended chord choices are overwhelmingly and invariably, four or five string inversions, and often utilised, simply for their ease of movement from chord to chord.
The salient point is, I have often found that the best guitarists I have known often will choose a better, more stringy sounding 4 or 5 string chord over a full six string chord.
And that, even when a complete six string chord is just as easily played. It is often the case that they sound different, and where a good bassist is involved, unhelpfully invade their territory in the lower mid’s.
Excluding elements that actively compete for the same frequency range is simply a part of good musical arranging and orchestration in my world.
Therefore, the notion that guitarists should be required to utilise chords that feature a root fundamental, seems entirely suboptimal.
I can think of two of the most revered guitarists in the world who take that approach. One of them often performs with no 6th string.
With the greatest possible respect, I would have thought that of all the people in the world that should rightly understand this point.
Bassists should be foremost.
Also with respect, as a longtime guitarist myself as well as a bassist, I would consider this way of teaching/explaining inversions to a guitarist to be somewhat misleading, limiting, and probably eventually counterproductive. The whole point of fundamental musical concepts is that they're platform-agnostic, and don't depend on having one explanation for pianists, a different explanation for guitarists, etc. Tying inversions to the string being played on a guitar is IMHO just confusing. Also the implication that guitarists need to be, in a sense, babied pedagogically in a way that other instrumentalists don't is, I think, a mistake. What value is gained by teaching guitarists the concept of inversion in a nonstandard and actually incorrect way?
If those kinds of instruction books don't seem to be around any more, as you suggest, could it be that that type of explication has been found by many to be inadequate, and that better explication techniques are now being provided?
absolutely true, but I wouldn’t put that into inversion territory, since that A you are playing is the root.
But I agree with you wholeheartedly. Knowledge of slash chords and how they function and what they represent is important theoretical knowledge for us.
in fact, it’s fair to say that knowing C/D has a D dominant sound, and C/F is just shorthand for F maj 9 is more important to bassists than knowing whether C/E is first or second inversion.
Last edited:
Who said the guitarist has to play roots to all chords?
I can only say what my experience has been with a range of mostly formally educated guitar players over a 20+ year career as a full-time pro. For context, my limited formal training was based on classical theory in the US.
How the guitar player thinks of an inversion has no impact on what chord is functioning or how the chord is notated on a lead sheet. For example, if a C-7 chord is written, the guitar can play a range of chord shapes or voicings, and they do not necessarily have to include the root (C). The guitarist may choose to play an Eb Major triad, but a C-7 chord is still the functioning chord even though the guitar player is not playing a C.
In jazz, the guitarist may take it further and choose to add extensions with or without alteration. So maybe the written chord is D7 but the guitarist plays F#dim7. The only impact this has on the functioning chord is to make it a D7-9. The guitarist does not necessarily have to either play the F#dim7 in root position or play all four notes.
In order to communicate effectively, the guitarist needs to understand what chord is actually functioning, in addition to the chord shape they are playing on the guitar...and my observation is this can involve a bit of mental acrobatics.
Technically, the guitarist could think of the F#dim7 as Adim7, Cdim7, or even Ebdim7.
but the functioning chord still D7-9.
It's not generally on the bass player to understand that the guitarist is playing a F# dim7 chord in 3rd inversion. The bassist should be thinking D7 or D7-9. The keyboardist should probably be interested in what voicing the guitarist is using though...but they will probably contextualize the voicing a bit different than the guitar player.
Last edited:
Cool! This made me think about some fairly obscure recordings... The Red Norvo Trio with Mingus and Tal Farlow... with Mingus brilliant, Farlow (nor Norvo even) hardly bothers with roots at all - much to the elevation of the music. The seamlessness of the inversions at this tempo is pretty astounding.
I agree. I am just saying that instead of playing Bb and C over Gm (so G Dorian) you could also play Dm and F or C and Dm over Gm. Or even Am and Dm. Or Am and Bb. It all stays in G Dorian. All these combinations could work and sound good.
Just was wondering why he choose the specific combination of C and Bb? I think only @pdbass can answer that.
Last edited:
This may not be the line of books that is being referred to, but this seems like Hal Leonard. Hal Leonard Pocket Guitar Chord Dictionary Hal Leonard Online
