Triad Inversions: How Strict Voice Leading Rules are when Applied to Guitar?

[ruxxes]

Hey all music lovers,

I already know that the title sounds so very obvious but before you point me to the Search button, please try to get into my question:

Classic books on counterpoint provide numerous rules regarding the connection of simple triads, which includes rules for doubling notes and choosing an appropriate triad inversion to use. However, this just cannot work on guitar in most cases (as this instrument is physically limited to certain fingerings, and after all the number of fingers is rather limited by itself).

The question: when applied to a guitar arrangement exclusively, which rules of counterpoint in connecting simple triads are absolutely essential and which are not?

An important point here is that the guitar is to be seen as the only instrument to provide harmony in an ensemble (i.e. not in a big band setting).

Thank you!

[jancivil]

I would suggest getting hold of a piece by JS Bach transcribed for guitar and then rethink your premise some. it is true and you have noticed that you aren't going to get the same fluidity in four parts as on a keyboard, but that is a problem to be attacked rather than a reason to cop out. part-writing is part-writing. there are principles to heed or there aren't.

[jancivil]

The question: when applied to a guitar arrangement exclusively, which rules of counterpoint in connecting simple triads are absolutely essential and which are not?

An important point here is that the guitar is to be seen as the only instrument to provide harmony in an ensemble (i.e. not in a big band setting).

this consideration is going to be style-bound. if you are talking about circles in a ii-V-I based progression such as in a lot of jazz, the third and seventh of the chords are the essentials and perfect fifths in a chord are the first thing to punt (flat fifths in a b5 substitute for a dominant are crucial, clearly enough).
heeding that is going to obviate some of your stumbling blocks. I'm sure others will expound on this...

I suggest finding exemplars of harmony on guitar from whatever area of music makes it for you and analyzing that.

[vurt]

the ones that sound good in context

worry about the theory afterwards.

[jancivil]

Believe it or not, there are reasons to learn and follow good voice leading procedures. even people that think of themselves as way out there, avant garde, studied procedures and got some discipline behind them. and contexts can be described in technical terms, such as I briefly addressed.

[vurt]

Believe it or not, there are reasons to learn and follow good voice leading procedures. even people that think of themselves as way out there, avant garde, studied procedures and got some discipline behind them. and contexts can be described in technical terms, such as I briefly addressed.

i didnt say not to study the theory, i suggested trying them out and seeing what worked.
from his post, already noting how counterpoint studies work in general i assumed (maybe wrongly) that he already had the ammunition, and come on jan, the target practice is part of the fun


incidentally and totally off topic @ jan, have you every heard of "the ozric tentacles"?
if not i think you should give them a go, who knows, we may find some musical comon ground

[Jafo]

Use what works in what you're doing. Strict counterpoint is awesome, but it sounds wrong in blues and most rock, albeit right in much pop and jazz (and in classical, of course).

[jancivil]

Believe it or not, there are reasons to learn and follow good voice leading procedures. even people that think of themselves as way out there, avant garde, studied procedures and got some discipline behind them. and contexts can be described in technical terms, such as I briefly addressed.

i didnt say not to study the theory, i suggested trying them out and seeing what worked.
from his post, already noting how counterpoint studies work in general i assumed (maybe wrongly) that he already had the ammunition, and come on jan, the target practice is part of the fun


incidentally and totally off topic @ jan, have you every heard of "the ozric tentacles"?
if not i think you should give them a go, who knows, we may find some musical comon ground

You said worry about the theory afterwards. If it is a question of voice-leading, there is a wealth of knowledge that is instructive. I don't assume what I haven't seen in a thread, and I like to address an issue with the utmost clarity for anyone that reads it. There are people that would just have that kind of comment validate their disdain of theory, ya know.

Regardless of common ground, you and I vurt are a couple of people with sizable egos that are a lot alike in ways that are repellent to one another I think.

Subtext: out of context, the way I phrased to one member in a thread here, 'take lessons from me' is funny; in fact deliberately. In context, however, it's someone I have answered questions of in a super-detailed and seriously considered way over a couple of years that apparently has a shite teacher and other issues that have ensured he is asking the same quality of question as two years ago - and I could use some grocery $.


[Tommy]I amuse you? I make you laugh? I'm here to fuckin amuse you? How the f**k am I funny?! What the f**k is so funny about me?![/Tommy]

[tapper mike]

Strict voice leading is a piano reference. While some pianistic ideas do translate to guitar not all of them do. While you will find some voice leading work in a few guitar pop/rock/jazz/blues tunes they are few and far between with good reason.

1. Accessiblility of motion. Its much easier to move from the 1 barre chord to the 3 barre chord 4 barre chord or 5 barre chorg on a guitar with slight motion then to apply the same type of framework. 1-5-1-3 on a piano. There is much less lift and shift.

2. Large harmonic motions such as common barre chords have less of a sing/song effect. It gives any rhythmic application a "chunky" appeal as opposed to a wishy/washy must flow/follow melodic idealism.

3. Guitarists much prefer harmonic constants when moving linearly (sic) between chords. such as 6-5-4 (stairway to heaven solo/bridge part.
Or 1-b3-4 (solo to freebird) They also often omit the third for "Power chords"

Generally when rock guitarists do something akin to smart voice leading it's in the bassline only while the upper register grabs the nearest chords based on proximity to fingering and not absolute voice leading. This is often reserved for ballads such as the main verse for freebird, show me the way by peter frampton, Claptons Wonderful tonite and many more.

Piano teaches specifics of piano due to the armature/orientation of the instrument. Guitar teaches specifics of guitar due to it's own unique orientation. Not all piano excersizes/approaches are applicable to the guitar. As well there are specific guitar techniques which can't be recreated in the same manner on a keyboard.

In short if you are going to pursue a study of the guitar it's best to study the guitar as it's own instrument rather then trying to graft piano knowledge onto a piano.

[vurt]

Believe it or not, there are reasons to learn and follow good voice leading procedures. even people that think of themselves as way out there, avant garde, studied procedures and got some discipline behind them. and contexts can be described in technical terms, such as I briefly addressed.

i didnt say not to study the theory, i suggested trying them out and seeing what worked.
from his post, already noting how counterpoint studies work in general i assumed (maybe wrongly) that he already had the ammunition, and come on jan, the target practice is part of the fun


incidentally and totally off topic @ jan, have you every heard of "the ozric tentacles"?
if not i think you should give them a go, who knows, we may find some musical comon ground

You said worry about the theory afterwards. If it is a question of voice-leading, there is a wealth of knowledge that is instructive. I don't assume what I haven't seen in a thread, and I like to address an issue with the utmost clarity for anyone that reads it. There are people that would just have that kind of comment validate their disdain of theory, ya know.

i have no disdain for theory.
it is one of msny "tools" we have as artists.
i have no personal use for it, but professionally i do, but admittedly my knowledge is nothing like yours, which is why i use tony, hes my arranger/transcriber for when i need sheet music.
seriously ive sat going "dum de dum dum DUM!" (im afraid youll have to imagine pitch changes) and hes transcribed whole orchestra parts for me lol
hes very patient

plus i dont consider myself avant garde or anything similar, i just enjoy making noises

Regardless of common ground, you and I vurt are a couple of people with sizable egos that are a lot alike in ways that are repellent to one another I think.

youre not the first woman ive repelled and you wont be the last
but we could be like the odd couple, ill even be walter mathau

Subtext: out of context, the way I phrased to one member in a thread here, 'take lessons from me' is funny; in fact deliberately. In context, however, it's someone I have answered questions of in a super-detailed and seriously considered way over a couple of years that apparently has a shite teacher and other issues that have ensured he is asking the same quality of question as two years ago - and I could use some grocery $.

im sorry if that upset you, i didnt realise you had history with the poster, wasnt somebody i recognised.
i will try to think in future

[Tommy]I amuse you? I make you laugh? I'm here to fuckin amuse you? How the f**k am I funny?! What the f**k is so funny about me?![/Tommy]

my lad is currently doing a levels in film studies, we spent the summer watching gangster films, and only yesterday we watched that, great scene, great film.


so, anyway, have you heard the ozrics? Ed Wynn is a seriously good guitarist, i do think you would enjoy much of their earlier work, they have become a bit generic in recent years on record at least, live theyre still pretty out there