How can I learn about chord voicing?

[Tricky-Loops]

So I learned a lot about scales, modes, keys, chords and chord progressions in the last years but there's still a thing that I haven't fully understand yet:

Chord VOICING

Are there any tips, tricks, tutorials etc. out there about which chord voicing works and which doesn't work?

Or do I simply have to write a chord progression with chords based on triads and then voice it however I want (for example over 2 or 3 octaves like in trance)?

[JumpingJackFlash]

Are there any tips, tricks, tutorials etc. out there about which chord voicing works and which doesn't work?

Any decent book on harmony should cover this. I recommend this one (which I think can still be got half-price under certain conditions).

It depends very much on the style you're interested in of course (including what instruments you're writing for).
Classically for example, there are general "rules of thumb" (more like advice really) such as not doubling a major third (though there are always exceptions).

Otherwise, good old trial-and-error and the "if it sounds right, it is right" approach will work too, and obviously getting experience with playing, listening and/or analysing your chosen style never hurts.

[Sendy]

Experiment with different chord inversions, different notes in the bass (both the lowest note of the chord, and the complimentary note in the bassline under the chord), try creating chords where each layer moves as little as possible, become aware of the melodic lines in chord sequences, be aware of redundancy (paralell octaves and fifths, which notes are doubled inside and outside the chord and why, and of course, listen

It took me a long time to realise just how different inversions of the same chord sound from each other.

[jancivil]

Real learning about 'chord voicing' whatever that means to you is going to have to be formed through modeling, analysis of (and real experience with) music that is known to be accomplished in it. When one approaches music from the vantage point of a player, gets down to real business and takes themself out to the woodshed every day with pieces where the theory came from, there are things that one finds in the proof of experience, that we can notice to consistently work; so now one can make her own observations and notes. Alongside of an actual COURSE STUDY (as opposed to this 'tips and tricks' mentality). Does one simply voice it how one wants? With no understanding or modeling from people accomplished in it? Sure, and it will be exactly the crap we get by people doing just that, with no clue. It's a bizarre question when you follow it with that, you want to sound like the other tarnce, why bother, go with that doubling that you saw was what to do on the FL Studio vids on teh youtubes.

Now there are people with a certain native intelligence for this kind of exercise that perhaps need less of this structure provided for them in order to make their own observations and form an idea of what they actually have the drive to create (and form a musical personality) but that is certainly not a given here. I had one 'orchestration' class and it was bullshit. BUT I was always paying serious attention and the libraries were filled with scores and recordings.

if the whole impetus for getting involved in music comes from EDM [the drive is 'I will be a produca'] and suchlike, there isn't going to be this modeling, or what one is going to encounter is more typically clueless.
One would tend to need to look at classical music and a sound, cogent modus operandi that involves patience and humility. This will open one up to music and one of the things it will do is expose the banality and crudeness in the EDM and similar stuffs.

Which works and which doesn't, don't look for simple rules that apply universally or as overarching abstractions, music is contextual. What works for nylon-string guitar isn't necessarily a model for spacing a woodwind trio because of the harmonic content of the thing. But it might totally work, depending. Music is a matter of 'does my ear enjoy this', the book isn't reading you. Fat synth tones will have a tendency for every note to seem to establish a fundamental, like strong bass tones give a whole series that a flute doesn't do. Generally more space at the bottom, but one may want a great cloud down there somehow.

[DSmolken]

You can do voice leading according to the rules of classical four-voice harmony - avoiding parallel fifths and all that. Definitely learn those rules. Or you can do the complete opposite of that and voice every single chord in a track 1-3-5 or 1-3-5-octave and move everything completely in parallel. The effect will be very different.

My most default voicing for electronic stuff is probably 3-5-octave with the bass track taking care of the root though I'll sometimes get slightly voice-leadingish, even if I'm clicking on the piano roll I'll put the notes where a lazy pianist who doesn't want to move his fingers too far would put them. Sometimes I'll voice piano chords like open-position guitar chords just for the hell of it. It sounds kinda funny. Also remember that "piano roll note" doesn't really mean "voice" - with a synth that has one oscillator set to +1 octaves and another to +2 plus a sub oscillator you've got four voices already. That can get messy, if you want to play chords with a sound like that then a note for the root and another for the third might be all you need.

Rimsky-Korsakov's textbook on orchestration exists in an online version, that's probably also worth going through. He talks a lot about what to double and how.

[jancivil]

You can do voice leading according to the rules of classical four-voice harmony - avoiding parallel fifths and all that. Definitely learn those rules. Or you can do the complete opposite of that and voice every single chord in a track 1-3-5 or 1-3-5-octave and move everything completely in parallel.

You toss the first sentence out here like it's nothing. Why does one learn 'classical' four-voice harmony? I don't know that someone simply 'can' do it, I believe one studies it. I had some experience on my own putting parts together, arranging for a group for recordings, a few years under my belt before I took four-part harmony and I'm rather well-suited for it it turns out, but it didn't simply happen. I took the course and did the work. The principles of that are I think invaluable even if one is typical not restricted to 'classical' type style; in the abstract. Yes, it's going to be very different than this mindless parallels, and it's not going to be suitable [for every music] just because the principles are sound. If the idea is to suit 'Electronic Music', well most of the practitioners of what passes for that here have little to offer in terms of coherent principles. I think most people regardless of their chops are going to want to be able to copy what they like by ear, however. What have been one's observations, as to what's been done? Why is this insufficient and the question posed to strangers?

I suspect a person at this stage of development is not equipped to do very much (such as 'voice-leading'); the question itself isn't really defined, "Chord voicing" is so vague. Has he any experience choosing his own spacings, even? Has it all been slapping loops up on the sequencer? IDK. So it's so general and context-free one is liable to toss anything at it.

My most default voicing for electronic stuff is probably 3-5-octave with the bass track taking care of the root

Why? What is the reasoning for that? Default, as though a general principle, a default voicing?

though I'll sometimes get slightly voice-leadingish, even if I'm clicking on the piano roll I'll put the notes where a lazy pianist who doesn't want to move his fingers too far would put them.

Voice-leadingISH? You're either doing it or you aren't. I believe voice-leading and any of these decisions are contextual and serve the music, serve the melody or something. I don't think being contrary to what a lazy pianist does tells us anything about musical thought.

Rimsky-Korsakov's textbook on orchestration exists in an online version, that's probably also worth going through. He talks a lot about what to double and how.

Rimsky is dealing with the instruments of an orchestra. 'What to' and 'how' is context-bound and the book expects some experience with certain things, eg., the fundaments of harmony as a given.

So this looks like more jumping around lacking a clue. I already have a sense of a person's (and I'm not restricting this to the person, I wouldn't bother; this thread typifies a whole thing I'm addressing) ADD, whether clinical or something fostered by the notion it's all here on the internet on a youtube video tutorial or maybe even a wiki article. No, this is not it. One will take this seriously and locate a path that is coherent or just dart about randomly canvassing the nets such as KVR and take away little or nothing.

[DSmolken]

Hahaha, I think I can answer all your questions in three words: I hate art.

I hate art but I think it's worth learning from it. Learn everything possible about tonal harmony, voice leading, orchestration etc. Yeah it takes years, but never stop learning. Use that knowledge to better understand what actually happens in trance or hip-hop or country and imitate it.

[Tricky-Loops]

Hahaha, I think I can answer all your questions in three words: I hate art.

I hate art but I think it's worth learning from it. Learn everything possible about tonal harmony, voice leading, orchestration etc. Yeah it takes years, but never stop learning. Use that knowledge to better understand what actually happens in trance or hip-hop or country and imitate it.

That's exactly what I'm doing. Never stop learning. Many years ago I thought I'd never need classical music theory, things like 4-part-harmony writing, as I don't play strings. But it seems that it can be used for electronic music, too...

[JumpingJackFlash]

Many years ago I thought I'd never need classical music theory, things like 4-part-harmony writing, as I don't play strings. But it seems that it can be used for electronic music, too...

That's the great thing about art, you can take a bit from here and a bit from there and get something that works in a completely different context.

Some of the best musicians were great precisely because they had so many different influences and were able to combine elements from different styles (just look at how jazz started!)

Learn as much as possible, filter out the junk, and use whatever works (whatever you need) in the given context. - Good advice in any walk of life.

(Incidentally, the original "rules" of four-part harmony were primarily devised from vocal writing, not strings, although they can of course be useful in that context too).

[jancivil]

Hahaha, I think I can answer all your questions in three words: I hate art.

I hate art but I think it's worth learning from it. Learn everything possible about tonal harmony, voice leading, orchestration etc. Yeah it takes years, but never stop learning. Use that knowledge to better understand what actually happens in trance or hip-hop or country and imitate it.

If that is supposed to address my questions of your particular remarks, it doesn't, it dismisses them, "hahaha". "My default for _ is [first inversion]". I guess I need to reassess, this is 'do random procedures and just see how it goes'? Fvck me for taking you seriously.


An aspect of my questioning remarks is rhetorical. Music is contextual. Part-writing class is probably a good idea even if one never writes in the style of JS Bach or what-have-you. It is not going to tell you anything about hip-hop, though, and about all it's going to do for someone in C&W is the guy writing the strings arrangement probably has it. Three chords with an occasional deception and a style of harmonizing that's come down over the generations that you learned by doing it.

People actually do music by ear, and music is best served by people that have their ear totally together. The vocal arrangement in Because on Abbey Road side two, The Beatles is out of McCartney's osmosis surrounded by musical activity in the home to begin with, and his fantastic ear, not out of a book or asking strangers by mail. And out of really caring and paying close attention all the time, surely. Me, I have a pretty good ear but I wouldn't trade [the Eureka! moments out of] my community college part-writing and general 'theory' class for anything in the world. Horses for courses.
The Rimsky book, what does it assume of the person supposed to get the things from it? I didn't find it very useful, and orchestration is a real forte of mine. As I said, the libraries were filled with scores and recordings. etc.

But for someone needs to ask this on the internet, the thing that's going on is expecting tips and tricks in avoidance of the long haul, which they have likely avoided for some time. And will continue to.

[nasenmann]

I wouldn't question the usefulness of any in-depth theory classes, but....
If you got yourself to a point where you understand harmony fairly well, it's easy to experiment with every possible voicing in a sequencer.
The trick is starting to think about it more often. That's the biggest bonus of soaking up theoretic concepts imo..you start to become more aware of parameters of musical expression you previously neglected, and work with them more consciously. You don't necessarily need the concepts in all their detail, you need to know they describe something real that you can consciously play with to deepen your expressive abilities.

Myself, i could definitely focus on alternate voicings more, but there really is so much i could focus on to improve. I never learn about aspects of music in one large focused chunk, lots of little bits here and there.
Even just making a habit of shifting around octaves in your sequenced chords is going to teach you a lot over the years. It's all about listening in the end.