Shows us Theory Newbies how to implement chords.

[Sascha Franck]

Ok, as this thread has been quite convoluted for quite some pages, I started a new one on the same issue. Point your browsers over here:
http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic ... 56#2405356

[No name]

A quick question (I didn't want to put off topic things in the other thread, and this thread was meant as a more general thread). When you do, say, a first (or second) triad (in my example I'll use C Major) do you always have to put the C one octave above for the E to be on the bottom, or can you also drop the down an octave? I'm pretty sure you can do it either way, so long as the 3rd is on the bottom in a first inversion, or the 5th on bottom in the second inversion. I wanted to double check and make sure I don't get the wrong assumption on some concept and then go and build on it, because then that would only cause me more trouble in the long run.

[Sascha Franck]

Hm, not sure if I understand your question correctly, but I assume, instead of C-E-G you just want to drop the E an octave down, so the chord would now be E-C-G. Correct?
Of course, this is possible - and even common, in some contexts.
It's just that in this case, we're not dealing with "closed" voicings anymore - which are the easiest to deal with, both from a technical and an explanatory point of view.
In modern theory approaches, the technique is called "drop 2", meaning that you just drop the second note from the top an octave.
So, your E-C-G chord would theoretically still be a C in first inversion, but with that "drop 2" method applied.
On a piano, these voicings require quite some stretches if played with one hand only. Not sure how pianists treat them technically.

On a sidenote: These voicings serve a lot of good purposes. For instance, without altering the top note (which is the most important note in a chord, especially once you harmonize a melody), you can give your voicings a wider/larger character. Works well for, say, some horn sections.

In a 4 part voicing context, they are even more common for things such as horns, and they're almost a requirement on guitars, as you simply can't finger most closes 4-part voicings anymore.
Example: the second inversion of a Cmaj7 chord would be G-B-C-E. Really, really tough to play that on a guitar. Now let's apply the "drop 2" technique, so the C get's dropped an octave. The resulting voicing hence being C-G-B-E, Easy to finger. In fact, one of the most common voicings for a major7 chord on guitar. On a piano however, this is almost impossible to play with one hand only.

But I'm still not sure whether I got your question right...

[No name]

I'm pretty sure you received my question correctly. I just wanted to know what it meant to drop a note ina chord inversion lower, instead of just pushing the lowest note higher.For instance, in a first inversion you would usually take your finger off of C, and then you would usually place it on octace higher so that he was on the bottom. I wanted to know what would happen if you kept your fingers on C and G, but you DROPPED the E one octave lower instead, so that the E is the lowest note, but instead of raising the C so that the E is the most bottom note, you drop the E and octave so that it is still the lowest note. Does that make it any clearer? I think your anwser was on the mark though, but you're right, on the piano such a thing is almost impossible to play without stretching your hand all over the keys. I was curious because I figured, like you said, that it might come in handy for other instrument that don't suffer from the setback of having to stretch your hand over a keyboard to play it.

[Toxikator]

Functionally it doesn't change anything; it's still a first inversion chord. The difference that ends up occuring is the voicing; if you raise the C, you get the EGC voicing (close), whereas if you drop the E, you get an ECG voicing (open). They have different sounds... and of course, which note you drop/raise is going to affect the shape of the bassline, too.

[JumpingJackFlash]

I'm pretty sure you received my question correctly. I just wanted to know what it meant to drop a note ina chord inversion lower, instead of just pushing the lowest note higher.For instance, in a first inversion you would usually take your finger off of C, and then you would usually place it on octace higher so that he was on the bottom. I wanted to know what would happen if you kept your fingers on C and G, but you DROPPED the E one octave lower instead, so that the E is the lowest note, but instead of raising the C so that the E is the most bottom note, you drop the E and octave so that it is still the lowest note. Does that make it any clearer? I think your anwser was on the mark though, but you're right, on the piano such a thing is almost impossible to play without stretching your hand all over the keys. I was curious because I figured, like you said, that it might come in handy for other instrument that don't suffer from the setback of having to stretch your hand over a keyboard to play it.

This is why, in talking about chord inversions, I think it is unhelpful to think of it as raising the bass note above the others (as some people teach it). In other words, some people say something like: Take C-E-G, put the C at the top and you get E-G-C, a first inversion chord.

While this is technically true, it can mislead the point. - An inversion is dependant ONLY on which note is in the bass. In other words, E-G-C and E-C-G are both first inversion chords of C major. So too is E-G-C-C, E-C-C-G, E-G-C-G, E-E-C-G, E-C-C-G, or any other combination you can think of. - As long as the E is on the bass, it's a first inversion chord.

So, the kind of "put the C at the top" teachings are misleading. - It doesn't matter where you put that C, - you could put it as the third, or in some cases remove it altogether. - The position of the C is not relevant. - The only thing that matters is which note is lowest. The position of the other notes makes no difference at all.

[Toxikator]

If you remove the C altogether, the first inversion chord would likely be percieved as EGB, since the 5th is reinforced by overtones..?

[JumpingJackFlash]

If you remove the C altogether, the first inversion chord would likely be percieved as EGB, since the 5th is reinforced by overtones..?

Depends (and this is just confusing the issue). What I really meant was if the chord was C-E-G-C, then removing the first C still produces E-G-C, which is a C major chord in first inversion.

Besides, chords are not generally analysed by their perceived auditory effect, they are analysed by what notes are contained within them, and the function of the harmony at any given point.

[Toxikator]

true. But it's ALSO true that, at least classically, a chord is considered to have a root and a 3rd if no 5th is present (not a 3rd and a 5th with no root present). The chord CE is a I chord in CMajor, you'd hardly EVER find it as a vi chord in first inversion without the root. The reason for this (as I understand it) is the strength of the G overtone, in the presence of a competing root, will sound to the ear as the 5th in essentially all instruments with any sort of overtones at all.

[Sascha Franck]

While this is technically true, it can mislead the point. - An inversion is dependant ONLY on which note is in the bass. In other words, E-G-C and E-C-G are both first inversion chords of C major. So too is E-G-C-C, E-C-C-G, E-G-C-G, E-E-C-G, E-C-C-G, or any other combination you can think of. - As long as the E is on the bass, it's a first inversion chord.

This, in jazz (and other derivative stuff) theory is treated differently.
It's all about the top note there.
I already mentioned the "drop 2" technique, a really common thing when working with horn sections and also (even particularly) guitars.
Let's assume we have a closed 4-part voicing of Cmaj7, first inversion: C-E-G-B.
Now, when you drop the second note from the top (G) by an octave, the resulting voicing is G-C-E-B.
This, in jazz theory, is still refered to as a first inversion chord.
One of the things when working with both approaches becomes confusing, really.

[nuffink]

Let's assume we have a closed 4-part voicing of Cmaj7, first inversion: C-E-G-B.

That's not in first inversion, it's in root position.

[Km7]

There is one important element - the contextual element; how the melodic and harmonic forces unfold differently in time.
If we take the two notes forming the interval of a third, the fifth is generated acoustically.
(BTW, the major third is also generated acoustically, although it is weaker, and can be substituted or missed in some situations when dealing with major chords. A power chord (root and fifth), although weak, actually sounds more major than minor (it would sound not so empty on electric guitar with distortion)).
And the root of a interval of a third is the lower note.
It is true that the interval of a third would be perceived as root and third, but in some cases, where the root had been introduced soon and followed by 3rd and 5th, a "packed" triad would be outlined with the impression that the two notes are actually 3rd and 5th. Here we see the harmonic forces at work (root, 3rd, 5th), and the root, forming the best interval, attracts the others and becomes the center.
As I remember, such a situation was pointed out in my Counterpoint textbook by Kennan (or in the Piston's book, don't remember now), in the chapter about counterpoint in two voices...

[Sascha Franck]

That's not in first inversion, it's in root position.

Err, yes, of course. Sorry.

[nuffink]

In jazz the whole concept of inversions is ambiguous. If you're comping to a lead sheet the chances are that the only notes of a maj7 you're going to play are the maj3rd and maj7th. Jazzers routinely ignore the perfect 5th and assume that the bassist is going to hit the root at some time.
This means that jazz deals with voicings rather than inversions. There are books full of jazz voicings and those that know about these things can accurately date a recorded performance by the voicings chosen.

[Sascha Franck]

Very interesting things, Varadin. I'm making use of the consequences regularly.

(BTW, the major third is also generated acoustically, although it is weaker, and can be substituted or missed in some situations when dealing with major chords. A power chord (root and fifth), although weak, actually sounds more major than minor (it would sound not so empty on electric guitar with distortion)).

True. There's some sort of "rule" that minor chords usually require the third to be present, whereas major chords don't. So it can be replaced - one of the most popular replacements probably being the sus2 chord (which you often find as "add9(omit3rd)" in some sheets - horrible).

In fact, even a single string should probably sound like major, due to the major 3rd being present rather loud in the overtone structure.

Two interesting things along these lines:

- There's one minor chord that doesn't need the 3rd: the min7/b5/11 one. If you leave the 3rd out, it still sounds like minor.
This is getting especially interesting if we consider what the overones of the b5 add to the chord. There's nothing which would produce a minor 3rd for the root.
Example: Bmin7/b5/11 (no 3rd). Take the overtones of the F. They're F, C, F, A, C and then Eb - which should, enharmonically exchanged, lead to the assumption there's a D#. Yet, the chord sounds like minor. And considering that usually the 11th is placed higher than the b5, it shouldn't be too important in terms of overtones.
I think that this very chord is sounding like minor because we're not used to any major chords with a b5 and an 11 present at the same time.

- When we agree that chords without a third usually sound like major, due to the overtone structure, why do we usually treat them as major 7 chords? I mean, have a child improvising some random melodies on a simple major chord (a triad). Unless that kid was born on some cotton fields, it'll most likely sing some plain major scale stuff including the maj7. But, following our "overtones generate such a strong impression..." theory, it should actually be a natural 7, because that one appears WAY earlier in our row of overtones.

Even if this is pretty much drifting away, I find such things rather fascinating.