Chord Inversions vs. Drop-2 Voicings

[Jed]

Jon did not say that Drop-2 voicings were not valuable but he did question the value of knowing that a particular voicing was a drop-2 voicings.

 

I know if no inherent value relative to knowing whether a voicing is a Drop-2, Drop-3 or Drop-2 & 4 - other than to more easily remember the chord shape and/or chord tone placement within the voicing. The value of studying Drop-x voicings is in the discovery that knowledge of these voicings allow a player to manipulate the lead-voice and/or bass-voice for any particular chord. Knowledge of these voicings allows the player to see chord voicings for any particular chord literally everywhere on the neck. Knowledge of these voicings helps the musician "see" the relation ship among common chord substitutions. Drop-x voicings are no less than the CAGED system of the jazz/acedemic world.

 

For many who have gone down this road, the concept of drop-x voicings is the foundation of their harmonic perspective on the instrument. Personally I don't know how I would "see" harmony on the fretboard if I had not studied Drop-x voicings. It was the now obvious voice-leading (that I learned from study of Drop voicings) that allowed me to see with my eyes what my ears were hearing.

 

Many moons ago, the following sequence of Dm7-G7-Cmaj7:

 

x5756x > x5546x > x3545x

 

Allowed me to see, for the first time, how shared chord tones can sustain while the movement of voices between non-shared chord tones changes the harmonic landscape. At the time, I could not "see" many of the notes on the fretboard but I could see how these drop-2 voicings provided a lovely and economical transition through those chords. When I applied the same voicing structure (drop-2) to other inversions of those same chords I saw a similar harmonic function but with a unique movement of voices. While basic and obvious in retrospect, for a developing student of the guitar, these can be paradigm shifting moments.

 

It's not an understatement for me to say that it was my first exposure of drop-2 voicings and voice-leading that prompted my interest in finally learning to "see" every note on the fretboard.

 

cheers,

[JonR]

How useful is it to know drop-chords? How useful is it to know scales or open chords? These questions are the same.

Of course they're not.

I mean, they're of the same kind . But the answers are different. All those things are useful, but to differing degrees.

[Sandy Cheeks]

 

All Drop-2 chords are inversions. All inversions are not Drop-2 chords. Capisce?

 

 

Root position chords *should* be called 0-inversions, but they're not considered inversions.

[JonR]

 

Many moons ago, the following sequence of Dm7-G7-Cmaj7: x5756x > x5546x > x3545x Allowed me to see, for the first time, how shared chord tones can sustain while the movement of voices between non-shared chord tones changes the harmonic landscape. At the time, I could not "see" many of the notes on the fretboard but I could see how these drop-2 voicings provided a lovely and economical transition through those chords. When I applied the same voicing structure (drop-2) to other inversions of those same chords I saw a similar harmonic function but with a unique movement of voices. While basic and obvious in retrospect, for a developing student of the guitar, these can be paradigm shifting moments. It's not an understatement for me to say that it was my first exposure of drop-2 voicings and voice-leading that prompted my interest in finally learning to "see" every note on the fretboard.

Possibly the most valuable contribution to the thread so far Jed, at least for me.

 

I learned those shapes probably as many moons ago as you did - and I would have learned much later that they could be described as "drop 2". At the time, it was just part of my teaching myself the fretboard, with the aid of a capo, and along something like CAGED lines (although I didn't know that system either then). It was a case "oh look, that's a Dm7 and it looks like an open Am7 shape; and it can move to this G7 chord ("E7" shape) like this..." I was delving into such half-step chord moves before I even knew about guide tones, mind you.

The reason they work, of course, is nothing to do with them being drop-2. It's the voice-leading and shared tones, as you say. But I do see that if we use the term "drop 2" - along with the alternating inversions of course (root and 2nd inv) - then we have a system of labelling them. Not the only one, and not necessarily the best (IMO), but certainly a consistent and logical one.

 

IOW, I see now why you guys attach so much important to drop voicing knowledge: it's how you think of those shapes, yes? I'll admit that the way I think of them is possibly more haphazard. I know all the notes and chord tones of course, and that's enough for me. I still have vestiges of the CAGED shape associations, which find helpful in linking them.

 

One problem I still have with drop labelling - and I can see it's one that could confuse beginners - is that the inversion no longer describes the bass note. So a "root position drop 2" has the 5th in the bass; a "2nd inversion drop 2" has the root in the bass. In terms of the above sequence, it's still alternating root posn and 2nd inversion, but the other way round. So the Dm7 is 2nd inversion drop 2 (D, root, on bottom); the G7 is root position drop 2 (D, 5th, on bottom).

This is one reason I prefer not to think in drop labels. The Dm7 chord sounds (and certainly looks) like a root position chord. Of course the order of the other notes makes a difference to the sound (largely which note is on top), and I guess "drop" labels can help in differentiating certain voicings. But - from my perspective anyway - they seem an unnecessary complication.

I play such shapes because they're easy and work well together - and I know why. (And likewise, I can see how drop-3, and drop 2&4 produce other shapes I know well. It just wouldn't occur to me to label them that way.)

 

But thanks (as ever) for an enlightening post.

[speechless]

 

Play this on guitar 0-9-10-0-10-12

 

 

cooool

[Jed]

 

One problem I still have with drop labeling - and I can see it's one that could confuse beginners - is that the inversion no longer describes the bass note. So a "root position drop 2" has the 5th in the bass; a "2nd inversion drop 2" has the root in the bass. In terms of the above sequence, it's still alternating root posn and 2nd inversion, but the other way round. So the Dm7 is 2nd inversion drop 2 (D, root, on bottom); the G7 is root position drop 2 (D, 5th, on bottom). This is one reason I prefer not to think in drop labels. The Dm7 chord sounds (and certainly looks) like a root position chord. Of course the order of the other notes makes a difference to the sound (largely which note is on top), and I guess "drop" labels can help in differentiating certain voicings. But - from my perspective anyway - they seem an unnecessary complication. I play such shapes because they're easy and work well together - and I know why. (And likewise, I can see how drop-3, and drop 2&4 produce other shapes I know well. It just wouldn't occur to me to label them that way.)

 

 

I agree completely that the Drop-x labeling (depending on how it is presented) can cloud the inversion information. Again I don't approach Drop-x voicings according to their inversion aspect. So I don't describe "D-A-F-C" as "the Dm7, 2nd inversion drop 2 (D, root, on bottom)" but rather as "Dm7 with F in the lead". Maybe this chord shape would be better described as "Dm7 root position, lift 2" meaning to lift the 2nd voicing from the bottom one octave.

 

To be honest, I don't care about the bass note (inversion designation) unless I'm really working the bass for solo performance and I care no more about the labeling convention that you do, other than for communication purposes. Rather I want to be able to define the lead / melody note of some voicing.

 

I'm only educated enough to be dangerous here. So my use of this language is tailored to suit my purposes. Maybe some of the music educators can step in and help define the "proper" language relative to how Drop-x voicings are labeled.

[Jed]

I was introduced to drop-2 voicings in a manner that I imagine as similar to what happens when some other players are introduced to the CAGED system.

 

At the time, the important concept was not inversions per se but rather the ability to have an alternate voicing in another location of the fretboard and hence have more options relative to how to play a particular chord. A secondary, but important concept to me at the time, was to be able to project an alternate melodic line as I played through the chords

 

Previous to this discovery (?) I played using block voicings. Meaning I knew a couple of chord shapes for various chord types but had to jump around the fretboard to play any particular progression.

 

At the time I had no concept of voice-leading nor the ability to play chords in a space or fingering efficient manner. Like other voicing-ignorant players I was stumbling around the fretboard limited to just a few chord shapes per chord type. Mostly those chord shapes with roots on the 5th and 6th strings.

 

Drop-2 voicings present some specific advantages over other voicings that I'll go into in another post but the most important concept for many players will be the ability to quickly add an additional ten to eleven chord shapes for any particular chord type than they may current have in their tool kit.

 

I don't think of Drop-2 voicings as inversions, although of course they are that too. More importantly for me is greater range of options when playing and control over the melody note that I project.

[speechless]

Defs diggin this thread. While we're at it...

 

 

Previous to this discovery (?) I played using block voicings .

 

 

Definition svp?

[stomias]

First hit on google http://www.jazzguitar.be/drop_2_chords.html

 

Think it covers it succinctly.

[stomias]

Even better http://www.stuartjohnson.info/drop2.html

[stomias]

http://www.creativekeyboard.com/backissues/nov04/voicing.pdf

 

 

From a pianists perspective......nice!..

 

4. Drop 2 voicing - The drop 2 technique is an old technique that arrangers have used since the

early Ellington days. It

[stomias]

85 pages of PDF chordal bliss..... Great exposition.

 

http://www.opus28.co.uk/voicingssample.pdf

[stomias]

Or This.........................

 

 

[video=youtube;PYSEQImJnNw]

[Jed]

 

Definition svp?

 

 

Block Voicings: A term of my own invention to describe how someone who only knows root-position chords on the E & A strings might play through jazz changes.

 

So for Dm7 > G7 > Cmaj7, they might play

x-5-7-5-6-x > 3-5-3-4-3-3 > x-3-5-4-5-x or

10-x-10-10-10-10 > x-10-12-10-12-x > 8-x-9-9-8-x

 

It's playing the chords but without voice-leading, so playing the chords but not thinking about how the notes are moving. Considered a low-brow / beginner approach to playing jazz changes.

 

btw I like the svp reference. ;-)

[Jed]

I haven't had a look at stomias's links but I did write out the following previously and then decided to add graphics for those that find it easier to work off Tab and /or chord diagrams.

 

 

Drop-2 examples for (the key of) C major:

** Edit ** do print out the attachment as you look at this post for the chord diagrams. They do make things much easier to see **

 

Chord:

voicing structure = chord shape on the (inside 4 strings) or (top four strings) or (bottom four strings)

 

** I've left out the inversion information because it's secondary to my purposes.

** I'll leave it to others to identify the proper Drop-2 designations for these voicings

 

Dm7:

D-A-C-F = (x-5-7-5-6-x) or (x-x-12-14-13-13) or (10-12-10-10-x-x)

F-C-D-A = (x-8-10-7-10-x) or (x-x-3-5-3-5) or (13-15-12-14-x-x)

A-D-F-C = (x-12-12-10-13-x) or (x-x-7-7-6-8) or (5-5-3-5-x-x)

C-F-A-D = (x-3-3-2-3-x) or (x-x-10-10-10-10) or (8-8-7-7-x-x)

 

So above, for Dm7 drop-2, we have four voicings (unique arrangement of notes for one chord) and three ways to play each of those four voicings for a total of twelve chord shapes for this one chord in this one voicing structure. **Remember that these are just the drop-2 voicings. Other voicings yield other/more chord shapes **

 

G7:

G-D-F-B = (x-10-12-10-12-x) or (x-x-5-7-6-7) or (3-5-3-4-x-x)

B-F-G-D = (x-14-15-12-15-x) or (x-x-9-10-8-10) or (7-8-5-7-x-x)

D-G-B-F = (x-5-5-4-6-x) or (x-x-12-12-12-13) or (10-10-9-10-x-x)

F-B-D-G = (x-8-9-7-8-x) or (x-x-3-4-3-3) or (13-14-12-12-x-x)

 

Again, these are the four Drop-2 voicings for G7 with three guitar fingerings for each voicing. ** Other voicing structures yield other/more chord shapes **

 

Cmaj7:

C-G-B-E = (x-3-5-4-5-x) or (x-x-10-12-12-12) or (8-10-9-9-x-x)

E-B-C-G = (x-7-9-5-8-x) or (x-x-2-4-1-3) or (12-14-10-12-x-x)

G-C-E-B = (x-10-10-9-12-x) or (x-x-5-5-5-7) or (3-3-2-4-x-x)

B-E-G-C = ((x-14-14-12-13-x) or (x-x-9-9-8-8) or (7-7-5-5-x-x)

 

Again, these are the four Drop-2 voicings for Cmaj7 with three guitar fingerings for each voicing. ** Other voicing structures yield other/more chord shapes **

 

For those unfamiliar with Drop-2 voicings, I'd encourage you to work through each fingering for each of the voicings for each chord type to get a sense of just how powerful the fretboard is as a harmonic tool.

 

Note: These voicings were noted away from my instrument so let me know if you find any errors.

 

Note 2: From my perspective the shear quantity of voicings and fingerings shown above define the genius of the guitar tuning

[Jed]

Never mind all that crap below. The Spinal Tap guys have it right. Jazz is just playing it wrong !!

 

cheers,

 

PS stomias' links are great info. I didn't read them all but they do reference Drop-2 as an arranging technique (& comping on piano). That Drop-2's happen to fit so well on the guitar is a happy accident and largely defines why they can be such a useful technique to explore for the advancing guitarist.

 

PPS hopefully the links won't illustrate how ignorant I am of legit musical terminology

[Jed]

 

http://www.creativekeyboard.com/backissues/nov04/voicing.pdf   From a pianists perspective......nice!..   4. Drop 2 voicing - The drop 2 technique is an old technique that arrangers have used since the early Ellington days. It

[speechless]

 

Block Voicings: A term of my own invention to describe how someone who only knows root-position chords on the E & A strings might play through jazz changes... ...It's playing the chords but without voice-leading, so playing the chords but not thinking about how the notes are moving. Considered a low-brow / beginner approach to playing jazz changes.

 

 

Wicked. thanks also for the pdf by the way. I hope soon to not be low-brow

[jonfinn]

Here are some drop-2 and drop-3 chords to monkey around with....

[speechless]

^^^

yes please

thanks professah!