Chord structure. Are you a purist or anarchist?

[RABid]

8 minutes ago, JoJoB3 said:

Still wondering how 'purist or anarchist' plays into any of this. 

Pure - as in pure chord structure with root on the bottom.

Anarchist - using inversions any time and any way I want. It seems to drive purists mad.

[BluMunk]

Being unable to naturally use inversions and voice leading is, in my mind, one of the key indicators of a pianist on the beginning of their journey. Bouncing root position triads around over an octave or two is rarely what is called for musically. Except for when it is, but it's definitely not the default option.

 

Re: pure vs. anarchist... I mean, this is what arrangements are for. 

 

Also, consider that whether or not the 'bass' note (whether it's being played by a bass player or by your own left hand) is on the root is an independent question from what shape the chords take above it.

 

And I have a suspicion that your bandmates might be more interested in the bass note than the upper structure? Otherwise, it seems kind of crazy to me that you would have a consistent experience across multiple projects with people noticing and caring that you are not playing 1/3/5 in that order. Like, does the band equally expect all chords from the guitar to be in 'E' or 'A' inversions (1/5/1/3/5/1  or 5/1/5/1/3/5)?

 

 

 

 

[Stokely]

Yep.  Our lead singer plays a bit 'o keys, and when I said "hey, if I play some guitar while doing some lead vocals,  you should get back there on keys and have some fun!" her first response was, "I only know how to play the root position chords."    It's a beginner thing, the word "pure" would never cross my mind when describing it...nor "rebel" or "anarchist" when describing inversions.  As I and others stated, inversions are much more about fitting in with the band than is playing 2-fisted root chords (especially with a low note that might compete with the bassist if you have one.)



 

[CEB]

FWIW.  In a band/combo context rootless voicings work so well because the root is often still on the bottom.   But that’s just me.  

[cphollis]

34 minutes ago, CEB said:

FWIW.  In a band/combo context rootless voicings work so well because the root is often still on the bottom.   But that’s just me.  

Same for me, at least in my current cover band.  The bass player is primarily responsible for getting the notion of a root across. My keys role includes harmonic voicings and cadences with counterpoint lines.  I don't think in terms of chords, I think about tone clusters.  As a result, trying to notate what I end up playing using standard chord notation wouldn't work well at all.   

[El Lobo]

17 hours ago, RABid said:

Pure - as in pure chord structure with root on the bottom.

Anarchist - using inversions any time and any way I want. It seems to drive purists mad.

I just don't understand this. There's no such thing as "pure." And using inversions is actually HOW YOU PLAY keyboard. Duh. 

4 hours ago, Stokely said:

It's a beginner thing, the word "pure" would never cross my mind when describing it...nor "rebel" or "anarchist" when describing inversions.  

Agree. That's the point.

4 hours ago, cphollis said:

 I don't think in terms of chords, I think about tone clusters.

The same. A sax player friend, on the sax forum, does not like to talk about scales. He prefers to talk in terms of "groups of notes" that work over the changes. It's a more wide open way of thinking about what to play. I think it's relevant to the idea of playing 1-3-5 triads vs. inversions. What do you do when you get to a sus or diminished chord? Or those pesky b9 or #9 or 11th or 13th chords? Better to think in terms of which group of notes - or cphollis' tone clusters - work best at any point in the tune. Which notes need to be on the top, on the bottom, in the middle? What tone cluster does the keys part call for? Sometimes the 1-3-5 triad is clearly the wrong form for what the song or arrangement calls for. The question to be answered is what is the best form for the arrangement? That may be an inversion or not even a chord inversion but a cluster of notes that may not even be a chord you can name or an inversion of a chord. Sometimes the V chord in some tunes is unclear. Is it V over the IV? Or IV over the V? Or something else entirely? It's definitely a tone cluster and not a triad or inversion. Whatcha gon' do?

[analogika]

19 hours ago, RABid said:

Pure - as in pure chord structure with root on the bottom.

Anarchist - using inversions any time and any way I want. It seems to drive purists mad.

the opposite is the case. Jumping around isn’t “pure”. It’s acoustic anarchy and attention seeking. 
 

voice leading and staying in a narrow tonal corridor is all about control and function. (It’s also MUCH easier to play.)

[AROIOS]

On 6/4/2024 at 6:09 AM, RABid said:

I've driven more than one bandmate crazy over the years by playing inversions. I've even had bandmates tell me that I must hear things differently. I think I picked it up by covering so many rhythm guitar parts on keys. Example: if a song bounces between Cmaj and Fmaj I don't move my hand up to play a F-A-C.  I bounce by playing C-E-G -> C-F-A -> C-E-G -> C-F-A. Not only does it feel more natural to play that way, but the consistent C grounds the movement. To carry it further, Cmaj, Fmaj, Gmaj may be played C-E-G -> C-F-A -> B-D-G.

 

Does this seem natural to you? Does it drive you crazy? Have you not really thought about it?

Strictly speaking, you are only playing an "inversion" if the bass player is not covering the root note. C-F-A and F-A-C (or A-C-F for that matter) are all just different "voicing"s as long as the bass sticks with F.
 

I would check if the complaints are rooted (no pun intended) in a turf war between your left hand and your bass player. But even then, it's still just a voicing/arrangement problem rather than diverging preferences over "inversion"s.

[Theo Verelst]

Playing skills from a certain level upwards aside: what sound are you getting, is it a perfectly recorded Jazz capable grand piano with a subtle fretless bass with chorus, or a bad sounding sample with a heavy duty rock bass setup. There are so many inversions, arpeggios, multiple melodies and for instance transition substitition licks, it depends on your instrument and amplification whether your sound will "work", and a lot of playing adaptations are a consequence of sound quality  limitations.

 

T

[BluesB3]

On 6/4/2024 at 7:53 PM, jazzpiano88 said:

If you play a chord chart verbatim with just the standard symbols, you'll sound like either a 7th grade jazz band student or your garden variety local jazz combo reading the standards from the real book off of music stands. 

 

The key is to transition between chords is an effortless mastery (wasn't there a book by that name?) that makes one chord blend into another with an economy of motion and sound that seems inevitable.    It's called voice leading.    It's harder to transcribe because of the economy of motion/sound, but very rewarding.

I'm lazy, so I do this intuitively. 

[Steve Nathan]

On 6/4/2024 at 8:42 AM, YashN said:

I am more of a ear-ist than theorist. I composed a song and it was being recorded at a studio. After a while I decided to invert a chord. The Producer couldn't understand as he was too used to the original version, until the guitarist he hired to add a part said "no it's fine, it's just an inversion and sounds better"...

Around here we call that "Demo Love". 😝

[pinkfloydcramer]

If I played everything in root position, the main thing I would be is FIRED

[El Lobo]

20 hours ago, BluesB3 said:

I'm lazy, so I do this intuitively. 

To me it's not laziness, it's how you're sposed to play keyboard. Because I'm self-taught (never had a lesson) I have to work at not playing everything in root position. I have to *think* about how to play inversions, which inversion, how to transition to next chord with minimum of hand and finger movement. If I'm being lazy, I just play everything in root position. When I do that, I feel dumb and think that I'm a bad keyboard player. In truth I'm not very good but if I can not play everything in root position, at least I feel a little better about myself as a keyboard player. 

[Stokely]

I'm also no great shakes as I said, but for me it's simply doing it a million times with chords I know.

The problem as I also said is when you throw chords at me that I *haven't* played a million times.   The minute I started learning Peg with my band, my comfort level went to zero.   Listening to that song fooled me, there's a lot more to it than I thought.   We did great on the groove during the verses, but I was locked in rigidly to playing the chords as I learned them and that wasn't a very good feeling.   On the chorus I'm singing a harmony so that's a factor too    I have watched Donald Fagen play that song a couple different ways and its effortless for him--it's the same progression as the album version but entirely different inversions and even some of what I'll call "passing chords" and notes moving between them.

Whereas you get me something "regular rock" I'm fine.  7ths, 9ths, ok, but you get me into sharp 13ths and some of that other jazzy stuff and I'm quickly into "root mode"     

[BluesB3]

I learned inversions early on but what elevated my playing in a combo was moving away from always playing a root note in the left hand. 

 

It makes a world of difference even on a simple song like Margaritaville. 

[BluesB3]

4 hours ago, Stokely said:

I'm also no great shakes as I said, but for me it's simply doing it a million times with chords I know.

The problem as I also said is when you throw chords at me that I *haven't* played a million times.   The minute I started learning Peg with my band, my comfort level went to zero.   Listening to that song fooled me, there's a lot more to it than I thought.   We did great on the groove during the verses, but I was locked in rigidly to playing the chords as I learned them and that wasn't a very good feeling.   On the chorus I'm singing a harmony so that's a factor too    I have watched Donald Fagen play that song a couple different ways and its effortless for him--it's the same progression as the album version but entirely different inversions and even some of what I'll call "passing chords" and notes moving between them.

Whereas you get me something "regular rock" I'm fine.  7ths, 9ths, ok, but you get me into sharp 13ths and some of that other jazzy stuff and I'm quickly into "root mode"     

Yeah me too. I'm in this group. When I get an extended chord I either re-think it, or notate it, as a slash chord. Such as Am/F# for F#min7b5.

[CEB]

I like slash chord notation a lot.  If I actually need the chart, slash chord notation gives me a better visualization of the voicing I need than standard extension notation. 

 

Cognitive degeneration in the elderly is real.  I need more help than I used to.

[CEB]

4 hours ago, Stokely said:

I'm also no great shakes as I said, but for me it's simply doing it a million times with chords I know.

The problem as I also said is when you throw chords at me that I *haven't* played a million times.   The minute I started learning Peg with my band, my comfort level went to zero.   Listening to that song fooled me, there's a lot more to it than I thought.   We did great on the groove during the verses, but I was locked in rigidly to playing the chords as I learned them and that wasn't a very good feeling.   On the chorus I'm singing a harmony so that's a factor too    I have watched Donald Fagen play that song a couple different ways and its effortless for him--it's the same progression as the album version but entirely different inversions and even some of what I'll call "passing chords" and notes moving between them.

Whereas you get me something "regular rock" I'm fine.  7ths, 9ths, ok, but you get me into sharp 13ths and some of that other jazzy stuff and I'm quickly into "root mode"     

 

Ha!   I play Peg.  I just do it because of all the repetitions over the years.   But there is no way in hell I can tell you what the chords are anymore.  If I think about it I'm screwed.    

[harmonizer]

If I'm trying to duplicate the keyboard sounds from an original pop/rock recording when we play a cover, I am trying to find the inversions used on the original. It's common to use such inversions to create a more linear relationship from one chord to the next, just as is done with backup vocal harmonies. If there was someone in your band asking you to NOT use inversions in the chords you play on keys, they are not asking for something that even makes sense. The only thing I can think of that would make any sense is that maybe they think the inversions you are playing are different than what's on the original. Or maybe only one of you is actually playing the correct chords.

[BluesB3]

Perhaps due to my limited skills and low threshold for boredom, I rarely devote much time to trying to grok the original inversions when we do a cover tune. We aren't a "tribute" band (Thank Dog!) so I try to get signature licks or riffs in the right place but generally put my own spin on what we do. Perhaps it's due to spending too much time in a blues band.

 

I don't understand anyone telling you not to play inversions on a tune. Even Louie, Louie is inversions. Unless it's Kris Pooley, Ricky Minor, or Paul Shaffer, tell them to stay in their own GD lane.

 

s

[jazzpiano88]

On 6/4/2024 at 8:08 PM, JoJoB3 said:

Still wondering how 'purist or anarchist' plays into any of this. 

 

It will come to you once you've accomplished a body of work.

[stoken6]

On 6/8/2024 at 12:01 AM, BluesB3 said:

Yeah me too. I'm in this group. When I get an extended chord I either re-think it, or notate it, as a slash chord. Such as Am/F# for F#min7b5.

I've been working on getting my skills up in this area. Having started my journey in rock/blues, getting into soul, funk and jazz is a whole new set of chords. If I see Gb7#11 I'm trying to internalise the Gb,Fb shell in the LH and Eb+Ab+C in the RH, rather than rewrite it as "Ab over F#-and-E".

 

Cheers, Mike.