Chords without tonic - benefit?

Passacaglia

Sorry if this is a picayune question, but my bent these days is to try to master the fullest chord voices I can, for any given chord, so the question was piqued while working through Denis Chang's Accompaniment DVD (so grateful - what a fantastic resource). Just curious on one thing - in the chord voices section of the DVD, morphing from a D9 (554555) to a Dm9 (553555). A Dm7 chord shape flashes on, showing a shape the same as is shown in Gypsy Rhythm, a Dm7/A (5x356x).

Playing it 55356x, I get what sounds to me like a fuller sound, and the tonic is included. I understand why some chords do not include the tonic, for various reasons (for instance, showing his ii-V-I progression, Dm7-G13b9-C, I understand why the G shape is without the tonic - with root in the Ab)- but is there some harmonic reason the tonic isn't included in this m7 shape? Is it a matter of judgement, when coming to work with a soloist, or considering whether other instruments are involved - i.e., maybe go with an alternative bass for a root, in the absence of a contrabass, but if you're the only guitar, choosing more bass elements is a good choice?

Thanks,

Paul

JazzDawg

Good question and point! I think it's a matter of taste, preference, and judgment with respect to the particular ensemble you might be playing in at the time. I like full shapes for playing sometimes, but generally don't use them much, preferring to keep a lot of space open for solo work. Inversions of chord voices is an interesting subject to me.

I've seen GJ players take both paths, and I see from the Pearl Django Play-Along book, they use a lot of full chord shapes. Sometimes I find that approach for many would not give enough room for each of the players to be distinguished, and the melody or solo gets lost in the mix. I saw a local band playing swing music, with some GJ thrown in recently. I asked the guitar player what kinds of voices he was using (couldn't see from where I was sitting), and he said, mostly 2 or three note chords - even sometimes just using one note a-la Freddy King style. He said the 2 horns and bass covered most of the other harmony, and if he played full chords, it would 'muddy' up the works. As a result their music sounded really full and crisp - and really was swinging.

I've heard some examples of that happening with folks I've seen on YouTube. I know that's not the best place to judge, but just noticed that the full chords in an ensemble with more than one guitar seems to work against the harmony of the tune. I thiink if you use full chords, you really have to be carefull not to step on the other players' toes.

For me, I use a split between full chords, inversions of 3 or 4 notes, sometimes using the root, and for other chords use the 5th or 3rd on the bottom to bring out the harmony of the tune. This is a big difference from one of the guys I jam with who mostly plays bluegrass and folks, where full open chords are the standard. When he uses full chords on swing music, it really does not work as there is no swing to the music - too much still ringing out. I showed him some other voicings, and the change in sound was immediate. I suggest he 'choke' chords when playing full closed chords, which helped keep the swing feeling.

Like a lot of things musically, there's no best approach to suit everyones' notion of style, but it is an interesting question and hope others chime in.

Phil

dennis

i don't think there's a particular reason for omitting the tonic... In the django style, there are lots of weird things going on... sometimes even wrong chords (ie using E9 on minor swing, when theoretically it should be E7b9-- or even playing a bar of E9 then playing an Fdim) but in someways it's what defines the style...

Myself, I try to be a bit in between... Not to clash too much but not to lose that "sound" ... So my choice in voicings are my own style in a way...

When accompanying stochelo or wawau for their dvds, i tried to use very basic bread and better voicings that don't clash too much but still retaining that "sound".

I guess it'sh ard to define this sound... I'd say it's a very greasy and growly sound ... and you try to use voicings that can bring out this greasiness...

The choice of voicings will depend on the song, the style of the soloist or the style of the song itself (if it's played fast, slow, medium, etc....)

When I played rhythm for lollo meier, I used very old school voicings (plain barre chords, triads, basic 7th chord shapes, few extensions) .. because that's the way he accompanies himself so i figured he'd like it if I played it that way too...

of course not all rhythm players will try to match their soloists styles... some are set in their own particular way of playing... my rhythm player is like that too, and it s fine for me, i love his style, but i dont think someone like fapy owuld like it..

it's kinda like relationships... some people go well together, some are adapt, some dont' go well together...

Since I really tried to study as many styles as possible to satisfy my curiosity, I was always able to adapt to what my soloists liked to hear... man, rhythm playing is really an art of its own!

Passacaglia

God, thank you, both. Such rich food for practice as I move ahead.

Denis, I'm working through the progressions section of "Menu 4." It's very hard for me not to analyze stuff, try to codify it in terms of theory, etc. - but I have to say, I think I'm "getting" it, in my body, hearing the cadences and so forth, and locking everything in with my fingers and ears - if I "do" theory, it's mostly just lifting a finger, or moving a finger - say, from a M3 to a m3 position, or moving the root over, or adding the tonic, as discussed above, etc. - and hearing the extremely subtle differences, at times - but how those things relate to some of the issues of richness, muddiness, clarity, etc., discussed above.

Just wanted to say thanks - your teaching is extremely gratifying. I'm looking forward to the other material (the 4-part comes over the next few days, I have Wawau, looking forward to Stochelo).

Paul