Question about drop chords...

I think that what you're talking about is inversions, I've never heard of drop chords before. The are often called "slash chords", because the note of the inversion is put after the chord name, separated by a slash, e.g. C/Bb

Firstly, though, I think that you're getting a bit confused by string "names". The "bottom" string is the big, fat one furthest from the floor - it's called "bottom" because it has the lowest pitch. Conversely, the highest string is the one nearest the floor - it has the highest pitch.

Here's an explanation of inversions - http://guitar.about.com/library/weekly/aa062401c.htm

Hope that helps. If not, don't hesitate to ask.

No, I'm not talking about inversions. They might seem like two similar things but in inversions, we're talking about bass notes being changed while with drop chords, it seems to be the note on the highest string. (and yes, I do mean the highest strings...the one closest to the floor)

I don't think drop chords are extremely popular, though. Or they probably are used a lot (like the fingerings) but people don't always call them drop chords. Maybe they're just called like that in jazz.

Wait, I'll give you the definition one of my teachers wrote:

He took Cmin7 as an example so the notes are C Eb G Bb. For Drop 2, he then wrote that you take the second note and put it 'on top'. So you take Eb and go down in order and place the other notes (each on one string), but drop the first note.

So it'd be: Eb C Bb G and in drop 2 voicing, it'd become Eb Bb G C...one note on each string.

All the chord positions that he then gave me work according to that. However, it's only the two first notes that follow that rule. Like, the first two notes have to be in a certain order but the last two don't need to.

I'm not sure if that makes sense but it's the only logical explanation I can find to these drop chords.

Thanks for your reply, btw!

Here's an explanation of them and how they differ from inversions. (Sounds a bit contrived to me, though)
http://www.berkleeguitarlessons.com/guitarChords_lessVid_03.shtml

"Drop" chords are simply inversions. It's the name that a few jazz guys give to them... they've spread, because some of those jazz guys teach at Berklee.

IMO it's a lot like the average guitarist's fixation on modes - nice idea, but there's a simpler way to look at it.

So let me try to clear up the confusion. There are two main explanations of drop voicings, depending on who you're listening to...

Explanation #1:

A "drop" voicing takes that note - in order from the top (highest sounding*) and puts it on the bottom. So if you have a Cmaj7 voicing played x3545x and you want ot to be "drop 3", you take the third highest note from the top (G) and put it on the bottom: you get 33x45x.

Sometimes that means moving other voices around as well. A Cmaj7 fingered x32000 will become x22010 when played as a "drop 2".

But I think that whole school of "drop" chords is meaningless, because in order to use it you must already know the voicing to be altered. "Cmaj7 drop 2" is meaningless by itself; if the original voicing is x32000, you get a third inversion (x22010); if the original voicing is x35453, you get a second inversion (0354x3). In other words, the "drop" term has no meaning of its own!

Besides, folks who explain drop voicings that way are probably misunderstanding and mis-communicating Explanation #2:

Here you assume the chord is spelled in "closed" position - i.e. the notes are in order as a pianist might play them. That makes the Cmaj7 C-E-G-B, no matter how it's actually voiced. Drop 2 is then G-C-E-B, and Drop 3 is E-C-G-B.

There are also logical problems with this... because which voice is affected by the "drop" now depends on how many notes are in the theoretical chord spelling: a "drop 2" might change the position of the fifth (if it's a seventh chord), or the seventh (if it's a ninth chord), etc.

And on top of that, there's the fact that your upper voices in a "drop" voicing probably aren't in closed position; closed position chords are difficult to play on the guitar because of the way it's tuned. So when a "drop" voicing is used in a real life situation, the voices aren't going to follow the prescribed order - only the bass will. And that makes them no different from chord inversions.

If you're going to go to the trouble of figuring out which note should be moved, it's far simpler - and much more standardized - to talk about inversions. Second inversion ALWAYS puts the fifth in the bass; third inversion ALWAYS puts the seventh in the bass, etc. - there's no need to go through an extra step. So for those with classical training, it's not worth it to learn a new system... there's nothing new in it!

For those without classical training it still doesn't simplify anything, because it requires a knowledge of chord spelling. It's much simpler to use a "slash" chord - if the bass note is that important, write it Cmaj7/E (or whatever) and everybody - not just the Berklee folks - will know what you're talking about.

I'm always leery of people using non-standard terms, like "drop" chords, because they tend to confuse things more than illuminate them. In fact, a good example is in Vicky's first post in this thread: "higher" strings.

Musicians on all instruments talk about "higher" and "lower" in terms of the sound produced, not how it's done. That lets us talk music to each other without understanding the details of every instrument... the conductor can say "let's do it again a bit higher" (if we didn't have that common understanding, the instruction would be "cellos play lower, piano more to the right, flutes more to the left, trombones closer to the face....", etc)

So "higher" strings on a guitar are always the ones closer to the floor. Unless you're playing a guitar with standard stringing upside down - as some lefties do - in which case higher is, well, higher! :)

Thanks for the explanantion, Tom. That's a new one on me - sounds a little restricting. I would have thought that having to know (and play) the exact chord voicing would be anathema to a jazzer.

Grey's right...they're simply inversions.

Actually, you should direct this question to a bassist for the best explanation. The ones I know pretty often showase them as the standout dominant inherent in the stuff the six strings are playing.

That's my take on it, anyway. Nope, never heard of "drop chords".

Cat

Here's an explanation of drop chords and it seems to be nothing more than a complication of inversions. Whereas an inversion allows freedom of voicing, drop chords lock you into inversions of a specific voicing.
http://www.free-guitar-chords.com/drop-2-guitar-chord-voicings.htm

I'd follow Noteboat's advice and stick to inversions, they are far more valuable to you and have a wide understanding in the music community. If, once you have mastered inversions, you want to re-visit drop chords, by all means do. Having said that, I think that once you have learnt inversions, you'll understand the restrictions of drop chords and leave them alone.

Well, it's actually not by choice that I'm learning chords in 'drop' position. I'm in a jazz program in music college and you can't really escape them over there. My teacher from that school has given me chords to learn in 'drop' position and as this teacher has only given me a brief explanation of how those chords were made, I was curious. I do think he mentioned that there's a couple names for such chords and that as long as I knew them, I'd be ok, haha. My private teacher, on the other hand, did give me an explanation of drop chords and made them sound like they's actually a real thing as 'drop' chords. (I'm not saying there's not, but I do have to agree with some of you that it's kind of just a complicated way to look at a relatively simple thing, such as inversions).

So yea, basically, I was just trying to figure out what they were for personal knowledge. Thanks for the replies, it's helped cleared things up a little. I do think I'll just keep on calling them inversions though. :wink:

And on top of that, there's the fact that your upper voices in a "drop" voicing probably aren't in closed position; closed position chords are difficult to play on the guitar because of the way it's tuned.

Just a brief detour...can you explain what a "closed" chord is? I thought that the opposite of "open chords" was "barre chords". :?:

You can have a closed chord without doing a full barre. For instance, C9, when played x3233x is a closed chord. Or G9 when played 3232xx (both these chords have dropped fifths, by the bye). Most closed chords are sometimes called "moveable chords." Some people call barre chords "moveable chords" as well.

Hope this helps.

Peace

David's reply is for "closed" vs "open" on the guitar... mine was for "closed" vs "open" in music theory. This is one of the few places where using the same label for different concepts makes some sense.

In music theory, a "closed" position chord has no more than a third between any two notes - in other words, the voices are packed as tightly as you can get 'em. Anything else is an "open" voicing. (The dividing line depends on the author - some sticklers say all notes must be within one octave, others say a tenth, a few say as long as nothing is larger than a third, it's closed - so a closed 13th chord could take up almost two octaves.)

On the guitar, a "closed" position chord means there are no open strings.

Almost all guitar chords that are "closed" (guitar meaning) are "open" (theory meaning) - because our strings are spaced more than a third apart - except for the G-B strings. So "closed" (theory) chords are difficult to play.

Here's a "closed" (guitar) voicing of Cmaj7:

8x998x

That's "open" according to theory; the interval between the two lowest notes is a major 7th. Here's the same chord "closed" in both senses:

8754xx

You can see why they're tough to play....

So is a standard triad (C-E-G) a "closed chord"? But an inversion (E-G-C) is not? Are dominant 7ths closed chords if the root is the lowest note?

C-E-G is always a closed chord, provided the notes are within the same octave. E-G-C would also be considered a closed chord (I mis-spoke a bit in the last post; the spacing between notes can't exceed a fourth... because there are chords in common use like a 6/9 that aren't all stacked thirds).

Dominant 7ths in root position may be closed, or they may be open. xx5431 is a closed chord (all notes within one octave); 320001 is not - the distance between the bass and the seventh is almost two octaves.

Just to confuse things further, some theory writers exclude the bass when determining whether a chord is in closed position... they're basing "closed" vs "open" on a keyboard score reduction, and treating the left hand separately. That gets messy: 320001 would be considered "closed", because they're looking only at the bottom note plus the top three.

In that view, the upper three notes of the seventh chord must be within an octave, but those top three notes combined with the bass (the fourth voice in 4-part harmony) must describe the complete chord. That means many common "jazz" chord fingerings like 3x343x for G7 are closed chords... but the "rock" equivalent (353433) is not - the top three combined with the bass make up a G major, and the seventh-to-top-note distance is greater than an octave.

The bottom line here is that theorists disagree on exactly which chord voicings are closed and which are open, but if the notes aren't packed pretty tightly it's probably open.

So is a standard triad (C-E-G) a "closed chord"? But an inversion (E-G-C) is not? Are dominant 7ths closed chords if the root is the lowest note?

Edit - I see Noteboat got in first, but I'll post my answer anyway.

The general principle is as NoteBoat says "Packed as tightly as you can get 'em". But in the case of inversions, that may involve an interval greater than a third.
So C major, (C E G) is in close (or closed) position provided those three notes all lie within a single octave. The inversion E G C can also be considered in close position for the same reason, because that's as close as you can get them without losing the inversion, despite G-C being a fourth. E C G is in open position because E - G is greater than an octave in this case. You could make it 'closed' by lowering the G an octave without losing the inversion. However, as NoteBoat points out, definitions vary and some may argue that inversions by definition are all in open position.
It applies equally to all 7th chords too. So the Dominant 7th, C7 is in close position if the notes are arranged within one octave as C E G Bb, but not if the notes are C G Bb E, because those notes aren't arranged as closely as possible (C-E is greater than an octave).
Chords beyond the 7th are an especially grey area (at least in my less than perfect memory :D ). A root position C 9 = C E G Bb D, which is the closest arrangement of thirds, but not the closest arrangement of notes which would be C D E G Bb.