Registered: 1268171845 Posts: 293
Reply with quote #1
If you read my chapter, How Systematic Inversions Relate to the V-System (
http://www.tedgreene.com/images/lessons/v_system/27_How_Systematic_Inversions_Relate_to_the_V-System.pdf ), you may have noticed a subtle difference between the way Ted and I systematically invert a chord with doubling. When I invert the C7 no 5 chord, root moves to 3, 3 to b7, and b7 to root. Note that 3 goes to b7, not to 5. This is in keeping with the way we systematically invert four-note chords when a chord tone is missing. For example, a C9 no root involves the moves: 3 to 5, 5 to b7, b7 to 9, 9 to 3. The omitted root doesn't reappear in the next inversion. When Ted and Mark, in the lesson, systematically invert a Gmaj7 no 5, they move the root to the 3, the 3 to the 5, and the 7 to the root. So in this case the next chord has no 7 instead of no 5. Not sure if this was just a lapse by Ted who surely knew that when he systematically inverted four note chords without doubling that he would always exclude any omitted tones from all the inversions. Anyway, Ted's point that systematically inverting chords with doubling doesn't produce the exact same chords is kind of true anyway in that a different one of the chord tones will be doubled in each inversion. Thought this was interesting enough to point out here in the forums but too fussy a point to make in the actual chapter itself. And Ted's plans for hybrid voicing groups was surprising and fascinating to me.