But why focus on the drop aspect from high to low rather than low to high? Let's say you have an arpeggio of a GM7 starting on the B on the low E 6th string. On the 6th string you hit B, on the 5th string you hit D, F#, then on the 4th string you hit G. Can you visualize that? If I keep the B on the 6th string, and the G on the 4th string, but remove the other two fingers, and then add them on the higher strings, the F# on the 2nd string and the D on the 3rd string, I have a nice chord, right? Is this chord acceptable to you for jazz? If so, how is labelling this a drop whatever counting from closed voicing to the result, beneficial?
The chord that you are talking about (B on 6th string, G on 4th, D on 3rd and Fsharp on 2nd) is actually a drop 3 voicing. Yes it is a nice chord, for jazz or not! Labelling certain chord voicings are just a way to systemise the learning by grouping them together, putting them in context and into practical use by understanding how they are made up! Not everyone's preferred way of learning, but it certainly is mine! Hope that helps :)
@@BryanGuitar Thanks for answering. However, if I tell you I am playing a GMaj7/B, wouldn't you just assume it is a drop 3 voicing? Why not just say Gmaj 7 first inversion or use figured bass?
Yes I would assume that it is the drop 3 voicing we are talking about. I wouldn’t say first or second inversion because I feel that it is an extra step to figure out what the bass note is. I would sometimes use slash chords when notating, but not always because of the fact that it happens so often in Jazz!
@@BryanGuitar Right, that is what I was thinking.. Of course notating you can use slash chords or figured bass, so why ever use the term drop this and that if it is implied? This is what I can't figure out.
