Chord inversions in waltz form

[mopsiflopsi]

So I’ve been practicing the waltz form lately, and following the well known pattern of bass on the first beat, and upper voices on second and third. Then I came to a point where i thought I might do an inversion for a smoother bass line movement, but then realized that if I did that I wouldn’t have the bass note voiced at all. If I inverted something like C-EG-EG, I’d end up with G-EG-EG which is more Em than C.

Are inversions something that you just avoid within this context? Or is there a different way to approach/voice them?

Click to read more...

 

[jbuhler]

It depends. You can use E-GC-GC instead of E-EG-EG, and the doubling of the third in a first inversion chord is not ideal in any case. The standard waltz pattern will often move back and forth between root and fifth for the bass on down beats for tonic chords (I and I64—an arpeggiation of the bass rather than a functional 64) and then fifth (or occasionally third) and root for dominant chords (V43 or V65 and V7—again an arpeggiation but it's less clear whether the V43/V65 or V7 is the functional formation for the progression). I6, ii6(5), V43, V65 are all inversions commonly encountered in waltzes, though many more inversions are formed through bass arpeggiations.

I would recommend going to ISMLP and downloading waltzes by Schubert and piano versions of Strauss waltzes and studying the left hand patterns. For popular style waltzes from the early 20th century, you can go to one of the collections like Lilly Inharmony collection and search on "waltz": https://webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu/inharmony/instportal.jsp?inst=ll Most of the pre-1923 waltzes they have are digitized and available to download. Again you can study the left hand patterns.

 

[Stephen Limbaugh]

If I inverted something like C-EG-EG, I’d end up with G-EG-EG which is more Em than C.

If the harmony does not change but every 4 bars, the G-EG-EG will still function as the tonic chord if preceded and followed by bars of C-EG-EG. The ear supplies the "C" in this context.

 

[mikeh-375]

@mopsiflopsi you do realise that if you move to a first inversion in the bass, then the chords on beats 2+3 can include the tonic and actually should include it right? I ask because the way you've phrased the question seems to imply a misunderstanding about inversions and how to use them. One does not normally double the third in a bass line at all in higher registers for a first inversion major chord in the style you are writing in, but one can keep the middle range vamp chords complete with all 3 tones of the major chord as J. Strauss often does for fullness of sound.

So the standard and most appropriate way to voice first inversions, is to include the tonic in upper chordal voicings for a first inversion whilst the doubling of the 3rd (the bass in this instance), in higher registers can become too muddy and clarity can suffer. An octave above doubling on the bass part ie basses and cellos or similar, is good practice. The minor third bass (ie first inversion minor chord) presents less of a problem acoustically speaking and can be doubled less cautiously. There is a very lovely open sound to be had by keeping the upper registers relatively free from doubling a 1st inversion major chord bass note. It's a sound that one should learn to appreciate and use when appropriate.

So your instinct is correct about the ambiguity of just using e+g in this context unless your tune just hammers out C's. It would also create a thin weaker sound than what you undoubtedly would want.

Here's an example of the first inversion in probably the most famous waltz in the world. The chord is at 2'10"...note the theme itself is on the tonic at that point. One can see full complete triads in the vamp but the bass part is only doubled in the lower octave. I love the feeling of journeying, the sense of anticipation and impetus towards something instigated by this moment in the Blue Danube.

 

[mopsiflopsi]

@mopsiflopsi you do realise that if you move to a first inversion in the bass, then the chords on beats 2+3 can include the tonic and actually should include it right?

Thank you for picking up on my misunderstanding. I realize I stupidly misunderstood the pattern as the bass note of the root position being omitted from the voicing, and as a result the obvious did not occur to me. Makes total sense now.