I would be interested to know if Don Latarski specifically said that the chord to the left could be an inversion? Or whether that was a conclusion you reached based on his claim that you can separate the bass note from the chord formula.
My conclusion wasn't based ot that claim no, it was based on interpretation and examples where it was done, but note your own words could though! Because that's the thing, you could
do it, but should
you always do it? No, of course not, and I've never
said that you always should.
Let's look at three examples where I myself would and why, both to answer the question about theory and "real world application" as crazysam23_Atax put it. I'll stick to situations on the piano to make it easy to follow:
Let's start with his original example: C D G B
So I am teaching my student a song, and the next chord is played with those notes in that order on the piano.
I tell her: "So the next chord is a G/C, with the G in 2nd inversion".
She imagines the G major triad, inverts it, takes the chord and then adds the C bassnote below with her left hand.
This is according to me, the by far easiest way I could explain how to take the chord.
Next example: A A C# E A C# -> B B C# E A C# -> D D B D F# A
So once again I have student at the piano, and these "chords" arrive.
And once again the easiest way to me is to say something like: "So now you play A, a triad in 1st inversion with an added C# note on the top, and then double A bassnotes below".
She imagines the A major triad, inverts it, adds the C# on top, and then the A A bassnotes with her left hand"
When the next chord arrives I say: "Now it changes to a A/B", right hand still plays the 1st inversion with the added C# note on top, but the left hand goes a major second up with both bassnotes" (see how I'm implying the inversion based on the lowest note in the chord in this context).
And then: "After that it's Bm7/D, root position and the double bassnotes goes a minor third up"
Last example: G B D G -> F# B D G
I say: "G in 1st inversion with single bassnote a major third down from the B" and then "To a G/F#, bassnote goes down a minor second"
So to everyone.. don't answer this with another set of examples, cause the point isn't that it's always
the best way to label and/or explain, it's that it sometimes
is. I'll gladly keep explaining and discussing further, BUT stick to the point, and quote things I have actually written to not add confusion.
Okay so what I wrote was not quite correct - there is an inversion there...but first...
We agree a slash chord is "chord"/"bass". We also agree that the voicing of the chord above the bass note in the case of chord inversions is irrelevant. Where we seem to disagree is in the case other slash chords.
What I believe you are saying is that that the chord to the left of the slash could be an inversion such as C major second inversion which would be played over a bass note to the right of the slash such as a B note.
Which we both agree can be called C/B would, according to you, be something along the lines of C in second inversion over a B bass note.
Is this correct? Is this what you are arguing?
Pretty much, your example translates to B G C E which we both agree could be called C/B yes. BUT the difference from alot of people discussing here is the definition of the "bassnote". I sometimes use the words "lowest note in the chord" instead of "bassnote", which is also written in alot of books I've read, otherwise my argument would be confusing to first have a "bassnote" in the chord and then another "bassnote"
So in simply terms, when the lowest note of the chord through whatever inversion is in fact the bassnote, which it is alot obviously then I can use "bassnote", if not then I use "lowest note in the chord".
We can not however separate the bass note from the chord inversion because the inversion is determined by the bass note.
And here is where we still disagree, you so we can't when using the term "bassnote", but I say yes we can since the inversion is determined by the "lowest note in the chord".
When separating the bass note from the chord formula you are not separating the bass note from the chord - you are just separating it from the chord formula. For example A/F# gives us an A6 chord where the F# is in the bass. The chord formula for A6 is A C# E F#. Now because the F# is just in the bass we can separate the bass from the chord formula and we have A C# E over F# or A/F#
Since we separated the F# from the chord formula, we can also to simplify separate the "chord" from the lowest note and call that the "bassnote", hence making another note the lowest in the chord.
And while you can separate the bass note from the chord formula, you can not separate the bass note from the chord inversion - the chord inversion is determined by the bass note.
And this I've already explained
Sometimes it seems to me that you are only talking about the notation
aspect of it, correct? Some of your arguments seem to imply that atleast, but I could be wrong so don't take any offense.
They go on to describe in great detail the primary purpose of the inversion to allow the use of a bass note other than the root to create bass lines in harmonic progressions that are not disjunct.
Yes, still I'm not saying you always should separate chord from bassnote, I some concexts you absolutely shouldn't. There is more than once point of view here, and many different situations. If we are talking about one instrument, two, an orchestra, a band, the total harmony? Are we talking about notation, the sound, or a teaching situation? In my opinion this matters. That's why I keep underling can
, and that I've never said always should
Alright.. you (and some of the others) make good arguments, but so do I, with litterature to back me up. Maybe I can't convince you that I'm right, but you can't convince me either, so both may have a strong belief we are right. I'm not that arrogant to never give up and keep forcing you to change your mind, your way of writing leads me to believe you are an intellectual person, so for you to disregard my arguments and keep pressing your own would not suit you.
So maybe we should leave it at you believe you are correct, and I believe I am correct? Unless this long post convinced you that is
(Ps. no disrespect but I'm out of this discussion now, unless there is new relevant arguments/facts, or questions that haven't already been answered)