From jazz to Mozart
Vilen
Recently I try at times to understand the chord progression ii-V-I in
jazz. In outward appearance it contradicts notion of tonality. Here
one can see leaps of size fourth and fifth, i.e. amounting to whole
octave. It is important that d-minor (with only accidental Bb) is
relative to f-major and note d is between c and f. Because of it chord
F, note d and again chord F amounting interval more as 3/2 octave.
Jazz example is to see on the page http://www.jazclass.aust.com/rotate/stump.htm
. As note c is in the center of a.m. notes’ sequence then it is
doesn’t contradict C-tonality.
It is most interesting that Mozart was engaged such enlarged scales.
On the page http://www.schillerinstitute.org/fid_91-96/fid_964_ave_ver.html
is considered Mozart’s
unification of scales D-major and G-minor so that note D is in the
middle. Following circle of fifth we have:
G-major and C-minor with G in the middle;
C-major and F-minor with C in the middle.
Thus we came to the example from jazz.
Yuri Vilenkin
LJS
> Recently I try at times to understand the chord progression ii-V-I in
> jazz. In outward appearance it contradicts notion of tonality.
Not so. ii moves away from tonic, and it returns through the cycle of
5ths. It exemplifies the definition of tonality. Three diatonic chords
that function in the typical and defined manner to establish
tonality.
>Here
> one can see leaps of size fourth and fifth, i.e. amounting to whole
> octave. It is important that d-minor (with only accidental Bb) is
> relative to f-major and note d is between c and f. Because of it chord
> F, note d and again chord F amounting interval more as 3/2 octave.
> Jazz example is to see on the pagehttp://www.jazclass.aust.com/rotate/stump.htm
> . As note c is in the center of a.m. notes’ sequence then it is
> doesn’t contradict C-tonality.
> It is most interesting that Mozart was engaged such enlarged scales.
> On the pagehttp://www.schillerinstitute.org/fid_91-96/fid_964_ave_ver.html
LJS
> jazz. In outward appearance it contradicts notion of tonality. Here
> one can see leaps of size fourth and fifth, i.e. amounting to whole
> octave. It is important that d-minor (with only accidental Bb) is
> relative to f-major and note d is between c and f. Because of it chord
> F, note d and again chord F amounting interval more as 3/2 octave.
> . As note c is in the center of a.m. notes’ sequence then it is
> doesn’t contradict C-tonality.
> It is most interesting that Mozart was engaged such enlarged scales.
> is considered Mozart’s
> unification of scales D-major and G-minor so that note D is in the
> middle. Following circle of fifth we have:
> G-major and C-minor with G in the middle;
> C-major and F-minor with C in the middle.
> Thus we came to the example from jazz.
>
> Yuri Vilenkin
Yuri,
After looking at the links you supplied, I just have to ask if there
is some common theme in there? Your description of the sites seems to
be OK, but could you be a bit more specific as to how this relates to
the 11-V-I progression?
I do find the premise of the Mozart to be interesting. I did not,
however, find any Eb notes in the score. Maybe I missed it, so if you
can give me the measure numbers of where the score is in Gmin, that
may help somehow see how this "premise" is in the piece.
The Jazz course is fine as far as it goes, but again, I don't see how
this relates to your post.
I suspect that there is something happening that caused you to relate
those principles to the examples you have given, but I can not find a
relationship. I am hoping that you can clarify what you are trying to
say.
In the meantime, all I can do is repeat my other post. ii-V-I does not
contradict the notion in any manner that you look at it. It is a
cadence formula. Bach made extensive use of the IV V I both in major
and minor in his chorales. Jazz uses the same premise as it modulates
through closely related as well as distant keys but always solidifying
the tonality with the II V I both in major and minor in exactly the
same manner that Bach used the IV V I. Neither the jazz use nor the
Bach chorale use of cadence formulas do anything but establish a
tonality or key area.
I do hope that you will explain more clearly what you are trying to
say.
LJS
J R Laredo
"LJS" <ljsc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a051d7b3-abfa-44e9...@37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
LJS
To reinforce, a little, a ii is a perfectly acceptable sub-dominant chord,
if the voice leading requires it, a good substitute for a IV. The
I-ii4/2-V6-I progression is quite well known. It was one of the first I
learned in group piano in college, though I don't remember what song it was
in.
Rick
Vilen
Dear LGS,
I was suddenly distracted for some time, bunched up my previous post
and, sorry, answer with delay.
Mozart considered unification of scales D-major and G-minor so that
note D is in the
middle. Following circle of fifth we have:
G-major and C-minor with G in the middle;
C-major and F-minor with C in the middle.
The scale F-minor has 4 accidentals: Bb,Eb, Ab, Db.
Accidentals Bb,Eb are needed for second dominant chords with roots C
and F.
Accidentals Ab,Db are needed for tritone substitution of the dominant
chord GBDF.
Thus, in reality, jazz on basis of C-major uses unified fifth F-
minor scale which is symmetrical relative C. Because of it I came to
conclusion that chord Dmin7 (by the way with c-note) can fulfil the
function of supporting C-tonality.
In example of work Stumpy Blues majority of bars includes the melody
note C5 and bar with chord Dmin7 includes melody note C5 too.
Best Regards
Yuri Vilenkin
LJS
Still a bit disjointed but I think I am starting to see a line that
you are following. I am not sure that Mozart ever thought of it that
way, but I think I see the relationships you are putting together.
First, however, I have to say that nothing here seems to address the
statement that there would be any question as to the II V I
progression being anything different than the definition of tonality
that it actually is. The same is for the IV V I progression. You may
use this line of thought to reinforce that II-V-I is tonal, but it
certainly does not need this nor any other combination of
relationships that may coincidentally say the same thing. In other
words, The II-V-I is a basic tonal cadence weather or not one sees a
relationship as you describe in a few pieces by Mozart.
I still don't see how the piece supplied in the example has anything
to do with G min. If G min was an important part of the piece then
there would likely be an Eb in there someplace. In fact, to support
the author's position, would not there have to be an Eb in there
someplace? And here you are looking at F minor and talking about tri-
tone subs in Mozart's music. Our "esteemed" friend from Canada has
strongly disagreed with this position in the past. (I wonder what he
will say now! one can never count on consistency with some.) And I
would have to agree that the elements of Tri-tone subs might
occasionally crop up as an incidental relationship (if stretched a
bit) in Mozart, that it is not the common practice of the time.
As I understand your approach (and it seems as thought it is based
upon that quoted article with the example and Some of my objections to
this line of thought should be directed at him, but he is not here now
so you are his designated representative!) you are taking a middle
note of two scales and showing how they support each other. Or at
least something like that.
It reminds me of several things that are interesting, but upon deeper
analysis, only interesting because of their coincident relationships
using out of context elements.
If you start on a D note and go equidistant steps and half steps in
opposite directions, you will create many different relationships and
they will include another set of notes that will do the same thing if
you start on Ab/G#. In addition, there will always be a mirror image
of one scale to another not only on sound, but with the color of the
key as well. Interesting, but nothing to do with tonality or the
relationship of the two scales involved except for the mirror image.
Another one is something that I was remembering when considering JRL's
March. (a few degrees removed) I wrote a short march as an exercise
using the whole tone scale way back in college. If you take a diatonic
half of the whole tone scale, you have the same relationship as Do Re
Mi. If you then connect this tri-chord (ala the equivalent tetrachord
re the 7 tone scale) to another whole tone tri-chord, with a half
step, you then have created the first 6 notes of a major scale. If you
repeat the process you will then make the resulting scale a Mixolydian
or a dominant scale built on the starting note. i.e. CDE FGA BbCD.
Interesting, but somewhat meaningless as to the concept of tonality.
In this case, you are creating tonality by combining segments of an
atonal scale. (because of its lack of variation of half and whole
steps, the whole tone scale can be considered atonal) The fact that
using this line of logic, one could then progress to the premise that
the Dominant scale is somehow a derivative of the whole tone scale.
This is, of course, a mildly interesting "parlor trick", but is not
the way things have evolved. The Mixolydian mode is not the basis of
the Whole tone. Its apples and oranges. And that is what I see in your
relating of these various concepts.
Your conclusion is correct! II-V-I IS a tonal relationship. And what
ever the phenomena is called in the article you quoted may very well
be true, (I would like to see the Eb in it in order to say that it has
some legitimency) but as far as a valid "proof" to convince one that
II-V-I is tonal is unnecessary and very much unrelated as a cause and
effect argument. If you had doubts as to the tonality of the II-V-I
then your going through the motions have allowed your brain to process
the information to come to the correct conclusion, but now that you
understand that the II-V-I is tonal, it would be better for your
understanding to look at the real reasons that it is tonal.
I would suggest that you start with Fux from Species 1 and continue
through the musica ficta as the cadences begin to evolve into the ones
that we know today. (II-V-I and IV-V-I) In doing so, you will get a
melodic evolution that produces both of these progressions and the
other road to take is to go back to the Cycle of Fifths. If you
consider the Overtone series as dominant, you follow the natural
progression from a D to a G to a C. This translates to a relationship
to the II V I and since the II and the IV chord (especially in the ii7
variety) is essentially the same chord, you have the II-V-I as a basic
result of the Overtone Series. This is about as basic as you can get
when it comes to tonality.
It is this cycle of 5ths relationship that is the most common and
obvious cause of tonality. It is why we learn to start with tonic,
move away and come back through the natural 5th relationship back to
tonic. In CPP, this is usually done with the diatonic notes of the
scale (with some Secondary Dominants substitued in) but the tonality
is not so much dependent upon the 3rd of the tonic chord as it is with
the root movement so there is a lot of room with the cycle of 5ths to
accommodate all the standard major/minor and even some other modal
aspects of tonality.
I do understand that I may still be off target with the exact line of
thought that you stated. I also have not addressed the Blues tune as
that is another direction where the genre is often quite at home with
a liberal mixing of Major and Minor to simulate the quarter tone blue
notes, but again, unrelated coincidences can be spun a little this way
and a little that way to incorrectly show that both valid and invalid
conclusions can be addressed. If I am missing your meaning, then just
consider this a refresher post about tonality and how it is possible
to come to a correct conclusion with the wrong argument.
In any case, if this helps to clear it up, fine. If I have missed your
point and you clarify it some more, then I will try to see what you
are saying again and see what we come up with. The main thing is that
you seem to realize that the II-V-I is tonal, but if I have read you
correctly, you should look to see the real reasons that you see this
as tonal as well as understand how these out of context lines of
thought can be true and useful in other contexts that may be present
in the music even thought they do not prove tonality.
LJS
LJS
LJS
Looking at it from the Blues perspective, you are assuming that the
Fmin scale is the basis of the Blues scale. It is not. It CAN be used
in some instances, but it is not a valid assumption to characterize
the genre. You can use the Paralell La Pentaton and this is the most
common blues scale. In C maj, that would be C Eb F G Bb C. You can
add the "blue note" F#/Gb and get the 6 note blues scale. You can then
add the Ab, but this is in the parallel Cmin key (as well as in the iv
scale or Fmin scale) but when you get to this 7 note scale, you are
moving away from the blues elements and going into the realm of non-
blues considerations for the tonality. There is that pesky Db that you
mention as being a Tri-tone sub. Well, That would be a Jazz addition
to the Blues and is not derived from the early branches of the great
music tree. This would be something pruned from a Jazz branch and then
"spliced" on to the Blues branch as is done with some trees that might
bear fruit of both the Apple and the Pear. The Ab would come in from
the Cmin scale and not the Fmin scale and this would then isolate the
blues from your argument. Blues does not use the tritone sub. Jazz
uses the tritone sub. It is not part of the blues. Once the cycle of
5th establishes the tonality, THEN you can ADD tones to create the Tri-
tone sub. This may or may not come from the tri-tone relationship
inherent in the French 6th. In either case, it is not in the context
of the blues. Does the Fmin scale include the Db and Ab? Yes it does.
Is this related to the tonality of the blues? No it is not.
I hope that this puts it more into context. Again, I am glad that you
are experimenting with relationships to what you are hearing and
looking at. And, your conclusion that II-IV-I is tonal is of course
correct. It is just the paths you have traveled just happen to
coincide. Try to understand how these various contexts relate, but be
aware that they are not in the same context and that one can come to
the correct answer using the incorrect path to get there.
LJS
Orangeboxman
that the implied scale degree 4 is not an augmented fourth.
Tonal music is summarized by "(something)-V(7)-I".
The "something" could be practically anything really, and almost any
amount of it.
LJS
Close.
The something would by definition be a second class chord and
generally related in some manner to the II or the IV chord (these two
are of course relate, I would hope you know that) In CPP tonal music
the "something" is one of these chords so often that it is considered
to be a "rule" by some and would be considered a "convention" by any
literate theorist. It COULD be something else (maybe) but this would
be so rare that it is not generally considered.
On the other point, if you subscribe to the "modal interchange"
concepts that is popular in some decades, you would be eliminating the
Mixolydian mode as a tonal center. A literal reading of your V7 -I
would make MixoL non tonal with modal interchange and the V-I would
eliminate it as tonal straight up.
If you want to argue that Modal center is not tonal center then the
proper way to describe your observation would be to use a term like
"regarding CPP harmony" or in the major/minor system. There are some
that will not consider Modal to be Tonal. In the end, all of these
arguments become a semantic discussion that rarely, if ever, comes to
a decision as it becomes one definition vs. another.
Like I said, close. These are fine points that are only of interest to
those that are truly concerned with accurate statements. These
suggestions do not change the crux of your statement, which is
basically true (well, you should really do something with the
"sometjomg") then you would have a clear statement that would serve as
a workable convention for tonality.
LJS
Orangeboxman
and then by I would not construe a tonal cadence?
LJS
> Can you construct some kind of chord for me which, if followed by V7
> and then by I would not construe a tonal cadence?
I would not even try. I merely suggested that the "something" has
pretty much been defined over the years. If I had something, then I
would not have made that statement. What chord can you put there,
before the dominant, that is both Common Practice AND is not related
to the Subdominant or II chord? I use these two related chords to
allow for the difference of the CPP IV V I cadene and the Jazz II V I
cadence. Both of these are defining cadences in their respective
contexts. The IV in CPP is used as definitive with the period (except
for the ii7/ÎV (first inversion) V I) in spite of the concept of
"moving away from tonic and returning through the cycle of fifths and
and the Jazz version II V I, that literally follows this return
through the 5ths to tonic.
When you used the word SOMETHING, I just pointed out that this would
not have been accepted by my teachers. Too vague and not specific and
I was pointing out that there has been work on this over the years and
the CPP chord prior to that would be of some sort of II or IV. Do you
have examples of some other chord used with this progression? (other
than tonic or another form of the II or IV?
Now if you go to music after the CPP, then you may want to define it
in terms of Tonic First Class and Second Class chords. In that case,
any vertical structure that successfully goes to the first class chord
(dominant in the broader sense) wold be a 2nd class chord by
definition. This terminology is used to account for tonal centers that
are not using the CPP conventions and are used for music in the nature
of Hindemith (and others) and can be used in works that would not be
based on the CPP conventions but rather on tension and relaxation
instead of the Cycle of 5ths. It can, however, also be used to compare
the CPP cadences to more modern chord types and root movements that
use Tension/relaxation or other means of creating a felling of tonal
center. It can also be used in some of the BMI music recorded in
Europe that used light/dark instead of tension or relaxation. It is
only a more flexible way of defining a cadence that is not restrictive
as to the stringent rules of the CPP.
LJS
Joey Goldstein
Well said.
--
Joey Goldstein
<http://www.joeygoldstein.com>
<http://homepage.mac.com/josephgoldstein/AudioClips/audio.htm>
joegold AT primus DOT ca
Orangeboxman
I wouldn't expect you to.
Moreover, as long as you do not try, I intend to maintain the position
that such a chord does not exist.
Have I made my point?
LJS
I must be missing something in your post. Why would I try to find one
that isn't? I didn't say that one existed and I agreed with your post!
Is there some confusion here? I have no problem with your conclusion,
I only responded to your "something" as not being useful. IF you
choose to include the 2nd class chord in your explanation, you should
be more specific. Anything else beyond that is misunderstanding.
LJS
Orangeboxman
"Something" might be too compositionally vague, but it is not to
theoretically vague.
A passage of music can be total crap and still be tonal, even if the
crap part is some jumble of pitches before V7.
I think we're all in basic agreement on this, yes?
Joey Goldstein
Orangeboxman...
You've placed this last post in the thread somehow so that it appears
to be a reply to me, and it was not. It's LJS that you are replying
to.
Please be more careful.
I do not wish to be associated with any comments that this fool LJS
has made.
GoogleGroups' interface allows you to quote the person you are
responding to. Please make better use of this feature.
Thanks.
LJS
I can live with that. Sorry to say that a lot of it is in fact that
way. lol
LJS