G/F#
Jon Slaughter
to effect function but only color. One can say this is a Gmaj7 chord but
this seems to be stretching it.
In fact one can play something like F# in the bass and F in the soprano and
resolve to C-E which seem to act in a dominant like function.
I'm assuming this probably has something to do with the tritone
substitution? Probably some ambiguous thing going on(Sorta maj7 and sorta
dom7) but I kinda like it. It kinda adds a bit of color but still seems to
want to go to the same place.
While I can sorta pretend it is like a D/F# it just has a different feel and
seems to function a little different.
I guess it's one of those things that is due to ambiguity or could simply be
thought of as an embellishment of the C chord. In this case though my ears
sorta hear it as if it is a G chord but it has a little more unsettled
quality. The resolution to the C chord though still just as satisfying which
is unlike the D/F# to C which doesn't feel complete.
D4 C
G3 G
F#2 C
D4 C
A G
F#2 C
Obviously the naive approach is simply to say it is Gmaj7->C and D->C. These
don't seem to take into account how the chord is functioning which is more
like G7. With Gmaj7 one would normally resolve the F# up to G and not to C.
So, is there any better way to notate these chords to express the function
rather than just the notes? G(7)/F#?
Joey Goldstein
I have no idea what you're hearing or going on about, but G/F# (i.e.
Gmaj with F# in the bass) is a 3rd inversion Gmaj7 chord.
Usually, however it's used as a form of F#7sus4b9.
More often than not, when used as F#7sus4, the D will be omitted or
replaced with C#.
IMO, a better chord symbol for this application is Gmaj7b5/F#.
I've never heard G/F# used as a sub for V7 in C major or C minor.
--
Joey Goldstein
<http://www.joeygoldstein.com>
<http://homepage.mac.com/josephgoldstein/AudioClips/audio.htm>
joegold AT primus DOT ca
LJS
wrote:
Without an example from literature that will show exactly what you
mean, I will answer this one on its face and mostly from the subject
of the post.
Take a look at the end of the introduction in Beethoven's Symphony #1
in C major.
Here he sets up long tones with the G7 chord and there is a run, (not
the bass but still a run) up the scale of G major. In this case, there
is a simultaneous sounding of the F# in a G7 chord.
The analysis that I like the best is simply that the G7 chord acts
like the dominant as it usually does and the major scale, the leading
tone, the F#, leads to the "root" of the scale. Thus the F# emphasizes
the keynote of its scale which is also the Root of the Dominant chord.
After the Dominant is established by the harmonic progression which is
in doubt with the first chord of the symphony sounding a Secondary
Dominant that LvB seems to want to make sure that the "offended" ears
are resolved to the true dominant by using the melodic technique to
further establish the Root of the V7 chord. Together, this harmonic
and melodic combination sets up a very strong felling that the G is
not the well established V7 and then this V7 is resolved to the very
secure and save haven of C maj with very tonal and unambiguous tonal
progressions. Thus the "shock" of the Opening Secondary Dominant chord
is resolved and the offended ears may rest easier and enjoy the rest
of the piece.
Maybe this will shed some light on your question. I did notice that
you said G/F# in the subject, but when you start talking about it, you
switch to G7 and F#. There is a slight difference. So this analysis is
only addressing one way to look at this. In the end, its would depend
upon the actual instance. The way that your G/F# was handled may or
may not act as a dominant. IF it does, then it may be the way I said,
or it could be a result of contrapuntal lines that just happen to form
a G chord with both of these tones and the Fnat you added all just
producing (by chance or design) the resultant G or G7 chord with
another voice going to the F# -> G. Or, it might do something else.
Maybe this will help you decide.
LJS
J R Laredo
"Jon Slaughter" <Jon_Sl...@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hc9pk4$fp6$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Why does something like G/F# function like a G7 chord? The F# doesn't seem
> to effect function but only color. One can say this is a Gmaj7 chord but
> this seems to be stretching it.
>
Without knowing what came before or after it is hard to say. I could hear
this with the the next chord being a C6/4: the F# would act as a leading
tone to the G that would be the bass note. So it is not acting really like
a G7 chord, it is just acting like a dominant, and dominants don't have to
be sevenths to be dominants. But, as I and others have stated, it all
depends.
Jon Slaughter
Only difference between the two is one uses a G in the bass and the other an
F#. Both sound very similar to me(as far as function). Obviously the F#
moves a tritone while the G is a P4 hence they are definitely different but
it is not the same as a D to C or a Gmaj7 to C(obviously because of the F in
the soprano).
The F# in the bass seems to have an auxilary function simply as a color
which is quite strange since we generally hear the bass as extremely
functional. In this case(the way I am playing it at least), the upper part
is obviously an implied G7(no B though but it's relatively clear by the
resolution). It's possible that the F# is sorta hinting at the B(as it being
in a P4 relationship).
If what joey has said is true about it being more of an F#7b9 then this
could be a "tritone substitution" where we are playing the tritone of C then
resolving to it. Generally it is substituted but in cpp when such things
started to appear they were used they actually used it preceeding the V
chord.
Hence it could simply be F#7(b9) - C. My ear ears this as completely
different though. My ears sorta hear this as midway between a D/F# - C and a
G7 - D. So I guess it's one of those ambiguous things and notation would
depend on the context. I think my ear leans slightly toward the G7/F#
though.
Anyways, just something I was wondering about because I was supprised when I
played it and it worked as well as it did.
Jon Slaughter
Dominants don't have to be seventh? Actually they do... to be true
dominants. The 7th is implied in all contexts if it is actually a dom chord.
G is G7 in the key of C and not Gmaj7. It is implied by the key. If you play
G-C and have established the key of C then it is a dom chord since the 7th
is implied and not a maj7th.
dim chord are incomplete dominants and again, by context, have the dom
implication. Although I'm not going to argue the point strictly because of
the special nature of dim chords.
So while saying "A dominant doesn't have to have the 7th" is true on the
surface it is always implied or it is not a dominant(unless you want to call
maj7th chords as being dominant).
For example, is G a dominant? If not then why? If so then why?
If you say it depends then it depends on what? (something that starts with a
k?) why does that make it a dominant?
J R Laredo
"Jon Slaughter" <Jon_Sl...@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
>J R Laredo wrote:
>> "Jon Slaughter" <Jon_Sl...@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:hc9pk4$fp6$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> Why does something like G/F# function like a G7 chord? The F#
>>> doesn't seem to effect function but only color. One can say this is
>>> a Gmaj7 chord but this seems to be stretching it.
>>>
>>
>> Without knowing what came before or after it is hard to say. I could
>> hear this with the the next chord being a C6/4: the F# would act as a
>> leading tone to the G that would be the bass note. So it is not
>> acting really like a G7 chord, it is just acting like a dominant, and
>> dominants don't have to be sevenths to be dominants. But, as I and
>> others have stated, it all depends.
>
> Dominants don't have to be seventh? Actually they do... to be true
> dominants.
From the Harvard Dictionary of Music:
"The fifth degree of the major or minor scale, so called on account of
its'dominating' position in harmony as well as in melody. Many melodies
show the fifth as a tone second in importance only to the first degree, the
tonic. However, the fifth degree is even more important in harmony as a
bass tone, i.e., the root of the dominant *triad* (g-b-d' in C major)."
From Materials and Structure of Music:
"The next most important chord within a tonality is the dominant (V),
because in the traditional key schemes of major and minor (and in some
modes) this *triad* coembodies the important dominant and leading tone
melodic relationships."
>The 7th is implied in all contexts if it is actually a dom chord.
No, it is not implied. It might implied as a notation, but, if it is not
being played, it is not being played.
>
> dim chord are incomplete dominants and again, by context, have the dom
> implication. Although I'm not going to argue the point strictly because of
> the special nature of dim chords.
>
> So while saying "A dominant doesn't have to have the 7th" is true on the
> surface it is always implied or it is not a dominant(unless you want to
> call maj7th chords as being dominant).
>
> For example, is G a dominant? If not then why? If so then why?
>
In the key of D, either major or minor, by definition G is not the
dominant.In the key of C, either major or minor, by definition, G is the
dominant.
> If you say it depends then it depends on what? (something that starts with
> a k?) why does that make it a dominant?
>
>
If you are in the key of D major, and put an F# in the bass, then put a G
chord on top of that, and then do *not* resolve to C, then that chord is not
a dominant. It might be different in jazz (note, I say "different" not
wrong or a mistake or anything like that) but in traditional notation and
theory what leads up to a chord and what leads away from a chord can
determine the label given to a chord. All by itself, a chord built of these
heard pitches, G-B-D-F, might be a Dominant seventh. Unless the chord was
spelled G-B-D-E#, and the following chord was F#-A#-C#-F#, then that
Dominant seventh becomes what is sometimes called a German augmented sixth
chord.
Jon Slaughter
> "Jon Slaughter" <Jon_Sl...@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:hcdag9$5ai$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> J R Laredo wrote:
>>> "Jon Slaughter" <Jon_Sl...@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:hc9pk4$fp6$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>> Why does something like G/F# function like a G7 chord? The F#
>>>> doesn't seem to effect function but only color. One can say this is
>>>> a Gmaj7 chord but this seems to be stretching it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Without knowing what came before or after it is hard to say. I
>>> could hear this with the the next chord being a C6/4: the F# would
>>> act as a leading tone to the G that would be the bass note. So it
>>> is not acting really like a G7 chord, it is just acting like a
>>> dominant, and dominants don't have to be sevenths to be dominants. But,
>>> as I and others have stated, it all depends.
>>
>> Dominants don't have to be seventh? Actually they do... to be true
>> dominants.
>> The 7th is implied in all contexts if it is actually a dom chord.
>
> No, it is not implied. It might implied as a notation, but, if it is
> not being played, it is not being played.
>
> From the Harvard Dictionary of Music:
> "The fifth degree of the major or minor scale, so called on account of
> its'dominating' position in harmony as well as in melody. Many
> melodies show the fifth as a tone second in importance only to the
> first degree, the tonic. However, the fifth degree is even more
> important in harmony as a bass tone, i.e., the root of the dominant
> *triad* (g-b-d' in C major)."
We are talking about a chord and not a single note.
> From Materials and Structure of Music:
> "The next most important chord within a tonality is the dominant (V),
> because in the traditional key schemes of major and minor (and in some
> modes) this *triad* coembodies the important dominant and leading tone
> melodic relationships."
And yet Piston says the V is more important(in a tonal sense)
"The presence of the tonic chord itself is not necessary to the
establishment of the key. The dominant is much more important. The
progression IV-V and II-V cannot be interpreted in more than one tonality,
and hence they do not need the tonic chord to show the key. The tonic
following upon one of these progressions is a confirmation of what was
already certain."
Now, the V7 establishes the same harmonic certainty as the IV-V and II-V
does it not? It is an abridged version of that progression, correct?
So what is important about a dominant chord is not the freaken triad but the
triad and the 7th. It says that exactly in the above quoted paragraph. The
7th is implied in the preceeding chord when it is not contained in the
triad. Hence establishing C major as the key establishes that F is implied
rather than F#, right? Or are you saying that F# is prefered over F?
Your statement is completely illogical.
"No, it is not implied. It might implied as a notation, but, if it is
not being played, it is not being played."
What the hell does notation have to do with it? It has to do with tonality
and I'm sorry to say this but you seem to have no clue about it. (specially
considering the other argument we had on tonality) Making a tautology that
has no meaning is not very useful. "if it is not being played, it is not
being played." Ok. are you implying that if it's not being played then it is
not implied?
You don't have any concept of context. The quote by piston says that the
tonic is "implied" by the progression of II or IV to V. It has nothing to do
with notation. So how can C be implied yet not be played?
In any case I'll take piston over you any day. You don't seem to understand
that creating a tonality creates a context. A context is a set of
implications. It's useless to discuss it any more.
J R Laredo
"Jon Slaughter" <Jon_Sl...@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
Yes. You didn't notice the word "triad?"
>
>> From Materials and Structure of Music:
>> "The next most important chord within a tonality is the dominant (V),
>> because in the traditional key schemes of major and minor (and in some
>> modes) this *triad* coembodies the important dominant and leading tone
>> melodic relationships."
>
> And yet Piston says the V is more important(in a tonal sense)
>
> "The presence of the tonic chord itself is not necessary to the
> establishment of the key. The dominant is much more important. The
> progression IV-V and II-V cannot be interpreted in more than one tonality,
> and hence they do not need the tonic chord to show the key. The tonic
> following upon one of these progressions is a confirmation of what was
> already certain."
>
> Now, the V7 establishes the same harmonic certainty as the IV-V and II-V
> does it not? It is an abridged version of that progression, correct?
That is page 36 and 37 of the book. In none of the examples is there a V7.
None. They are all Vs. All. Every single one. And we were not talking
about the abridged version, we were just talking dominant. A dominant chord
can be dominant without the 7th, as is shown in the Piston.
>
> So what is important about a dominant chord is not the freaken triad but
> the triad and the 7th. It says that exactly in the above quoted paragraph.
No. It does not. And you conveniently and misleadingly omit the first
sentence in the paragraph: "The greatest strength of tonality in harmonic
progressions involving ONLY TRIADS..." No sevenths are mentioned at all.
The
> 7th is implied in the preceeding chord when it is not contained in the
> triad. Hence establishing C major as the key establishes that F is
> implied rather than F#, right? Or are you saying that F# is prefered over
> F?
If F is not played, then F is not played. If the tone is not sounded, then,
the tone is not sounded. There is no good reason to pressume that every G
triad will have the F playing at the same time. Using your logic, ALL the
pitches in C are implied, so, why not play every single pitch of the C major
scale in every chord, since establishing C major establishes D and E and F
and G and A and B?
>
> Your statement is completely illogical.
>
> "No, it is not implied. It might implied as a notation, but, if it is
> not being played, it is not being played."
>
> What the hell does notation have to do with it?
Everything. Notation varies among genres. For example, describing a
suspension in a piece by Bach is different from a suspension in a piece by
Corea. In a piece by Bach if in the analysis you write V, then the only
pitches that are present in that chord will be the triad, and no more than
that (discounting doublings). It might be in jazz that writing V
automatically presumes the 7th will always be played, but that is something
that I do not know.
It has to do with tonality
> and I'm sorry to say this but you seem to have no clue about it.
> (specially considering the other argument we had on tonality)
You mean this argument? Where you weren't making much sense?
">> Ab Fm Eb7 Ab | F Bb D7 G
>>
>> and
>>
>> Ab Fm Eb7 Ab | F Bb G7 Cm
>>
>> Do you hear these as tonal or not?
.
Gm has no relationship to the Bb chord? No relationship to the F chord?
Surely you are joking? Am has no relationship to G? no functional
relationship? " It made no sense since in your example, there was no Gm
chord, and no Am chord.
Making a tautology that
> has no meaning is not very useful. "if it is not being played, it is not
> being played." Ok. are you implying that if it's not being played then it
> is not implied?
If the pitch isn't sounding, then it is not sounding. If you press the G
and the B and the D on a keyboard and never ever ever press the F, then you
can not call the chord a dominant 7th. Just an ordinary dominant of C.
That is the definition. Sorry.
>
> You don't have any concept of context. The quote by piston says that the
> tonic is "implied" by the progression of II or IV to V. It has nothing to
> do with notation. So how can C be implied yet not be played?
>
No, the quote does not. Besides, the C is the fifth of the IV chord so in
that case it is played.
>
> In any case I'll take piston over you any day. You don't seem to
> understand that creating a tonality creates a context. A context is a set
> of implications. It's useless to discuss it any more.
Unfortunately, you aren't taking Piston over me. You are presenting out of
context Piston which disagrees with you, and then saying it does agree with
you.
Joey Goldstein
>
> And yet Piston says the V is more important(in a tonal sense)
>
> "The presence of the tonic chord itself is not necessary to the
> establishment of the key. The dominant is much more important. The
> progression IV-V and II-V cannot be interpreted in more than one
> tonality, and hence they do not need the tonic chord to show the key.
> The tonic following upon one of these progressions is a confirmation of
> what was already certain."
Then in my opinion, and I'm about to get lots flack for this here,
Piston is wrong, dead wrong.
If he was right then So What would be in C.
Milestones would be in F.
Oye Como Va would be in F.
Moondance would be in G.
Etc.
Granted, none of these tunes adheres to CPP notions of "key".
And in his sphere the occurrence of IV and V would *have to be followed
by I* at some point. I.e. He assumes that the music he's discussing will
be in a CPP-style key, so the occurrence of IV and V will necessarily
establish that key.
But in music where where CPP-style keys may or may not be expected the
occurrence of a two maj triads whose roots are a maj 2nd apart confirms
no such thing, although it may confirm a scale.
Unless he qualifies that statement somewhere else in his text it's not
really all that helpful or accurate a statement IMO, even in his sphere.
And as far as V always having to be in the form of V7 in order to
possess dominant function in a key, it simply isn't so.
A V triad can perform the function too, perhaps not as well as a full V7
chord, but it can fulfil that function none the less.
You'd be hard pressed, I think, to find CPP examples where V7 was not
used though.
LJS
Joey, Joey, Joey! Is there no limit as to how deep you can put your
foot into your mouth?
This is just too ridiculous to even try to answer. Context errors and
mis matching, down right mis-information and a lack of knowing the
literature is evident in everything mentioned in this post. I am
embarrassed for you.
LJS
Jon Slaughter
First off it is a mathematical thing.
Do you not agree that there is only one tritone per key? Can you find a key
that has two such tritones? Note that the minor keys have the same tritones
as the major by design so we have to ignore that(the melodic minor has two
but it is, at least in CPP, probably never used).
So what is important ist he tritone. Notice that the tritone is the diad of
the two most active tones of a key. So the tritone, in tonality, is the most
important in establishing the key. It, by itself, cannot be heard in any
other way.
B-F
Can you hear that in the key of F#? If so then you are playing games with
your ear. Because that is only in the key of C. Sure you can play it in the
key of F# but keys are not absolute. When you play it in F# you are then
bringing in the key of C in a funky way. It may or may not work depending on
the context. The point being is that just because I define a key does not
mean that other keys are not mixing in. Even in the key of C one has the
keys of F, G, Am, Em, Dm, A, etc... mixed in. The idea of tonality is to try
and bring one key to the forefront so that the others are much weaker.
Atonality is trying to establish them all as equal.
Our brain basically makes what is called a weighted sum of the different
keys. If K(i) is the ith key with K(0) = C, K(1) = G, etc... (doesn't matter
how you order it)
then
sum(w(i)*K(i)) is the what our brain hears. w(i) are the weights. Our brain
weighs which keys(I guess using probability) are being expected and computs
the sum. For tonality the idea is to have one key with w(j) = 1 and all the
other keys with w(j) = 0. This way we have only one key. The problem is that
this is impossible(and may actually not be artistic).
When one is modulating, for example, the weights are changing and some keys
are getting stronger. If you are in the key of F# then the weight for F# is
larger than any other key. How much depends on what you were doing. If it's
not larger then your not in that key.
I'm kinda making it a bit simple as key's really depend on time and there is
the idea of a global and local key. The point is that the mind basically
keeps a list and ranks the keys. The key at the top of the list is what we
call the "key" we are in. For atonality the list, at least ideally, would
be one element with all the keys in it. (we are in all the keys
simultanously with no key being expected over any other one)
In any case the tritone is what is important in establishing key. It is the
definer of key. Playing C does not establish the key but playing G7 or Bdim
does. Using IV-V is a more subtle way of defining C. It is more relaxed and
not in your face.
But realize, with the songs you mentioned, that more is going on. IV-V
creates the expectation we are in C. It raises the weight of that key... it
might not be enough to make it the global key. We see all the time where
secondary dominants are used and they do not establish a new key. D7 in C
does not establish G as the key. It depends on a lot of factors.
The main point is that you shouldn't see a key as only one thing that can
exist at any point in time. Similarly how one says "The key of C major are
the notes C D E F G A B". All keys consist of all the tones(even non-12ET).
Our brain simply has some method of saying "This one is expected more than
that one" and makes a list. The list is always changing and being
updated(and different for different people). When one key in the list stands
out then we say we are in that key. When all keys are about on the same
footing we would say it is atonal which could even happen in a tonal piece
but would be very difficult.
As far as function goes, G7, Bdim(7), F-G, Dm-G all have the same function.
Even such things as Fdim-G would function in the key of C since it contains
the tritone. The problem is that F contains it's own tritone and this
conflicts with melodic one. The F-Cb is more direct and probably would
override the F-B in most cases. So even though the group Fdim-G points to C
the Fdim points to Gb(m), Db(m), or A(m). It would be a very weak
progression tonaly since it doesn't really say much as far as function goes.
(it's ambiguous in general... may work in some cases)
When you are hearing key I imagine you are simply hearing the most likely
key rather than the whole "list"(or at least the top most 5 keys, say).
It's kinda like chess. You can play with looking only one move ahead or 5
moves. Each time you move you gotta recalculate your list for "best moves"
unless you know how the other person will move(say because of fundamental
rules of the game or expected behavior).
In fact, if you know much about chess, I would say this analogy is pretty
good since it involves many of the same processes that the mind uses and
both involve rules and expected behavior. (The rules in music are not as
stringent as in chess but you can easily move the knight in any way you want
or make up some other rules... or play a different game such as go which
still is functionally identical on an abstract level)
For example, you can play chess by changing the rules. It just creates a new
list. The brain still does the same kinda stuff. The outcomes will be
different of course. If you are playing against someone using the standard
rules it is a good idea to use the standard rules yourself if you don't
wanna piss them off. Analogy is: If you are creating music for some person
who expects X then you should give them X. Note that expecting the
unexpected is expecting. (i.e., some people expects being supprised)
>
> And as far as V always having to be in the form of V7 in order to
> possess dominant function in a key, it simply isn't so.
> A V triad can perform the function too, perhaps not as well as a full
> V7 chord, but it can fulfil that function none the less.
> You'd be hard pressed, I think, to find CPP examples where V7 was not
> used though.
No, your misinterpretting what I said. The 7th of the chord is implied by
the key. When you setup a tonal context you are implieing certain notes as
more logical than others. (logical isn't really the best word as I know it
will go against your philosophical beliefs)
I'm not going to get into it though. I'll I'm saying is that the idea of
"key" or tonal center is a set of expectations setup and the mind is
supprised when those expectations are changed. This is not a musical idea,
it happens in every aspect of life. For most people, if the key of C is
firmly established(and not C lydian) then F is expected over F#. Hence when
a G chord is played your mind sorta adds the F rather than the F#. I'm not
saying it adds the pitch but it knows that in that context the F is more
natural so it knows that the G chord is dominant functioning(or, rather,
expects it to be). If one was to play Gmaj7 then it would be slighly
supprising. Again, assuming we are not drifing out of C into G.
The mind keeps a mental checklist of the hiearchy of notes(this is exactly
what the idea of tonality is). Do you not a great, at least in CPP, that
when a primary tone(the root, P4, or P5) is altered that it almost always is
not the root of the new chord. In C, if a C# is used then it is almost
always the 3rd and used as a secondary dominant. Why? Because C# as a root
is generally much more unexpected but altering the mode of a chord is not as
big a deal. i.e., if we change the root from C to C# we are sorta changing
tonics(even though it might be temporary our minds simply don't know what to
expect unless it is some common thing done). Our minds don't have a big
issue with changing the mode of a chord but it is generally still slightly
unexpected.
J R Laredo
"Jon Slaughter" <Jon_Sl...@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
?
Well, yeah. The F# major scale is F# G# A# B C# D# E#. And E# is the
enharmonic of F. So there is the same tritone in F# that there is in C,
which is not a surprise since C and F# are a tri-tone apart.
J R Laredo
"Joey Goldstein" <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:47af0$4aea7ba9$d8fecfcc$85...@PRIMUS.CA...
> Jon Slaughter wrote:
>>
>> And yet Piston says the V is more important(in a tonal sense)
>>
>> "The presence of the tonic chord itself is not necessary to the
>> establishment of the key. The dominant is much more important. The
>> progression IV-V and II-V cannot be interpreted in more than one
>> tonality, and hence they do not need the tonic chord to show the key. The
>> tonic following upon one of these progressions is a confirmation of what
>> was already certain."
>
> Then in my opinion, and I'm about to get lots flack for this here, Piston
> is wrong, dead wrong.
You'll get no flack from me.
Piston tended to play fast and loose with terminology, saying one thing when
obviously meaning another, like the quoted passage. He can only mean those
progressions determine a key signature, not necessarily a key, otherwise, he
is assuming that composers never use the natural minor.
>
> If he was right then So What would be in C.
> Milestones would be in F.
> Oye Como Va would be in F.
> Moondance would be in G.
> Etc.
>
> Granted, none of these tunes adheres to CPP notions of "key".
> And in his sphere the occurrence of IV and V would *have to be followed by
> I* at some point. I.e. He assumes that the music he's discussing will be
> in a CPP-style key, so the occurrence of IV and V will necessarily
> establish that key.
> But in music where where CPP-style keys may or may not be expected the
> occurrence of a two maj triads whose roots are a maj 2nd apart confirms no
> such thing, although it may confirm a scale.
> Unless he qualifies that statement somewhere else in his text it's not
> really all that helpful or accurate a statement IMO, even in his sphere.
>
> And as far as V always having to be in the form of V7 in order to possess
> dominant function in a key, it simply isn't so.
> A V triad can perform the function too, perhaps not as well as a full V7
> chord, but it can fulfil that function none the less.
> You'd be hard pressed, I think, to find CPP examples where V7 was not used
> though.
>
>
Not that hard pressed. The first 7 bars of the Bach Prelude #1 in C Major
consists of this chord progression:
I-ii4/2-V6/5 (this is the dominant 7th) I-vi6-V4/2 of V-V6.
Whenever a composer wants to soften the inevitability of a cadence the
seventh is often omitted.
Joey Goldstein
If you say so.
> Do you not agree that there is only one tritone per key?
In major keys that is true.
In minor keys it is not true.
> Can you find a
> key that has two such tritones?
Yes. The key of A minor has 3 potential tritones, of which are the
result of musica ficta:
B-F, D-G# and C-F#.
> Note that the minor keys have the same
> tritones as the major by design so we have to ignore that
The resolution of the diatonic tritone between scale degrees b6 and 2 of
the natural minor scale has a tendency to make scale b3 sound like it's
the tonic. That's why minor keys, especially in CPP, have the artificial
leading tone grafted in so that a second tritone can be resolved as a
stronger pointer to the intended tonic.
There are classical theorists who would say that a minor key without 2
tritones is not really a minor key.
> (the melodic
> minor has two but it is, at least in CPP, probably never used).
Nonsense.
> So what is important ist he tritone. Notice that the tritone is the diad
FYI
It's actually spelled "dyad". I used to make that mistake too.
> of the two most active tones of a key.
Given a setting in which a major key has been established, or is about
to be established, the leading tone and the subdominant will be the most
active tones.
But in minor keys the most active tones are scale degree b6 and the
leading tone, and they do not form a tritone together. In minor keys,
the subdominant is not an active tone.
> So the tritone, in tonality, is
> the most important in establishing the key.
Assuming that what you want to do is to establish a major key, the
tritone between the leading tone and the subdominant is certainly very
handy. But the key can still be established without it.
Assuming that what you want to do is to establish a minor key, the
tritone between the leading tone and the subdominant is not nearly as
important. The important feature is actually the leading tone, not the
tritone.
> It, by itself, cannot be
> heard in any other way.
Of course it can.
> B-F
>
> Can you hear that in the key of F#?
Of course not. Those notes are not in the key of F#.
But they are in the keys of A minor, Gb major, Gb minor and Eb minor.
> If so then you are playing games
> with your ear. Because that is only in the key of C.
Nonsense. If we're in 12TET and we're only talking about major keys then
you have to see those two notes as forming the tonal tritone in both C
and Gb.
> Sure you can play
> it in the key of F# but keys are not absolute.
WTF?
> When you play it in F#
> you are then bringing in the key of C in a funky way.
WTF?
> It may or may not
> work depending on the context.
Jon. The tritone formed between B (aka "Cb") and F can be used to
establish the key of Gb just as easily as it can be used to establish
the key of C.
It all depends on *how* it is used.
> The point being is that just because I
> define a key does not mean that other keys are not mixing in. Even in
> the key of C one has the keys of F, G, Am, Em, Dm, A, etc... mixed in.
> The idea of tonality is to try and bring one key to the forefront so
> that the others are much weaker.
I wouldn't say it like that, but essentially I agree with the above quote.
> Atonality is trying to establish them
> all as equal.
Atonality is an attempt to destroy any sense of key or of a tonal centre
as it arises. It's kind of futile, because tonal centres *always* arise
in one form or another.
> Our brain basically makes what is called a weighted sum of the different
> keys. If K(i) is the ith key with K(0) = C, K(1) = G, etc... (doesn't
> matter how you order it)
>
> then
>
> sum(w(i)*K(i)) is the what our brain hears. w(i) are the weights. Our
> brain weighs which keys(I guess using probability) are being expected
> and computs the sum. For tonality the idea is to have one key with w(j)
> = 1 and all the other keys with w(j) = 0. This way we have only one key.
> The problem is that this is impossible(and may actually not be artistic).
>
> When one is modulating, for example, the weights are changing and some
> keys are getting stronger.
>
> If you are in the key of F# then the weight
> for F# is larger than any other key. How much depends on what you were
> doing. If it's not larger then your not in that key.
That may be true if the musical style being discussed is known to always
be in a "key". But some music doesn't fit that description.
> I'm kinda making it a bit simple as key's really depend on time and
> there is the idea of a global and local key. The point is that the mind
> basically keeps a list and ranks the keys. The key at the top of the
> list is what we call the "key" we are in.
Jon. In Tonal music the music is always in a single key at any one time,
otherwise it's not Tonal music.
Secondary keys are very real. They are just not labelled as such within
a tonal analysis because they don't last long enough to take hold in the
ear.
> For atonality the list, at
> least ideally, would be one element with all the keys in it. (we are in
> all the keys simultanously with no key being expected over any other one)
I think you're confusing "atonality" with several other post-CPP
techniques that are involved with types of tonal centres that can not
rightly be called "keys". (Pan-tonality, pan-diatonicism, pan-modalism,
etc.)
Atonality, as I understand it, is the attempt to negate any feeling of a
tonal centre.
> In any case the tritone is what is important in establishing key.
Sure, but it's not the only tool in the kit.
> It is
> the definer of key.
It's *a* definer, not *the* definer.
> Playing C does not establish the key but playing G7
> or Bdim does.
Playing Cmaj Fmaj Gmaj Cmaj (depending on the harmonic rhythm)
establishes a key just as well.
> Using IV-V is a more subtle way of defining C. It is more
> relaxed and not in your face.
Not unless you arrive at a C chord.
> But realize, with the songs you mentioned, that more is going on. IV-V
> creates the expectation we are in C.
First of all, the designation "IV-V" already implies that a key exists.
what you're really trying to say is that two maj triads whose roots are
a whole step apart will always function as IV and V, and that's just not
true, unless you're only looking at music that is in a maj or min key to
begn with anyway.
When *I* hear Cmaj Bbmaj Cmaj, I don't hear the key of F major unless an
Fmaj chord is arrived at. What I hear is a post-CPP type of key, for
want of a better word, of C major with a mixolydian scale colour
attached to it.
> It raises the weight of that key...
> it might not be enough to make it the global key. We see all the time
> where secondary dominants are used and they do not establish a new key.
Actually, yes they do.
Secondary dominants, by definition establish a new key. It's just not
the primary key. It's a secondary key.
> D7 in C does not establish G as the key.
Err. Ummm. Yes it does.
It's just not labelled as such unless the key of G lasts long enough to
take hold in the ear.
> It depends on a lot of factors.
>
> The main point is that you shouldn't see a key as only one thing that
> can exist at any point in time. Similarly how one says "The key of C
> major are the notes C D E F G A B". All keys consist of all the
> tones(even non-12ET).
I don't think that's really true.
> Our brain simply has some method of saying "This one is expected more
> than that one" and makes a list. The list is always changing and being
> updated(and different for different people). When one key in the list
> stands out then we say we are in that key.
One of the big strengths of the maj/min key system is that once the
listener is acclimatised to the devices that are used to establish a
key, what you say above is true for the most part. Composers working
within the maj/min key system, using all of its expectation-generating
devices, are capable of starting in one key then moving to many other
keys while still keeping the threads that pull back to the original key
active.
But all of that assumes that the music will be composed within the
maj/min key system. Lots of music, like modern pan-modal jazz, isn't
composed within the maj/min key system. In music like this, tritones can
be used for all sorts of other things, besides establishing a "key".
> When all keys are about on
> the same footing we would say it is atonal
I'd call music like that "pan-Tonal", not atonal.
> which could even happen in a
> tonal piece but would be very difficult.
Huh?
>> And as far as V always having to be in the form of V7 in order to
>> possess dominant function in a key, it simply isn't so.
>> A V triad can perform the function too, perhaps not as well as a full
>> V7 chord, but it can fulfil that function none the less.
>> You'd be hard pressed, I think, to find CPP examples where V7 was not
>> used though.
>
> No, your misinterpretting what I said.
How so?
> The 7th of the chord is implied
> by the key.
Once a key has been established, I'd agree that if a Vmaj triad was
going to have a 7th degree that it would be implied that it would be a
min 7th rather than a maj 7th or a dim 7th. A maj 7th chordal degree
would be quite unexpected. And that's one of the reasons why a Vmaj
triad can be used instead of V7 as a dominant function chord within a key.
But I thought you were saying that a Vmaj triad did not have D function?
> When you setup a tonal context you are implieing certain
> notes as more logical than others. (logical isn't really the best word
> as I know it will go against your philosophical beliefs)
WTF?
> I'm not going to get into it though. I'll I'm saying is that the idea of
> "key" or tonal center is a set of expectations setup and the mind is
> supprised when those expectations are changed.
Not every tonal centre is a "key".
A "key" is a special type of tonal centre that must adhere to certain
conventions, otherwise it is some other type of tonal centre.
> This is not a musical
> idea, it happens in every aspect of life. For most people, if the key of
> C is firmly established(and not C lydian) then F is expected over F#.
> Hence when a G chord is played your mind sorta adds the F rather than
> the F#. I'm not saying it adds the pitch but it knows that in that
> context the F is more natural so it knows that the G chord is dominant
> functioning(or, rather, expects it to be).
Fine then. We agree. The Vmaj triad can be used as a D function chord.
Joey Goldstein
> Jon Slaughter wrote:
>> Joey Goldstein wrote:
>>> Jon Slaughter wrote:
>>>>
>> B-F
>>
>> Can you hear that in the key of F#?
>
> Of course not. Those notes are not in the key of F#.
> But they are in the keys of A minor, Gb major, Gb minor and Eb minor.
Ooops. I wasn't reading or thinking clearly here.
Obviously my answer should have been yes.
I just usually think of B-F as being enharmonic to Gb rather than to F#,
as is obvious from my other comments.
>> If so then you are playing games with your ear. Because that is only
>> in the key of C.
>
> Nonsense. If we're in 12TET and we're only talking about major keys then
> you have to see those two notes as forming the tonal tritone in both C
> and Gb.
--
Joey Goldstein
> Whenever a composer wants to soften the inevitability of a cadence the
> seventh is often omitted.
Thanks. That's good to know.
I'd been under the impression that V7 was more or less universal in CPP
era music.
LJS
wrote:
> "Joey Goldstein" <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
>
> news:47af0$4aea7ba9$d8fecfcc$85...@PRIMUS.CA...
>
> > Jon Slaughter wrote:
>
> >> And yet Piston says the V is more important(in a tonal sense)
>
> >> "The presence of the tonic chord itself is not necessary to the
> >> establishment of the key. The dominant is much more important. The
> >> progression IV-V and II-V cannot be interpreted in more than one
> >> tonality, and hence they do not need the tonic chord to show the key. The
> >> tonic following upon one of these progressions is a confirmation of what
> >> was already certain."
>
> > Then in my opinion, and I'm about to get lots flack for this here, Piston
> > is wrong, dead wrong.
>
> You'll get no flack from me.
>
> Piston tended to play fast and loose with terminology, saying one thing when
> obviously meaning another, like the quoted passage. He can only mean those
> progressions determine a key signature, not necessarily a key, otherwise, he
> is assuming that composers never use the natural minor.
>
It is sometimes easy to forget that Piston was a modern composer but
was writing about, or rather, synthesizing, analyses of the CPP. Just
as the homophonic hymns are the core and fundamental examples of pure
melody and harmony, so is the functional harmony of Piston. He did not
make this stuff up. His harmonic theory represents the functional
harmony of the CPP and in the CPP, the Dominant determines the key. In
FUNCTIONAL harmony, the dominant is the only chord type that is common
to both major and both the raised leading tone keys of minor. The Pure
minor is not "functional" in the CPP music. It is a carry over from
earlier modal harmonies. IF Piston would have included modal theory in
his Harmnic Theory, there would be other patterns and chords that
determine a key. Maybe bVII I would be one, but in the music that he
used as the source and scope of his harmonic theory a IV-V progression
actually does establish an expected resolution and a resolution to an
expected color for that key as well. You pointed this out when you (or
Joey, not sure) mentioned that you could get a scale from these two
chords but not a key. Well think about that a bit.
If they define a scale, this seems very sugestive of a key. And when
you put this suggestion in the context of music that uses more IV-V
progressions and their cousin II-IV which is the more current
application of deciding what "scale" to use. Well, it is just as easy
to think along the lines of they give you the Key that contains this
scale. That is the crux of your agrement of his being "wrong". You can
disagree with the terminology, but when you limit the scope of what
Piston's Harmony is to the music that is considered typical of the
functional harmonic style of music, everything he says fits right in
with what went on.
In general, I find the perception of this distinction to be divided
into groups somewhat along the lines of those that think of harmony in
a series of vertical structures will think that these chords indicate
a scale and those that hear the harmony in a more contrapuntal style
will think that the Dominant provides the expected key (and the IV
predicts the major/minor aspect) The fact is simply that in functional
harmony, this progression defines the notes in both the scale and the
key. You can call it what you will, but Piston is not wrong. There are
other ways to see things, but his way stands up to the context of his
harmonic scope and this is from the CPP through all future uses of
FUNCTIONAL harmony.
Jon Slaughter
>
> In major keys that is true.
> In minor keys it is not true.
>
>> Can you find a
>> key that has two such tritones?
>
> Yes. The key of A minor has 3 potential tritones, of which are the
> result of musica ficta:
> B-F, D-G# and C-F#.
The natural minor only has one such interval. Since B-F points to C cannot
be used in A minor if it points to C as the tonic unless one wants to weaken
the tonic of A minor. The harmonic minor was formed to get an imitation of
the relative major. B-F points to C so G# D points to A minor. G#-D can also
be seen as being borrowed from the parallel major.
The melodic minor is just that. The altered tones are melodic. While it is
possible that such triton intervals could be used harmonically they are
generally not in CPP precisely because they weaken the tonic function.
Remember, mostly the melodic minor is used on the dominant harmony and the
reason is to make the intervals more melodic... they also are generally used
only in ascending form because of the leading tone form. It, according to
the experts, came from the harmonic minor to get a more melodic interval
than the +2. The harmonic minor came from the natural minor to get a
harmonic trione that points to the tonic.
>> Note that the minor keys have the same
>> tritones as the major by design so we have to ignore that
>
> The resolution of the diatonic tritone between scale degrees b6 and 2
> of the natural minor scale has a tendency to make scale b3 sound like
> it's the tonic. That's why minor keys, especially in CPP, have the
> artificial leading tone grafted in so that a second tritone can be
> resolved as a stronger pointer to the intended tonic.
> There are classical theorists who would say that a minor key without 2
> tritones is not really a minor key.
Exactly. This is what I've said above. You might be right in that a minor
key needs 2 tritones but in the sense of the natural mode of major there is
only one. I understand what your saying but since those tritones come from
an artificial(your word, not mine) alteration of the major form then we can
say there is only one tritone per mode of the major scale(and it doesn't
change).
>
>> (the melodic
>> minor has two but it is, at least in CPP, probably never used).
>
> Nonsense.
>
No, you misunderstood. I do not mean the melodic minor was never used but
that the extra tritone is not used. It actually has 3. We have B F from the
natural and harmonic. G# D from the harmonic and F# C from the melodic.
Generally the F#-C is not used in a harmonic way in minor, at least in CPP.
>> So what is important ist he tritone. Notice that the tritone is the
>> diad
>
> FYI
> It's actually spelled "dyad". I used to make that mistake too.
hehe. yeah, I should have known. They use it in mathematics too. I knew it
looked funny.
>
>> of the two most active tones of a key.
>
> Given a setting in which a major key has been established, or is about
> to be established, the leading tone and the subdominant will be the
> most active tones.
> But in minor keys the most active tones are scale degree b6 and the
> leading tone, and they do not form a tritone together. In minor keys,
> the subdominant is not an active tone.
No, in minor the B-F is still a tritone and it needs resolution. You can't
say that the tritone G#-D needs resolution in the key of A(m) but B-F does
not. A minor started as a mode of major. Generally G7 still resolves to C in
Am because of that. I agree that it is weaker but I think we really need to
think of the "key" as a collection of tonics. The list stuff I mentioned.
Even in C we have Am, G mixolydian, A aeolian, etc... competting. This is
why it's pretty easy to go from the major to it's parallel minor and vice
versa. They are relatively close.
>> So the tritone, in tonality, is
>> the most important in establishing the key.
>
> Assuming that what you want to do is to establish a major key, the
> tritone between the leading tone and the subdominant is certainly very
> handy. But the key can still be established without it.
Can you show me how? Just one example... do it in a separate post if you
want so we can be clear.
> Assuming that what you want to do is to establish a minor key, the
> tritone between the leading tone and the subdominant is not nearly as
> important. The important feature is actually the leading tone, not the
> tritone.
The leading tone forms a tritone with the 4th step. In minor it is by
design. I understand the minor has another tritone but the new one is
artificial EXACTLY because the other tritone does not help establish the
minor tonic. It does a little since the submediant contains the two tones
the tritone resolves to.
>> It, by itself, cannot be
>> heard in any other way.
>
> Of course it can.
>
>> B-F
>>
>> Can you hear that in the key of F#?
>
> Of course not. Those notes are not in the key of F#.
> But they are in the keys of A minor, Gb major, Gb minor and Eb minor.
Your right. But I'm thinking that the minor's are just modes of the major. I
should have been more clear. If we take a diatonic set of notes then there
is only one tritone excluding the altered forms of minor which, as you said,
are artificial.
Now, your right, the tritone exists only in 2 keys(or diatonic pitch classes
or whatever). C and Gb. So B-F may be heard in either one depend on the
resolution. In fact the discussion was suppose to be about dominant chords
and my move to triones was wrong. G-B-F establishes the key uniquely. That
is the 4th, 5th, and 7th scale step in major define the diatonic pitch class
uniquely.
I kinda added the tritone because I forgot the dominant note was also
important. V7(no5th) is good enough to establish the key. Note that it is
not good enough to establish mode. It's a bit ambiguous because I'm thinking
of Am as a mode of Cmaj and the key of Cmaj includes that of Aminor. Key may
not be the correct term but I do not know what else to call it.
>
>> If so then you are playing games
>> with your ear. Because that is only in the key of C.
>
> Nonsense. If we're in 12TET and we're only talking about major keys
> then you have to see those two notes as forming the tonal tritone in
> both C and Gb.
Your right. Add G and then it is unambiguous. This is why I said the
dominant7th uniquely establishes the key. I kinda went overboard by using
just the tritone. But you would agree then that the tritone establishes the
possibility of only 2 keys(Mathematically.
The reason I got confused is I was thinking B-F is in C and forgot the
enharmonic equivalent. In Gb it is spelled Cb-F.
>> Atonality is trying to establish them
>> all as equal.
>
> Atonality is an attempt to destroy any sense of key or of a tonal
> centre as it arises. It's kind of futile, because tonal centres
> *always* arise in one form or another.
>
Yes but since you can never remove them the best you can do is make them all
have an equal footing? Or at least try. Would that not be the goal of
"a-tonal"? If tonality is the establishment of one tonal center over all the
others then by having them all equal there is no single one that is more
established. Obviously in practice this is probably impossible.
>> Our brain basically makes what is called a weighted sum of the
>> different keys. If K(i) is the ith key with K(0) = C, K(1) = G,
>> etc... (doesn't matter how you order it)
>>
>> then
>>
>> sum(w(i)*K(i)) is the what our brain hears. w(i) are the weights. Our
>> brain weighs which keys(I guess using probability) are being expected
>> and computs the sum. For tonality the idea is to have one key with
>> w(j) = 1 and all the other keys with w(j) = 0. This way we have only
>> one key. The problem is that this is impossible(and may actually not
>> be artistic). When one is modulating, for example, the weights are
>> changing and
>> some keys are getting stronger.
>>
>> If you are in the key of F# then the weight
>> for F# is larger than any other key. How much depends on what you
>> were doing. If it's not larger then your not in that key.
>
> That may be true if the musical style being discussed is known to
> always be in a "key". But some music doesn't fit that description.
You mean music that isn't based on keys?
>
>> I'm kinda making it a bit simple as key's really depend on time and
>> there is the idea of a global and local key. The point is that the
>> mind basically keeps a list and ranks the keys. The key at the top
>> of the list is what we call the "key" we are in.
>
> Jon. In Tonal music the music is always in a single key at any one
> time, otherwise it's not Tonal music.
> Secondary keys are very real. They are just not labelled as such
> within a tonal analysis because they don't last long enough to take hold
> in
> the ear.
>
I disagree with this. When you say music is in a single key you seem to be
saying that no other keys could possibly be heard. First off there are
instances when tonal music is ambiguous and could be in several keys(it's
just relatively rare but there are small pieces that have some strangeness
to them).
You agreed with me that a our brains basically make a list and we call the
key the top one on the list. But then what about the second one in the list?
If it's close to being the top dog then isn't it sorta competing with the
other one? You think that it just pop's up and takes over from nowhere?
The way I see it is like this:
C: C->D->G G:
X: means the key is established.
Our mind creates this hypothetical list starting with the first chord.
C
Am, G,
F, Em, Dm
...
Gb
...
I'm just going to take the first 3 since they.
I'm going to give them weights.
C=0.2
Am=0.1, G=0.1
Now when the D comes along we get
C=0.15
Am=0.05, G=0.12
And on the G we have
C=0.15
Am=0.03, G=0.14
Then when G is established
G=0.2
Em=0.1, C=0.1
So the local key is the top guy in the list. But we are actually hearing a
set of keys. We just choose the most obvious one... i.e., the top guy in the
list. Our brains don't even tell us the list because it's too confusing. It
just gives us the top guy(since it believes that is most likely choice).
Sometimes the list gets ambiguous where we have something like
G=0.1, Bb=0.1, Db=0.1, E=0.1
Say, if we play an F#dim7 chord. Here our brains don't know which is the
key. Actually whatever key we were in before the chord probably will be at
the top. It depends on the context. If the musical piece setup the
expectation of always having a minor key follow the diminished chord then
the list would be different.
(I'm not saying the mind actually makes a list but basically thats how I
interpret it)
>> For atonality the list, at
>> least ideally, would be one element with all the keys in it. (we are
>> in all the keys simultanously with no key being expected over any
>> other one)
>
> I think you're confusing "atonality" with several other post-CPP
> techniques that are involved with types of tonal centres that can not
> rightly be called "keys". (Pan-tonality, pan-diatonicism,
> pan-modalism, etc.)
> Atonality, as I understand it, is the attempt to negate any feeling
> of a tonal centre.
Yes, so how can you do that? by forcing all the tonal centers to exist on
the same level. (or trying)
Pandiatonicim would be having two keys established... but the rest are still
weak.
Something like C=0.102040 and G = 0.105243 are at the top of the list (at
any moment one may be heard as the tonic but the goal is to make them equal)
>> In any case the tritone is what is important in establishing key.
>
> Sure, but it's not the only tool in the kit.
Yes. Actually it's not just the tritone but the dominant scale step too. I
kinda got off. I understand that in the alterned minor forms it is
different, but again, as you stated it is artificial.
>> Playing C does not establish the key but playing G7
>> or Bdim does.
>
> Playing Cmaj Fmaj Gmaj Cmaj (depending on the harmonic rhythm)
> establishes a key just as well.
Yes but it is either C or F. G7 tells us we are in C. (not Bdim... again, I
was wrong)
>> Using IV-V is a more subtle way of defining C. It is more
>> relaxed and not in your face.
>
> Not unless you arrive at a C chord.
I think you are right. I think I was assuming that the resolutions were done
in the key that I was trying to define.
>
>> But realize, with the songs you mentioned, that more is going on.
>> IV-V creates the expectation we are in C.
>
> First of all, the designation "IV-V" already implies that a key
> exists. what you're really trying to say is that two maj triads whose
> roots are a whole step apart will always function as IV and V, and that's
> just
> not true, unless you're only looking at music that is in a maj or min
> key to begn with anyway.
> When *I* hear Cmaj Bbmaj Cmaj, I don't hear the key of F major unless
> an Fmaj chord is arrived at. What I hear is a post-CPP type of key,
> for want of a better word, of C major with a mixolydian scale colour
> attached to it.
>
Well, you might be right. My point was the implication. You give that
example and you say you don't hear it as the key of F. What piston said my
presuppose that tonality exists. This supposes that there are more chords
than the IV-V going on. I think that you are right in that IV-V is not tonal
by itself. I imagine piston did not actually mean that though.
What I think piston is getting at, and what we are differing on, is that if
the piece is tonal then IV-V firmly establishes the key(at least locally).
This is because it contains all the scale steps of the key except for the
3rd and root. FAC-GBD
But as I said before G7 is unique only to one key(assuming the minor is a
mode). That is, if you simply write out all the major scales you'll find
only one with G7. (I understand that Cm also has G7 in it's harmonic form
but generally the mode does not matter as far as the tonic is concerned(both
are C)
Basically G7 points to a king of C triad(M or m). F-G is basically saying
the same thing... not as succinct.
So, if we are in a tonal context, which I was assuming and probably piston,
then it should be clear. You are right that if the music is not tonal then
that is not necessarily true.
>> It raises the weight of that key...
>> it might not be enough to make it the global key. We see all the time
>> where secondary dominants are used and they do not establish a new
>> key.
>
> Actually, yes they do.
> Secondary dominants, by definition establish a new key. It's just not
> the primary key. It's a secondary key.
Ok, this is what I was saying about the weights. They don't establish a new
key though. Its semantics. They do increase the weights. they could
establish a new key but in general don't. You are calling it a secondary key
but I have never heard that. Locally you are right. (remember, my lists
depend on time and there are ones at all levels)
>> D7 in C does not establish G as the key.
>
> Err. Ummm. Yes it does.
> It's just not labelled as such unless the key of G lasts long enough
> to take hold in the ear.
This is why I said D7 in C... i.e., in the key of C. If we are in the key of
C then G was not established... hence it didn't. It's basically a tautology.
Really it says nothing and was a useless statement that is vacuously true.
>> It depends on a lot of factors.
>>
>> The main point is that you shouldn't see a key as only one thing that
>> can exist at any point in time. Similarly how one says "The key of C
>> major are the notes C D E F G A B". All keys consist of all the
>> tones(even non-12ET).
>
> I don't think that's really true.
In C, we can play C#, F#, something betwene C and C#, etc...
Surely you do this all the time? When your slightly out of tune, etc... Or
when you use chromatics. It doesn't ruin the key center, does it? This is
what I mean that all notes are in the key. We just take the top 7 notes as
being the bread and better. We call them the diatonic notes... but surely C#
is still in the "key"? (it's just not diatonic and not as closely related)
>
>> Our brain simply has some method of saying "This one is expected more
>> than that one" and makes a list. The list is always changing and
>> being updated(and different for different people). When one key in
>> the list stands out then we say we are in that key.
>
> One of the big strengths of the maj/min key system is that once the
> listener is acclimatised to the devices that are used to establish a
> key, what you say above is true for the most part. Composers working
> within the maj/min key system, using all of its expectation-generating
> devices, are capable of starting in one key then moving to many other
> keys while still keeping the threads that pull back to the original
> key active.
> But all of that assumes that the music will be composed within the
> maj/min key system. Lots of music, like modern pan-modal jazz, isn't
> composed within the maj/min key system. In music like this, tritones
> can be used for all sorts of other things, besides establishing a
> "key".
Your probably right. While I know what you can do all sorta of things and
tritones, for example, can be used any way one wants, and in that sense it
does not establish key, from a cpp perspective they do(the trione does 2
keys(ignoring mode) but depends on the resolution. B-F with B acting as the
LT does not point to Gb).
But atonal music can surely use such without establishing key. (on a minute
scale it might though)
>> When all keys are about on
>> the same footing we would say it is atonal
>
> I'd call music like that "pan-Tonal", not atonal.
serialism is a technique used to achieve atonality. I'm not sure what you
mean by atonal but if you mean something that is non tonal then it is
exactly what I mean.
If you have all keys equally established then no key is established and no
key is heard as a tonal center. Hence there is no tonal center(or the tonal
center is of all the keys mixed equally).
For example, when you mix the three primary colors equally you get black(or
grey). We tend to think of those as being "Without color" but actually they
contain all the colors. White light, as you know, contains all the colors
yet we generally don't think of it as such.
So to me "atonality" contains all the keys in a simultanous fashion. That is
the goal. On a very local scale(say note to note) some keys might actually
be slightly more established than others since our brain never knows whats
going on. If all you do is listen to atonal music then it might not be so
much. But if your mind is conditioned to tonal music then your mind is
always trying to look for the tonal aspect.
>> The 7th of the chord is implied
>> by the key.
>
> Once a key has been established, I'd agree that if a Vmaj triad was
> going to have a 7th degree that it would be implied that it would be a
> min 7th rather than a maj 7th or a dim 7th. A maj 7th chordal degree
> would be quite unexpected. And that's one of the reasons why a Vmaj
> triad can be used instead of V7 as a dominant function chord within a
> key. But I thought you were saying that a Vmaj triad did not have D
> function?
No. I'm saying exactly what you just said. That there is an implicit
function(this is what me and JR were arguing about). That the whole idea of
establishing a key(or tonal center or whatever), or probably, is to have
such "expectations" setup or implied.
Something can't be unexpected unless something was expected. But to have
something expected something must be implied. Like, on halloween it is
expected that children will dress up and go around asking for candy. This is
an implication of the halloween holiday. i.e., it's implied by our culture
and since it's implied and has been established we expect it.
All I was trying to get across to JR is basically what you go. That the F,
when the key of C is established as the tonal center, is expected over the
F# on the dominant chord. On the supertonic it kinda goes both ways but the
F is still slightly more expected. (it's not as bad though)
> Fine then. We agree. The Vmaj triad can be used as a D function chord.
Hehe... I nevers said it didn't. My point was only that V triad implies that
it is a V7. V=V7 when you have setup the a tonal context. Why? Because the
7th comes for "free". JR said that you had to have the 7th played(sounded)
to know. I say that you don't because the whole point of the key is to setup
the context that P4 is chosen over the +4.
My point is very simple. V might not have the 7th added but that because of
tonality and context our ears know it is a dominant function(rather than a
tonic or subdominant).
i.e., tonaliy tells us that V is dominant because it's really a V7(the 7th
is implied) and not Vmaj7. You say "But wait, there is no (maj)7th. It's not
being sounded" and I say... EXACTLY yet we still here the V chord as
dominant(as you just mentioned)... why? Because our mind adds the 7th.
Why is V dominant(functioning)? Because It is a V7. Simple as that? (again,
the 7th is implied by the tonality)
Jon Slaughter
> Joey Goldstein wrote:
>> Jon Slaughter wrote:
>>> Joey Goldstein wrote:
>>>> Jon Slaughter wrote:
>>>>>
>
>>> B-F
>>>
>>> Can you hear that in the key of F#?
>>
>> Of course not. Those notes are not in the key of F#.
>> But they are in the keys of A minor, Gb major, Gb minor and Eb minor.
>
> Ooops. I wasn't reading or thinking clearly here.
> Obviously my answer should have been yes.
> I just usually think of B-F as being enharmonic to Gb rather than to
> F#, as is obvious from my other comments.
>
hehe, yeah... I'm getting a big confused(I should write these when my brain
is a bit less foggy.
>>> If so then you are playing games with your ear. Because that is only
>>> in the key of C.
>>
>> Nonsense. If we're in 12TET and we're only talking about major keys
>> then you have to see those two notes as forming the tonal tritone in
>> both C and Gb.
Yeah, I really was meaning to talk about the dominant chord here but somehow
brought in the dim. The dominant chord, or at least the dominant scale step
+ the tritone is unique only to one key.
The key here is really just the major scales and their modes. G7 exists in
only one key and this is what I mean by the "definer". (or, I guess as you
said, a definer because obviously there are other ways)
The point I was trying to make was that G-B-F is unique to only one key.
Those three notes do not exist in any other key. Excluding the artificial
modifications of the minor mode or the mode quality(Cm has G7 as does C).
I probably could figure out a way to explain it better but as you know I'm
not good with words and all that.
Jon Slaughter
> J R Laredo wrote:
>
>> Whenever a composer wants to soften the inevitability of a cadence
>> the seventh is often omitted.
>
> Thanks. That's good to know.
> I'd been under the impression that V7 was more or less universal in
> CPP era music.
Strange... "soften". So where did the 7th go? JR says that you gotta play it
for it to be dominant. How can they leave it out and still get the
dominant-tonic cadence?
I.e., how can the V chord have a dominant function yet not have the 7th?
Joey Goldstein
>>> Do you not agree that there is only one tritone per key?
>>
>> In major keys that is true.
>> In minor keys it is not true.
>>
>>> Can you find a
>>> key that has two such tritones?
>>
>> result of musica ficta:
>> B-F, D-G# and C-F#.
>
>
> The natural minor only has one such interval.
But natural minor is hardly ever used in CPP to establish a minor key.
> Since B-F points to C
> cannot be used in A minor if it points to C as the tonic unless one
> wants to weaken the tonic of A minor.
Actually, what happens a lot is that B-F and G#-D are both used, which
cements the key feeling quite nicely when they resolve.
> The harmonic minor was formed to
> get an imitation of the relative major. B-F points to C so G# D points
> to A minor. G#-D can also be seen as being borrowed from the parallel
> major.
>
> The melodic minor is just that. The altered tones are melodic. While it
> is possible that such triton intervals could be used harmonically they
> are generally not in CPP precisely because they weaken the tonic
> function.
Well that partly depends on when you decide that the CPP happened to end.
I think that in romantic era harmony you'll probably find numerous
examples of harmony that draws from the mel min scale. Of course, I
could be wrong about this too.
> Remember, mostly the melodic minor is used on the dominant
> harmony
Probably true.
But I'll bet that there's probably a few examples out there of V+9 (a V7
chord with raised 5th and added 9th).
I'll also bet that there's a few instances of the equivalent of say Cm/A
in a piece that's in C minor.
> and the reason is to make the intervals more melodic... they
> also are generally used only in ascending form because of the leading
> tone form. It, according to the experts, came from the harmonic minor to
> get a more melodic interval than the +2. The harmonic minor came from
> the natural minor to get a harmonic trione that points to the tonic.
Still, your assertion was that there was only one tritone in minor keys,
and that's clearly not the case. And the one tritone in minor keys that
you've been talking about isn't even the one that's used to establish
the key. So I really don't see what your point is with this line od
reasoning.
>>> Note that the minor keys have the same
>>> tritones as the major by design so we have to ignore that
>>
>> The resolution of the diatonic tritone between scale degrees b6 and 2
>> of the natural minor scale has a tendency to make scale b3 sound like
>> it's the tonic. That's why minor keys, especially in CPP, have the
>> artificial leading tone grafted in so that a second tritone can be
>> resolved as a stronger pointer to the intended tonic.
>> There are classical theorists who would say that a minor key without 2
>> tritones is not really a minor key.
>
> Exactly. This is what I've said above. You might be right in that a
> minor key needs 2 tritones but in the sense of the natural mode of major
> there is only one. I understand what your saying but since those
> tritones come from an artificial(your word, not mine) alteration of the
> major form then we can say there is only one tritone per mode of the
> major scale(and it doesn't change).
What you seem to be saying appears to be a version of "Don't confuse me
with facts. My mind is made up."
>>> of the two most active tones of a key.
>>
>> Given a setting in which a major key has been established, or is about
>> to be established, the leading tone and the subdominant will be the
>> most active tones.
>> But in minor keys the most active tones are scale degree b6 and the
>> leading tone, and they do not form a tritone together. In minor keys,
>> the subdominant is not an active tone.
>
> No, in minor the B-F is still a tritone and it needs resolution.
But its resolution is not the resolution that establishes the key.
>>> So the tritone, in tonality, is
>>> the most important in establishing the key.
>>
>> Assuming that what you want to do is to establish a major key, the
>> tritone between the leading tone and the subdominant is certainly very
>> handy. But the key can still be established without it.
>
> Can you show me how? Just one example... do it in a separate post if you
> want so we can be clear.
I did it in the last post. Here it is again:
Imaj / / / |IVmaj / Vmaj / |Imaj |
>>> If so then you are playing games
>>> with your ear. Because that is only in the key of C.
>>
>> Nonsense. If we're in 12TET and we're only talking about major keys
>> then you have to see those two notes as forming the tonal tritone in
>> both C and Gb.
>
> Your right. Add G and then it is unambiguous.
Sure. A G7 chord is a very good tool to establish the key of C. Probably
the best tool. But a G triad can do it too, with a little bit of help.
>>> Atonality is trying to establish them
>>> all as equal.
>>
>> Atonality is an attempt to destroy any sense of key or of a tonal
>> centre as it arises. It's kind of futile, because tonal centres
>> *always* arise in one form or another.
>>
>
> Yes but since you can never remove them the best you can do is make them
> all have an equal footing? Or at least try.
Coltrane's tune Giant Steps is a good example of a tune with several
keys and no clear unambiguous winner for the primary key (although Eb
major sort of emerges at the final cadence). It accomplishes this via
rapid modulations between traditionally unrelated keys.
Music in which "all 12 keys are equal" would have to establish each of
those 12 keys in some fashion and then move away from it rapidly and
with a harmonic rhythm that does not dwell on any one of those keys for
any significant length of time.
Music in which several keys are established with no clear primary is
usually referred to, I believe, as pan-tonal music.
Music in which several modal-type tonal centres are used, none of which
emerges as a primary tonal centre, is referred to as pan-modal music, I
believe.
Modal music consisting of instances of several modes but with with a
musical form that emphasizes one of the modes as being more central than
the others, should probably just be called mult-modal music, IMO. Eg.
Miles Davis' tune So What.
I think you might be talking about serialism which is based on the idea
that all 12 *tones* are equal and in which no single tone centre takes
on the role as a tonal centre. Tones are not keys. All tonal centres are
not keys either. There's a difference. Serialism is a good example of
what *I* was referring to as "atonal" music.
By using the word "key" within your definition of atonality you were
shooting yourself in the foot and not making sense.
But I read you now, I think.
>>>
>>> If you are in the key of F# then the weight
>>> for F# is larger than any other key. How much depends on what you
>>> were doing. If it's not larger then your not in that key.
>>
>> That may be true if the musical style being discussed is known to
>> always be in a "key". But some music doesn't fit that description.
Right.
Your argument, and Piston's, only holds if ma/min tonality is a given to
begin with.
>>> I'm kinda making it a bit simple as key's really depend on time and
>>> there is the idea of a global and local key. The point is that the
>>> mind basically keeps a list and ranks the keys. The key at the top
>>> of the list is what we call the "key" we are in.
>>
>> Jon. In Tonal music the music is always in a single key at any one
>> time, otherwise it's not Tonal music.
>> Secondary keys are very real. They are just not labelled as such
>> within a tonal analysis because they don't last long enough to take
>> hold in
>> the ear.
>>
>
> I disagree with this. When you say music is in a single key you seem to
> be saying that no other keys could possibly be heard.
One key at a time. that's what Tonal music is all about.
Sure, there's ambiguities here and there, and the wittier composers
liked to play off of ambiguities. But they *always* resolved any
ambiguities eventually.
> Pandiatonicim would be having two keys established...
That's not my understanding of it.
Pandiatonicism is music that is based on the diatonic scale but in which
no single tone or chord in that scale emerges as a primary tonal centre.
One of the chief ways to accomplish this is to avoid using V7-I cadences.
>> Playing Cmaj Fmaj Gmaj Cmaj (depending on the harmonic rhythm)
>> establishes a key just as well.
>
> Yes but it is either C or F. G7 tells us we are in C. (not Bdim...
> again, I was wrong)
There is no Gmaj chord in the key of F. I don't know what you're trying
to get at.
My chord progression could only be in the key of C major.
It starts on a cmj chord and ends on a Cmaj chord and the Fmaj and Gmaj
chords seal the deal.
Only a very unusual harmonic rhythm could make this sound like some
other key.
>>> D7 in C does not establish G as the key.
>>
>> Err. Ummm. Yes it does.
>> It's just not labelled as such unless the key of G lasts long enough
>> to take hold in the ear.
>
> This is why I said D7 in C... i.e., in the key of C. If we are in the
> key of C then G was not established... hence it didn't.
Just because I understood what you were saying does not mean that you
said it correctly.
What do you think the term "tonicization" actually mans.
When D7 is used as what is labelled as V7/V it is being used to tonicize
the tone G. When G is tonicized it becomes a "tonic". A "tonic" is the
central note of a "key".
> It's basically a
> tautology. Really it says nothing and was a useless statement that is
> vacuously true.
If you say so.
>>> It depends on a lot of factors.
>>>
>>> The main point is that you shouldn't see a key as only one thing that
>>> can exist at any point in time. Similarly how one says "The key of C
>>> major are the notes C D E F G A B". All keys consist of all the
>>> tones(even non-12ET).
>>
>> I don't think that's really true.
>
> In C, we can play C#, F#, something betwene C and C#, etc...
>
> Surely you do this all the time?
There are all sorts of ways that chromaticism might be used a
embellishment of the tones and the chords of a key.
But as soon as a chord is comprised of non-diatonic material a key
change has occurred. The main exceptions to this are in chordal
structures that serve purely as approach chords into the diatonic chords
and that can not be seen as coming from a secondary dominant
relationship. Eg. Auxiliary dim7 chords. (Eg. Idim7 moving to I.)
>> Fine then. We agree. The Vmaj triad can be used as a D function chord.
>
> Hehe... I nevers said it didn't.
Yes you did. You're still saying it below.
> My point was only that V triad implies
> that it is a V7.
Not really.
Given the established harmonic environment of the key of C major all a
Vmaj triad is is a Vmaj triad. Just because F# would be unexpected on
this chord and that F nat would be expected doesn't mean that F nat is
implied.
> V=V7
Nope.
V = V.
V7 = V7.
Joey Goldstein
> Joey Goldstein wrote:
>> Joey Goldstein wrote:
>>> Jon Slaughter wrote:
>>>> Joey Goldstein wrote:
>>>>> Jon Slaughter wrote:
> The point I was trying to make was that G-B-F is unique to only one key.
Assuming that the music you're discussing is based on the maj/min key
system then this is true.
That's why G7 is such a useful tool for establishing the key of C.
But that doesn't man that a G triad might not also have D function in
the key of C.
V7 chords are not the only device that can be used to establish a key.
J R Laredo
"Jon Slaughter" <Jon_Sl...@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
> Joey Goldstein wrote:
>> J R Laredo wrote:
>>
>>> Whenever a composer wants to soften the inevitability of a cadence
>>> the seventh is often omitted.
>>
>> Thanks. That's good to know.
>> I'd been under the impression that V7 was more or less universal in
>> CPP era music.
>
> Strange... "soften". So where did the 7th go? JR says that you gotta play
> it for it to be dominant.
No. I did not. And neither does Piston (You love Piston, remember? You'll
listen to him waaaay before you listen to me). Go to page 18 of "Harmony."
"It is important to form an appreciation of the qualities of these
progressions, qualities which do not readily lend themselves to description
by words. The dominant-to-tonic progession is generally considered the most
satisfying. One can easily sense the repose of this progression by playing
the bass alone."
And in the example it shows first two sets of chords: G-D-G-B labeled as V
followed by C-E-G-C . Then it shows just the bass notes. So, where did the
7th go? It was never there so it didn't have to "go" anywhere. Or is you
god, Piston, suddenly wrong, too?
How can they leave it out and still get the
> dominant-tonic cadence?
>
> I.e., how can the V chord have a dominant function yet not have the 7th?
>
>
Again:
From the Harvard Dictionary of Music:
"The fifth degree of the major or minor scale, so called on account of
its'dominating' position in harmony as well as in melody. Many melodies
show the fifth as a tone second in importance only to the first degree, the
tonic. However, the fifth degree is even more important in harmony as a
bass tone, i.e., the root of the dominant triad (g-b-d' in C major). ...
Other chords with dominant function are the dominant seventh and the
dominant ninth."
Notice the definition says, "other" not "only."
J R Laredo
"LJS" <ljsc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:bd01395c-bb56-4bab...@b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
Not really wrong, but, at best, confusing since he is fundamentally, in this
case, I think needlessly skipping the step that a key signature is
established and going right to the conclusion of a key. I wrote a paper
about this text and a few others in my bibliography class and I found that,
basically, if you knew enough to understand the Piston you really didn't
need it.
Jon Slaughter
>> V=V7
>
> Nope.
> V = V.
> V7 = V7.
So you are saying that functionally these are different chords? If so, what
is the function of the V chord? What is the function of the V7 chord? (note,
because you say they are different then you might provide two distinctly
different answers)
LJS
wrote:
In order to clear up some confusion, you should be careful about the
difference of a G7 and a V7. One is simply a major chord with a minor
7th. The other is the Dominant triad and a minor 7th. One has function
and the other one does not. Although it might be true that you are
meaning them to be the same thing, some of your other statements and
slight misuse of verbal contexts will paint an entirely different
picture of what you are trying to say.
In some of your other statements, you seem to be mixing up the
contexts of modal and functional harmony. A G7 chord in the F Lydian
is a II chord and wold most likely go to some sort of Dominant Chord
as in the Cmaj chord which would be Dominant. Since this is not
functional harmony in this context, the tritone may very well resolve
as a Dominant would but it is still a second class chord and is not of
dominant function. It does not resolve to Tonic.
>
> The point I was trying to make was that G-B-F is unique to only one key.
> Those three notes do not exist in any other key. Excluding the artificial
> modifications of the minor mode or the mode quality(Cm has G7 as does C).
This shows other examples of the confusing context of your
statements. The GBF Is common to all of the white note modes, but
these same notes (GBF) as a Dominant chord does fit the proper context
of your statement.
>
> I probably could figure out a way to explain it better but as you know I'm
> not good with words and all that.
True enough but some in order to improve on this, a little bit of
though and careful listening to the replies to your posts would help
you to ask questions that don't take a half dozen posts to clear up
some of the misconceptions created by your constant changing of
contexts.
Cross discipline viewpoints can be very valuable to a theorist as it
can show things to be seen in a different way that is devoid of some
possible misconceptions and limitations of the "group thought" or of
"committee" type of analyses. This benefit is diminished or negated if
the observations are so different from the accepted approach but
without any justification for the conclusions. I.e. the observations
from a different discipline may be helpful but conclusions derived can
not be supported by statements that use traditional definitions as
applied to out of context observations. In short, if you want to
express your thoughts, that is fine and very helpful. You should be
careful, however, to either not make a conclusion OR to make sure that
your conclusions are based on facts that are actually related to the
statements. When the "proof" uses wrong premises, the entire post
loses credibility and it is difficult to understand what you are
trying to say and to transmit the proper information for someone to
help you understand what is going on.
In this thread, you seem to be asking about assigning the function of
a G triad over an F# bass. You then give examples of its as a 7th
chord or dominant type of chord with a Maj7th in the bass and then
switch to the proper notation of this function of dominant into a non
functional Alphabet type of notation that might be used on the guitar.
You also describe the resolution in tonal terms as you describe its
resolution from G (7)/F# but you then still seem confused as to why it
would be Dominant even though you have already (inadvertently ?)
showed how it would be Dominant by your example and I think you then
proceed to think that it can't be functional. Frankly, this was about
the point when I decided that there were too many contextual shifts to
have any good type of answer. (I think that a lot of the subsequent
posts showed that I was correct here)
The biggenst problem seems to be that you seem to think that the
Dominant has to be a Maj chord with a Minor 7th. It does not!. The
DOminant can be a NOTE, or a TRIAD or a 7th chord or just about
anything. Although the tritone plays s large part in increasing the
tension of the dominant chord, it is NOT necessary to be a dominant
chord. The only thing that the chord NEEDS to do to be doinant is to
(by definition) be on the 5th degree of the scale (in CPP) and it has
to resolve to Tonic. (unless there is deception involved)
This is why you had so many questions about what comes next. Without
the context, there are not enough definitive elements present to
decide if it is indeed acting as a dominant yet you are telling us
that it IS (without any proof) and are asking WHY it functions as a
dominant.
As you said somewhere, maybe you should consider writing these things
down first and get an understanding of what you are really asking and
then take the time to try to express it a little more clearly.
LJS
J R Laredo
"Jon Slaughter" <Jon_Sl...@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
By definition they have the same dominant function, that is, in normal
harmonic sequences they both preceed a I chord. You know, as your god,
Piston, says on page 18 or your bible. The V7 has the seventh which usually
resolves down to the third of the I chord in standard voice leading. The V
does not have that seventh.
The best real life analog I can think of would be gravity. A weight dropped
from the height of one meter will hit the ground with a certain amount of
force. Twice the weight will hit the ground with more force. The V is the
weight, the V7 is twice the weight.
LJS
wrote:
> "LJS" <ljsche...@gmail.com> wrote in message
There is a lot of truth in your last statement, but that is the beauty
of Piston. We did not use the Piston Book in freshman theory. I don't
remember the name of the one we did use, but it was basically an
ordering of all the chord types use in CPP with examples. We did not
learn from the book. We learned from the teacher and she was spending
her summers in Paris at the Nadia's Conservertory (I think actually
with Piston at some point!) and it was she (Gretchen) that explained
functionality to us and how to deal with it as functional harmony.
Thus, when we read the Piston, we understood it. It is the best total
sum knowledge in the most basic fundamental manner to deal with
tonality and functional relationships. He did not really seem to write
it for the "general public". Instead, it was a theory book for
theorists and as such, it does everything that it is intended to do IF
you understand the subtle distinctions that he points out and some of
the more vague misconceptions that some have about functionally.
It sounds like you understand the theory, but may not understand what
the Piston approach does and does not do. I admit that it has
controversy associated with it. I also think that your present choice
of words is more in line with the truth about Piston and this is the
price one pays for writing a "summation" of the various approaches to
theory as he did.
LJS
Jon Slaughter
>> cannot be used in A minor if it points to C as the tonic unless one
>> wants to weaken the tonic of A minor.
>
> Actually, what happens a lot is that B-F and G#-D are both used, which
> cements the key feeling quite nicely when they resolve.
Again, remember the harmonic minor is artificial. That is what you said. The
B-F points to C(and Gb) does it not? So it reinforeces C... but Am is
related. So your right then it helps with the tonic but it is not exactly
these same. It's like if your wife brother wins the lotto. It's not the
same as if you win but you'll probably benefit.
>
>> The harmonic minor was formed to
>> get an imitation of the relative major. B-F points to C so G# D
>> points to A minor. G#-D can also be seen as being borrowed from the
>> parallel major.
>>
>> The melodic minor is just that. The altered tones are melodic. While
>> it is possible that such triton intervals could be used harmonically
>> they are generally not in CPP precisely because they weaken the tonic
>> function.
>
> Well that partly depends on when you decide that the CPP happened to
> end. I think that in romantic era harmony you'll probably find
> numerous examples of harmony that draws from the mel min scale. Of
> course, I could be wrong about this too.
In some of the books I've read they explicitly mention that many of the
chords in the melodic minor are not used(or rarely used) such as the #vio.
You might be right as I'm simply regurgitating what I have read as I have
not analyzed a million pieces and tallied up how often it is used.
>
>> Remember, mostly the melodic minor is used on the dominant
>> harmony
>
> Probably true.
> But I'll bet that there's probably a few examples out there of V+9 (a
> V7 chord with raised 5th and added 9th).
> I'll also bet that there's a few instances of the equivalent of say
> Cm/A in a piece that's in C minor.
Yes. When but these devices sorta came along after the basis of tonality was
established. The methods that are used to define tonality are constantly
being modified or rearranged. It's not that tonality is changing but our
ideas of it are being refined(as anything that progresses in time). You
don't find a cave man painting that is refined as our recent history. Things
just don't work like that. I would say that tonality as in it's primitive
stages from around the 15th century and earlier and was refined from about
the 19th(early 20th) to the 15th. Now it is being exploited and modified
more of a way for change rather than development. (sorta, "Ok, we've had
enough of that... lets play around with it now")
I'm just giving guestimate numbers. The point is that there seems to be
basically 3 distinct periods of tonality. It's possible that in the future
our point in time will be the "refiners". Depends on where it leads. (it's
also possible our point could be the ruiners)
>> and the reason is to make the intervals more melodic... they
>> also are generally used only in ascending form because of the leading
>> tone form. It, according to the experts, came from the harmonic
>> minor to get a more melodic interval than the +2. The harmonic minor
>> came from the natural minor to get a harmonic trione that points to
>> the tonic.
>
> Still, your assertion was that there was only one tritone in minor
> keys, and that's clearly not the case. And the one tritone in minor
> keys that you've been talking about isn't even the one that's used to
> establish the key. So I really don't see what your point is with this
> line od reasoning.
Yes, as I was wrong. I got off and wasn't thinking about I was saying. I had
the G-B-F in my mind but knowing how important the B-F was I just jumped on
it without thinking. (As I know that G-B-F is unique to the major scale...
there is only one. Similarly there is only one dim chord per major scale.
But I forgot about enharmonicity)
In any case it does establish the likelyhood of 2 keys so it's not like I
was completely wrong. (replace everything I said with 2 keys instead of one
then I'm right). The point is that it, for the most part, creates the
expectation of just a few keys(even if it's not 2 but 5 or 8) and some keys
are more expected than others. (it depends on a lot of other factors but
strictly from the major scales we see the trione has two in comon and the
dominant has only one)
>
>>>> Note that the minor keys have the same
>>>> tritones as the major by design so we have to ignore that
>>>
>>> The resolution of the diatonic tritone between scale degrees b6 and
>>> 2 of the natural minor scale has a tendency to make scale b3 sound
>>> like it's the tonic. That's why minor keys, especially in CPP, have
>>> the artificial leading tone grafted in so that a second tritone can
>>> be resolved as a stronger pointer to the intended tonic.
>>> There are classical theorists who would say that a minor key
>>> without 2 tritones is not really a minor key.
>>
>> Exactly. This is what I've said above. You might be right in that a
>> minor key needs 2 tritones but in the sense of the natural mode of
>> major there is only one. I understand what your saying but since
>> those tritones come from an artificial(your word, not mine)
>> alteration of the major form then we can say there is only one
>> tritone per mode of the major scale(and it doesn't change).
>
> What you seem to be saying appears to be a version of "Don't confuse
> me with facts. My mind is made up."
If that were the case I wouldn't have corrected myself several times. But as
I said. I was thinking of the major scale. When I learned that the dominant
was unique and was "a" definer of key(the most important definer) it was
done with the major scales. No talk was done of the minor alterations. Hence
that is what I had in my head. Because of the alterations of the minor mode
it does negate what I said but it might still be artificial if those
tritones are never really used(but I guess they are always there
implicitly).
The point here is that I do not think of B-F as defining Am. I think of
G#-D. I was wrong in thinking that B-F did not define Gb because it does.
But I think of Cb-F as being the definer of Gb. As I said, they are
enharmonic and I just didn't put 2 and 2 together.
>
>>>> of the two most active tones of a key.
>>>
>>> Given a setting in which a major key has been established, or is
>>> about to be established, the leading tone and the subdominant will
>>> be the most active tones.
>>> But in minor keys the most active tones are scale degree b6 and the
>>> leading tone, and they do not form a tritone together. In minor
>>> keys, the subdominant is not an active tone.
>>
>> No, in minor the B-F is still a tritone and it needs resolution.
>
> But its resolution is not the resolution that establishes the key.
exactly. (it is that other tritone that was created artificially to do the
same job) So the way I see it is that traditionally there was only one
tritone per key. Now we have 3... maybe in the future we will have 7(I guess
we already have that with diminished scales). The point is that all those
new ones are "artificial" in some sense.
>>>> So the tritone, in tonality, is
>>>> the most important in establishing the key.
>>>
>>> Assuming that what you want to do is to establish a major key, the
>>> tritone between the leading tone and the subdominant is certainly
>>> very handy. But the key can still be established without it.
>>
>> Can you show me how? Just one example... do it in a separate post if
>> you want so we can be clear.
>
> I did it in the last post. Here it is again:
>
> Imaj / / / |IVmaj / Vmaj / |Imaj |
>
So you are saying that the 4th scale step on the IVmaj and the 3rd on the
Vmaj do not form a tritone?
>>>> If so then you are playing games
>>>> with your ear. Because that is only in the key of C.
>>>
>>> Nonsense. If we're in 12TET and we're only talking about major keys
>>> then you have to see those two notes as forming the tonal tritone in
>>> both C and Gb.
>>
>> Your right. Add G and then it is unambiguous.
>
> Sure. A G7 chord is a very good tool to establish the key of C.
> Probably the best tool. But a G triad can do it too, with a little
> bit of help.
Ok, before we got all off on other things(my fault I guess) this is all I
was trying to say. That "little bit of help? You mention is the "tonality"
that I was trying to get across with JR. He was saying that because you do
not play the b7th of that chord that it was not "felt". I am saying because
of tonality that it is felt and that is what makes it precisely
dominant(rather than the a maj7th chord).
You have basically agreed with me in this even though I might not be saying
it as clear as it should be. The point is, is that other stuff is going on.
My logic is this, at least for the most part: If Vmaj is dominant then V7
should work in it's place. They have the same function(they might sound
different but that is a different story). But if Vmaj is not dominant than
Vmaj7 would work. JR says because I don't play the F that it doesn't matter
as if I could play either Vmaj7 or V7 and both would work. At least thats
what he seems to be saying.
If I have
I-V-I
Then I-V7-I is functionally equivalent and not I-Vmaj7-I. Why? Because of
tonality. So our ear keeps an F on that V chord mentally so it notes that a
Vmaj7 is odd if it comes up. Hence it is really "hearing" the chord as a V7.
(the b7 is subconscious) Else why would it care about a maj7 or 7th?
Both the examples I-V7-I and I-Vmaj7-I should be ok. They are not. Hence our
ear(really our mind) cannot(well, normally) hear I-V-I as a I-Vmaj7-I
because it has that
My point is that by the mere fact that we can replace the V with the V7 and
not the Vmaj7 proves that our ear is doing something over the V chord to
treat it in the same class as a V7. The only possibility is that it adds
the b7. This is not so obvious but when you take into account that the
tonality has been established then it makes sense.
(it's not that we actually hear V as a V7 but our mind sorta keeps b7
subconsciously as a pedal tone along with all the other diatonic notes and
compares them to the chord. When we play Vmaj7 it's like "Hey, wait...
shouldn't that be an b7 instead?" It's not necessarily bad but it's
unexpected. This happens similarly with V/V but is not heard as bad probably
because V7 is not ambiguous as a tonal definer. i.e., changing V7 to Vmaj7
has to change all those subconscious pedal tones or at least makes the mind
question them because the key could be changing. But changing ii to V/V is
not that big a deal because the key is not changing(probably through
conditioning as I'm sure in the distant past it was not excepted as much
exactly because it did disrupt the tonal center more. I'm sure there are
other possible reasons too.
>>>> Atonality is trying to establish them
>>>> all as equal.
>>>
>>> Atonality is an attempt to destroy any sense of key or of a tonal
>>> centre as it arises. It's kind of futile, because tonal centres
>>> *always* arise in one form or another.
>>>
>>
>> Yes but since you can never remove them the best you can do is make
>> them all have an equal footing? Or at least try.
>
> Coltrane's tune Giant Steps is a good example of a tune with several
> keys and no clear unambiguous winner for the primary key (although Eb
> major sort of emerges at the final cadence). It accomplishes this via
> rapid modulations between traditionally unrelated keys.
> Music in which "all 12 keys are equal" would have to establish each of
> those 12 keys in some fashion and then move away from it rapidly and
> with a harmonic rhythm that does not dwell on any one of those keys
> for any significant length of time.
> Music in which several keys are established with no clear primary is
> usually referred to, I believe, as pan-tonal music.
> Music in which several modal-type tonal centres are used, none of
> which emerges as a primary tonal centre, is referred to as pan-modal
> music, I believe.
> Modal music consisting of instances of several modes but with with a
> musical form that emphasizes one of the modes as being more central
> than the others, should probably just be called mult-modal music,
> IMO. Eg. Miles Davis' tune So What.
>
No. "Music in which "all 12 keys are equal" would have to establish each of
those 12 keys in some fashion"
I think this is where you are off.
abcdefgabcdefg does not establish any tone over any other one except from
order(which is impossible to change)
one doesn't have to have aaaabbbbccccddddeeeeffffggggabcdefgabcdefg to have
them on all equal footing.
If you take the mind as a blank slate then as you hear a series of keys such
as giant steps it is tallying their number. The first key is given a higher
weight simply because it is first. But as we hear a bunch of keys all
occuring in the same way and being equal in just about every way(they are
not but lets assume) and excluding order then they all have equal footing
and have been established.
So, Maybe you are right but then you are wrong in that giant steps does
establish all its keys equally(or close enough for discussion). It doesn't
use all the possible keys(24).
It really depends on what we mean by establish. In some cases I'm using it
an explicit definer of tonality while in other ways I simply mean that it is
heard.
If I think in terms of "Weights" then all keys are established. It's just
some are much more so than others.
> I think you might be talking about serialism which is based on the
> idea that all 12 *tones* are equal and in which no single tone centre
> takes on the role as a tonal centre. Tones are not keys. All tonal
> centres are not keys either. There's a difference. Serialism is a
> good example of what *I* was referring to as "atonal" music.
> By using the word "key" within your definition of atonality you were
> shooting yourself in the foot and not making sense.
>
> But I read you now, I think.
No. You seem to think that you can actually have a piece of music without
some key momentary implied. When you play a note you are setting up an
implied key... even if you contradict right afterwards(Which is really
impossible since any two notes is in some key).
You are simply thinking of a key as beings omething absolute and having
existance due to global features. I think of it as a sort of thing, say,
like the wind, that is very complex. The win blows, swirls sometimes changes
direction and has cross winds at times, etc. You say the key of C and I
think of it as the top most level.
Now, this is only because of my culturally inherited sense of tonality. Not
because of something innate. If all you listened to was atonal music then it
would be something entirely different. If the music was truly atonal then
you would be preconditioned to think in terms of keys. But if you are a
tonal listener then you are going to try to hear things tonally... nothing
you can do about that. Just like you can't see in the infrared.. it's
impossible so you try to see things in the way you see them. Just the way
it is. Your brain tries to understand things in ways that it understands...
how can it try to understand something in a way that it has never learned?
At least initially. Luckily the brain is adaptive and very powerful and can
figure things out(but again, it all starts with some see of understanding).
> I disagree with this. When you say music is in a single key you seem
>> to be saying that no other keys could possibly be heard.
>
> One key at a time. that's what Tonal music is all about.
> Sure, there's ambiguities here and there, and the wittier composers
> liked to play off of ambiguities. But they *always* resolved any
> ambiguities eventually.
>
You are using key as what I call the top most key in the list. It is the
most obvious. But I still believe there is a list. Our brain is constantly
trying to figure out which key we are in. If that were not the case, i.e.,
no list, then our brain would simply choose the very first key and never
leave it. There would be no need. We would just hear the piece in that key
and every odd tone or chord would be referened to it. You could "modulate"
to very distant related keys and it would still just be that one key and it
would never change. There would really only be one key, such as, C major,
and all pieces of music would be heard relative to that.
The list is really just my description of our brain judging the momentary
keys. To makes a probabilistical argument and "keeps a list". No key, at any
moment, is 100%. If you play C for 10 years then it's still not 100% that
you will play C for the 5 mins more.
>
>> Pandiatonicim would be having two keys established...
>
> That's not my understanding of it.
> Pandiatonicism is music that is based on the diatonic scale but in
> which no single tone or chord in that scale emerges as a primary
> tonal centre. One of the chief ways to accomplish this is to avoid
> using V7-I cadences.
Would that not be panmodality?
>>> Playing Cmaj Fmaj Gmaj Cmaj (depending on the harmonic rhythm)
>>> establishes a key just as well.
>>
>> Yes but it is either C or F. G7 tells us we are in C. (not Bdim...
>> again, I was wrong)
>
> There is no Gmaj chord in the key of F. I don't know what you're
> trying to get at.
> My chord progression could only be in the key of C major.
> It starts on a cmj chord and ends on a Cmaj chord and the Fmaj and
> Gmaj chords seal the deal.
> Only a very unusual harmonic rhythm could make this sound like some
> other key.
Right... I misread your progression. Thought the G was a C.
>
>>>> D7 in C does not establish G as the key.
>>>
>>> Err. Ummm. Yes it does.
>>> It's just not labelled as such unless the key of G lasts long enough
>>> to take hold in the ear.
>>
>> This is why I said D7 in C... i.e., in the key of C. If we are in the
>> key of C then G was not established... hence it didn't.
>
> Just because I understood what you were saying does not mean that you
> said it correctly.
>
> What do you think the term "tonicization" actually mans.
> When D7 is used as what is labelled as V7/V it is being used to
> tonicize the tone G. When G is tonicized it becomes a "tonic". A
> "tonic" is the central note of a "key".
>
Tonicizaton does not change key though. This is clearly stated in most
harmony books. You have to establish the key after a tonicization(then
called a modulation).
You can tonicize many keys but don't end up with a change of key.
D7 is tonicization G but not changing the key to G. (in and of itself)
If we are in C then D7 tonicized G but we are not in G. (Cause I just said
we were in C)
>
>>>> It depends on a lot of factors.
>>>>
>>>> The main point is that you shouldn't see a key as only one thing
>>>> that can exist at any point in time. Similarly how one says "The
>>>> key of C major are the notes C D E F G A B". All keys consist of
>>>> all the tones(even non-12ET).
>>>
>>> I don't think that's really true.
>>
>> In C, we can play C#, F#, something betwene C and C#, etc...
>>
>> Surely you do this all the time?
>
> There are all sorts of ways that chromaticism might be used a
> embellishment of the tones and the chords of a key.
> But as soon as a chord is comprised of non-diatonic material a key
> change has occurred. The main exceptions to this are in chordal
> structures that serve purely as approach chords into the diatonic
> chords and that can not be seen as coming from a secondary dominant
> relationship. Eg. Auxiliary dim7 chords. (Eg. Idim7 moving to I.)
Ok, we are going to have to just disagree. I think you are using the term
key change a bit differently than I use it. In CPP I was taught(mainly by
steve and what I read from piston) that, first, a key change never really
happens in a piece. We are in one key and we just have modulations to other
keys(but the main key does not change). Hence the "Key of C" and not the
"Key of C then G then F# then back to C"
But tonicizations do not change or modulate to different tonal centers. It
takes a confirmation such as a cadence to actually modulate. (which still is
not a change of keys)
>
>>> Fine then. We agree. The Vmaj triad can be used as a D function
>>> chord.
>>
>> Hehe... I nevers said it didn't.
>
> Yes you did. You're still saying it below.
Nope...
>> My point was only that V triad implies
>> that it is a V7.
>
> Not really.
> Given the established harmonic environment of the key of C major all a
> Vmaj triad is is a Vmaj triad. Just because F# would be unexpected on
> this chord and that F nat would be expected doesn't mean that F nat is
> implied.
It does so. If F# is unexpected then why wouldn't it be? expectation is an
implication that something will be so. You can't have expectations with
implications.
The mind is constantly trying to figure out what key we are in. The mere
fact that we are supprised when F# is used implies that our brain expected
F(since those are the only two possible choices).
When we flip a coin our brain expects heads or tails, does it not? We do not
expect it to land on it's edge. It is implied(by the rules of the game) in
the situation that the outcome is heads or tails. We don't even have to
flip the coin to have that implication because our brain expects it from the
implication.
Why then is V7 easily exchangable with V? Why are these functionally
equivalent? Just for the hell of it? You think our brain isn't treating them
the same? If not then why do we call them functionally equivalent? Why are
they both dominant functioning if our brain does not treat them as dominant
functioning? what makes a dominant function? It is the chord V7(not the V).
But we can get away with using the V chord as a dominant because of the
expectation that it is. Korens might not expect this but we do.
We expect the V chord to be of dominant function because of our
understanding of tonality. But only V7 is the true unambiguous dominant
functioning chord. So V is somewhat ambiguous but our brain fills in that it
is most likely a V7 like chord because of the implied idea of tonality(which
sets up the expectations).
Similarly how you can leave a 5th out of a chord and it is implied. Do you
have a problem with this statement? If I play C E in the key of C is the G
not implied? You know as well as I do that in jazz the 5th is left out a
lot but yet it doesn't ruin the harmonic function in any way. Why? Because
we expect it? Why do we expect it?
That is the real question here and that is what I think you are JR are not
getting. If we have certain expectations then where did they come from? It
is from the implications(the logical consequences) that are setup by
tonality.
If I say 2+2=4 you expect that to be true... but it is true not because you
expect it but because of the logical implications created by the system of
arithmetic. 2+2=0 in another system but you don't expect that because it is
not implied.
An implied argument is an understood argument that is not explicitly stated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument
Tonality is exactly this. It is an implied system or structure that setups
up and is required for the proper conclusion.
"Informal arguments are sometimes implicit. That is, the logical structure �
the relationship of claims, premises, warrants, relations of implication,
and conclusion � is not always spelled out and immediately visible and must
sometimes be made explicit by analysis"
So our mind is always using it to conclude what it concludes. V and V7, in
our minds, have exactly(or probably not exactly but with the granuality we
use) the same function. V does not have a subdominant function in the tonal
system. It does not have a submediant function. It does not have a leading
tone function.
Hence THEY are equivalent in function? If so then V=V7 because we are
talking about function and = means "Equivlaent (in function)".
if they are not eqiuvalent in function then you must give me two distinct
functions that each of those chords can have.
e.g., V acting like a subdominant function and V7 acting like a dominant
function.
It's almost by definition that the chords are dominant functions(by which we
use the symbol V(7)). So I don't know you are going to get out of that.
But then if you agree they are both dominant functioning you have to ask
yourself why. They are obviously different and do not sound the exact
same... but have the same function? Why? Do you even care?
If we only have the basic categories of function: Tonic, subdominant,
dominant. Then can you give show me where the V is acting as the tonic? How
bout the subdominant? If it can't and only can act as the dominant and V7
can only act as the dominant then are these not equivalently functioning?
Hence V = V7?
If you say something like D7-G in C then I'm going to slap you. After all,
you said that V7-I tonicizises that chord(G in this case). Hence G is not
the dominant but the tonic.
I'll admit though that it can be ambiguous and that V and V7 don't exactly
have the same function.(which I said this already somewhere). Since V7 has
the EXPLICIT b7 it is almost impossible to have a different function but V
only has it implicitly and hence is not as strong as can potentially have a
different function(But still be the V somehow).
Implicit arguments are always weaker than explicit ones. V is an implicit
V7 in the context of tonality(if it really is a V chord) but V7 is explicit.
Piston:
"The reguluar resolution of the V7 to I is probably the most fundamental and
the commonest harmonic progression in music. It seems to be felt as a
natural musical word even by an unmusical person. The presence of the fourth
degree, the subdominant, suppilies the only important tonal factor that was
missing in V-I; hence the progression contains all the elements necessary
for the strongest possible definition of the key".
Hence the V chord is "weaker" but it is of the same form. I might have been
too strong to say they are functionally equivalent. While this is true
almost all the time(at least in CPP) there may be some cases where it is not
exactly true. What should be clear is that you won't have a V functioning
as the tonic or the subdominant and these are the 3 basic functions in tonal
music.
D7-G in C the G is sorta a tonic(locally) and sorta a dominant(globally).
This ambiguity is what makes music dynamic. So it's no doubt there is
confusion because we are not being precise in our description. While G is
locally a tonic in D7-G then we "changed keys"(your language, not mine) so G
is not the dominant chord and hence cannot have the dominant function. In
your view of tonaliy it seems there is only one level. Something either is
or isn't and as we scroll through the music the function is always "jumping"
from one to the other. It's dominant here and then tonic and so forth. For
me there is different levels that intertwine and always changing.
Yours is actually similar to mine except you collapse the levels and take
the ceiling. What this means is you simply take the most obvious tonal
center and say "That is the key" and ignore any ambiguity that might go on.
You here the top most key as the key and accept that. I can see where this
would be useful in improvising because the top key is generally the most
important and you don't wanna think or worry about other possibilities
because you don't have a lot of time to think about it. You want to know the
current momentary key so you can play the right notes so it will fit.
For you the key is there and in your face. You hear nothing else(probably
because of years of improvising and forcing your brain to hear that way so
it is explicit to you). For me, I hear it differently. I don't just see red
green or blue but the shades. For your need you only are concered with the
color being red or green or blue(even thought the color may be purple).
Thats at least what you seem to be implying. Again, I can see how it would
be useful in an improvisory context. You are simply ignoring the subtle
shades because they are not as important. Main thing is to get the if it's
red blue or green... if you can't get that then your screwed. The more
subtle stuff is not as important and probably is handled subconsciously. For
example. For purple, maybe your brain just see's red and that is your
"style". It's neither right or wrong. Or sometimes you see blue and others
you see red depending on the song. But you don't see it as purple.
Not saying the analogy is perfect but just that it's kinda like two
different ways to understand it.
Jon Slaughter
> Jon Slaughter wrote:
>> Joey Goldstein wrote:
>>> Joey Goldstein wrote:
>>>> Jon Slaughter wrote:
>>>>> Joey Goldstein wrote:
>>>>>> Jon Slaughter wrote:
>
>
>> The point I was trying to make was that G-B-F is unique to only one
>> key.
>
> Assuming that the music you're discussing is based on the maj/min key
> system then this is true.
>
> That's why G7 is such a useful tool for establishing the key of C.
> But that doesn't man that a G triad might not also have D function in
> the key of C.
> V7 chords are not the only device that can be used to establish a key.
I know...
I'm not saying it is not. I'm saying it is.. and the reason is because of
tonality. I don't know hwo to get that across any better... sorry.
IV-V to me is basically a V7 that is expanded. The It still has exactly the
G-B-F but the tritone is spelled out melodically instead of harmonically and
the F can move by leap instead of down by step because of the interveining
chord. So with IV-V we have the basics of the tritone + ^5 but the 7th of
the G does not exist so we have one less active resolution that is needed.
Hence it is a weaker(and more softer) version. But for the most part
contains all the necessary requirements. It's just not as forceful because
V7 requires the F to resolve by half step. But agian, they express the same
function. Just in different ways.
Similarly I-iii-ii-I express a dominant function to some degree. It is much
much weaker because the main tones, while existing are not related in a
clear way. The G of the iii does not leap to C which is a strong root
movement. The F may or may not resolve down(it is not strong as the b7 in
V7). The B does not act as a leading tone(No C in the ii chord). So it's
just very weak. It has all the right tones but just in the wrong order and
wrong resolution.
I-ii-iii-I would be slightly better. G could move to C, B could move to C
and the melodic tritone still exists. But the iii is a weaker form because G
is not the root(which is much more forceful than the E). But remember, iii
can act like a dominant function(and sometimes tonic) so this progression
does help define the key. Again, it's just a very weak version.
J R Laredo
LJS
Ours was Materials and Structure of Music. I asked around about Piston,
since I already had a copy, and consistently got sad smiles. Since a lot of
the faculty were from Indiana, maybe that had something to do with it. My
composition teacher dismissed him in the same way he dismissed Hindemith:
"He is a fine craftsman."
LJS
wrote:
> "LJS" <ljsche...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Oh, I forgot to mention the other thing that we got from Piston at my
school that was different from yours. We never related the signature
of the key to be much of a factor other than to be a starting or
ending place. I don't know. Later, after a few years of theory, we
would consider the overall key (signature wise) as important in the
overall scheme of things other than in a sense of maybe a "functional"
relationship of the primary keys of various movements or sections of
music as considering the overall form of the music. A Beethoven Sonata
in Ab will have the same functional relationship if through MIDI you
transpose it to D maj or any other major key. We sort of, by default,
thought of signatures sort of a convenience.
We don't see signature changes in the development sections of a
Beethoven Symphony, but the key changes are obvious and there is no
doubt that there was a functional relationship in something other than
the key signature. Function is function no matter what is in the
signature.
LJS
LJS
wrote:
> >> Since B-F points to C
> >> cannot be used in A minor if it points to C as the tonic unless one
> >> wants to weaken the tonic of A minor.
>
> > Actually, what happens a lot is that B-F and G#-D are both used, which
> > cements the key feeling quite nicely when they resolve.
>
> Again, remember the harmonic minor is artificial. That is what you said. The
> B-F points to C(and Gb) does it not? So it reinforeces C... but Am is
> related. So your right then it helps with the tonic but it is not exactly
> these same. It's like if your wife brother wins the lotto. It's not the
> same as if you win but you'll probably benefit.
The Harmonic Minor is "artificial" in many explanations of what it is
but once musica ficta started to be used in the cadences, it was NOT
an "artificial" tone to make the Dominant major, it was the accepted
resolution to the suspension created by the resolution to dominant
from the suspended tonic tone to the leading tone.
One might also note that if you just happen to stick a D note
inbetween the B-F tritone, you have created a ii* chord which then
does point to the Dominant of A minor, the E chord.
>
>
>
> >> The harmonic minor was formed to
> >> get an imitation of the relative major. B-F points to C so G# D
> >> points to A minor. G#-D can also be seen as being borrowed from the
> >> parallel major.
Go back and look at the contrapuntal music during the transition
period from melodic to harmonic thinking. This just doesn't hold up.
The harmonic minor was formed to get a leading tone. If one
understands that the suspensions involved in its creation is a natural
thing, then there is nothing artificial with this scale. If this
square peg is placed into the round hole, then it becomes artificial.
>
> >> The melodic minor is just that. The altered tones are melodic. While
> >> it is possible that such triton intervals could be used harmonically
> >> they are generally not in CPP precisely because they weaken the tonic
> >> function.
>
> > Well that partly depends on when you decide that the CPP happened to
> > end. I think that in romantic era harmony you'll probably find
> > numerous examples of harmony that draws from the mel min scale. Of
> > course, I could be wrong about this too.
>
> In some of the books I've read they explicitly mention that many of the
> chords in the melodic minor are not used(or rarely used) such as the #vio.
>
> You might be right as I'm simply regurgitating what I have read as I have
> not analyzed a million pieces and tallied up how often it is used.
lol Regurgitation is fine. It is the first level of Bloom. The
problem, sometimes, is that the exclusive use of this level in a "Mad-
Lib" manner produces some rather amusing results and almost certain
confusion.
>
>
>
> >> Remember, mostly the melodic minor is used on the dominant
> >> harmony
>
> > Probably true.
> > But I'll bet that there's probably a few examples out there of V+9 (a
> > V7 chord with raised 5th and added 9th).
> > I'll also bet that there's a few instances of the equivalent of say
> > Cm/A in a piece that's in C minor.
Because of the Up-Down rules necessary for the true stylistic approach
of the melodic minor, some strange vertical structures will result.
Notice how this fits so well with the above statements about the
origins of these scales. They are MELODIC in nature. They are the
result of melodic considerations independent to the harmonic
considerations. The notes are a result of the melodic direction. The
harmony is incidental as it is the part writing or contrapuntal line
thinking that creates the chords. Try to relate this to the strict
functional harmony rules and they don't work so well because the music
is not written in that manner at that time.
>
> Yes. When but these devices sorta came along after the basis of tonality was
> established. The methods that are used to define tonality are constantly
> being modified or rearranged. It's not that tonality is changing but our
> ideas of it are being refined(as anything that progresses in time). You
> don't find a cave man painting that is refined as our recent history. Things
> just don't work like that. I would say that tonality as in it's primitive
> stages from around the 15th century and earlier and was refined from about
> the 19th(early 20th) to the 15th. Now it is being exploited and modified
> more of a way for change rather than development. (sorta, "Ok, we've had
> enough of that... lets play around with it now")
>
No, you see, the scales are from the old school. Just organized into
the new system! They work well enough to be thought of that way, but
don't go overboard and claim that these scales are a new innovation.
Maybe a revival of forgotten uses, but you will see the harmonic and
melodic scales and/or their components before the CPP.
> I'm just giving guestimate numbers. The point is that there seems to be
> basically 3 distinct periods of tonality. It's possible that in the future
> our point in time will be the "refiners". Depends on where it leads. (it's
> also possible our point could be the ruiners)
Care to mention them? And guestamate numbers? Sounds like Fox News!
If you don't have the numbers, don't guess. You either have them or
you don't. If you are guessing, tell what you base your guess on or
just don't claim that you are talking about anything more than a blind
guess.
> the b7. This is not so obvious but when you take into ...
>
> read more »
Joey Goldstein
V7 functions as V.
Joey Goldstein
All I'll say is that IMO you need to learn a bit more about what keys
are and what they are not.
In all of your comments you seem to be equating key and tonal centre and
they are not the same things.
A key is a particular type of tonal centre which is brought about by a
composer following certain conventions and using certain techniques.
all keys are tonal centres but all tonal centres are not keys.
A single tone might be perceived as a type of tonal centre, but it won't
become a "key" until several other conventions are in place and/or active.
Joey Goldstein
> Too much here to reply to Jon.
>
> All I'll say is that IMO you need to learn a bit more about what keys
> are and what they are not.
> In all of your comments you seem to be equating key and tonal centre and
> they are not the same things.
> A key is a particular type of tonal centre which is brought about by a
> composer following certain conventions and using certain techniques.
> all keys are tonal centres but all tonal centres are not keys.
>
> A single tone might be perceived as a type of tonal centre, but it won't
> become a "key" until several other conventions are in place and/or active.
Should have said:
A single tone might be perceived as a type of tonal centre, but it won't
become the tonic of a "key" until several other conventions are in
LJS
The text was incidental to our studies. I later realized that it was
only like a catalogue.
Orangeboxman
Dominant function in tonal music occurs when a real or implied
sonority includes a leading tone which can be heard
as being at ic6 from the scale tone at that point prevailing in our
understanding as the scale tone 4 steps higher.
"V" exists in Lydian, but it is not a tonal dominant because the only
real or implicit ic6 relation between any of its tones and some other
scale tone is between the modal final and the 4th degree.
That is, tonal dominants are marked by the propensity for both members
of the ic6 dyad to move simultaneously (more or less) in opposite
directions to either and ic3 dyad or an ic4 dyad.
This does not occur in "V" of Lydian. Thus the tonal dominant effect
in major and minor keys is also somewhat weaker when the 7th of the
chord is not present; much weaker if the previous instance of the 4th
in the key was raised.
Joey Goldstein
> Modal and tonal dominants are not the same.
>
> Dominant function in tonal music occurs when a real or implied
> sonority includes a leading tone which can be heard
> as being at ic6 from the scale tone at that point prevailing in our
> understanding as the scale tone 4 steps higher.
What does "ic6" mean?
And please try to explain the above paragraph to me because right now it
makes no sense to me.
Thanks.
> "V" exists in Lydian, but it is not a tonal dominant because the only
> real or implicit ic6 relation between any of its tones and some other
> scale tone is between the modal final and the 4th degree.
>
> That is, tonal dominants are marked by the propensity for both members
> of the ic6 dyad to move simultaneously (more or less) in opposite
> directions to either and ic3 dyad or an ic4 dyad.
>
> This does not occur in "V" of Lydian. Thus the tonal dominant effect
> in major and minor keys is also somewhat weaker when the 7th of the
> chord is not present; much weaker if the previous instance of the 4th
> in the key was raised.
tom_k
> Orangeboxman wrote:
>> Modal and tonal dominants are not the same.
>>
>> Dominant function in tonal music occurs when a real or implied
>> sonority includes a leading tone which can be heard
>> as being at ic6 from the scale tone at that point prevailing in our
>> understanding as the scale tone 4 steps higher.
>
> What does "ic6" mean?
> And please try to explain the above paragraph to me because right now it
> makes no sense to me.
> Thanks.
>
tritone. There are 6 interval classes (1~6) as a 7 st interval inverts to a
5 st interval and would be IC5, an 8st interval would be a member of IC4,
etc.
Tom
Joey Goldstein
OK. Thanks. I think I understand the gist of it.
But what is "st" short for? Semitone?
Jack Campin - bogus address
> tritone. There are 6 interval classes (1~6) as a 7 st interval inverts
> to a 5 st interval and would be IC5, an 8st interval would be a member
> of IC4, etc.
What do you do with that?
I can see how it might be relevant to analyzing twelve-tone music (or
related styles like Elliott Carter's), but why would anybody need it
for anything tonal?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
e m a i l : j a c k @ c a m p i n . m e . u k
Jack Campin * 11 Third Street, Newtongrange, Midlothian EH22 4PU, Scotland
mob 07800 739 557 <http://www.campin.me.uk> Twitter: JackCampin
tom_k
> tom_k wrote:
>> "Joey Goldstein" <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
>> news:961d8$4afcd7f5$d8fecfb2$83...@PRIMUS.CA...
>>> Orangeboxman wrote:
>>>> Modal and tonal dominants are not the same.
>>>>
>>>> Dominant function in tonal music occurs when a real or implied
>>>> sonority includes a leading tone which can be heard
>>>> as being at ic6 from the scale tone at that point prevailing in our
>>>> understanding as the scale tone 4 steps higher.
>>> What does "ic6" mean?
>>> And please try to explain the above paragraph to me because right now it
>>> makes no sense to me.
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>> "IC" conventionally stands for interval class in semitones. So IC6 = a
>> tritone. There are 6 interval classes (1~6) as a 7 st interval inverts
>> to a 5 st interval and would be IC5, an 8st interval would be a member of
>> IC4, etc.
>>
>> Tom
>
> OK. Thanks. I think I understand the gist of it.
> But what is "st" short for? Semitone?
>
Right. It is part of what is often called "Pitch-Class Set Theory" and is
very useful for describing (mostly) non-tonal structures. The basic idea is
that all intervals are members of one of the six ICs. So an augmented 9th,
for example, being 15 semi-tones would be described as a member of IC3, and
would be equivalent to a minor 3rd. The conventional terms for interval
description such as "major, minor, augmented, diminished, 2nd, 3rd, etc. are
not used so as not to imply a non-existent tonal function.
I also don't understand why the OP uses this non-tonal terminology to
describe a tonal event. It is sort of like describing a V-I progression as
"an 0,4,7 set followed by (0,4,7) T5" (transposition up 5 sts). Obviously,
"V-I" gives a lot more information and is more elegant to boot!
I gather he is saying that unlike a modal Dominant, a tonal Dominant depends
on the presence of the major scale tritone.
But for me, a tonal Dominant is a combination of leading tone and dominant
root - which means that a chord 7th may intensify dominant function, but is
not necessary for it.
Hope this helps.
Tom
Orangeboxman
related styles like Elliott Carter's), but why would anybody need it
for anything tonal?
Fair question.
I TRY to use "ic" when I'm making a point about a class of intervals
rather than about a specific interval.
If I say "augmented fourth" or "diminished fifth", there's a danger
that I'll be understood as not saying the same principle applies to
compound intervals, for example.
Really, though, that pc set theory is only useful for atonal music is
an idea that tends to be wrongly intuited from the fact that there's
not much else in the way of alternative methods of analyzing the
atonal.
It might be considered a waste of time to lecture people on T5
relations between the various 7-35 sets in Mozart,
but it would not be misleading.
About half of what I consider I'm glad I understand about tonal and
modal music is the result of looking at these musics without the
assumption that they 'must not be atonal'.
Orangeboxman
describe a tonal event.
Also a fair question.
It's because I do not like seeing "begged" analyses disputed by means
of other "begged" analyses
(not that anybody here are those who originally begged them).
When there's a lack of clarity about the 'tonal meaning' of something,
the most objective thing to do is to look at both the unclear item and
the examples to which it is supposed to be compared, all as removed
from extraneous implicative contexts.
PC set theory culturally neutralizes a lot of things in terms of the
way conventional uses of tonal jargon can sometimes obfuscate as much
as they illucidate.
Moreover, if I thought it would help, I might also post my comments in
Esperanto.
Any takers?
Joey Goldstein
Yet it is also possible to have D funct chords that do not contain the
dominant of the key and the leading tone at the same time.
I think it's pretty hard to do it without either tone being present
though, but I'll have to think about that before committing to it.
I'm think of chords like:
F Ab D as possibly having D function in C minor.
What do oyu think?
tom_k
>
> Yet it is also possible to have D funct chords that do not contain the
> dominant of the key and the leading tone at the same time.
> I think it's pretty hard to do it without either tone being present
> though, but I'll have to think about that before committing to it.
> I'm think of chords like:
> F Ab D as possibly having D function in C minor.
> What do oyu think?
>
Well, the obvious interpretation of F Ab D to Eb G C would be iio6 - i6, a
sort of weak plagal cadence (assuming it ended a phrase). But I suppose
that given a particular context, you could hear it as an incomplete viio4/3
(F Ab B D) which would then be clearly a Dominant function - albeit not as
strong as V -i. Now as I can't think of one offhand, can you provide that
context?
Another instance of why diminished chords are so ambiguous & interesting.
Tom
Joey Goldstein
Not right now.
Maybe later.
......
Actually, after thinking about it a bit more I'd have to say that this
chord is not really capable of carrying D function in the key. It always
comes out sounding SD to me in C minor or C major.
One thing's for sure though, it's not a T chord in C! lol
Thanks.
> Another instance of why diminished chords are so ambiguous & interesting.
>
> Tom
>
>
tom_k
> tom_k wrote:
>> "Joey Goldstein" <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
>> news:af84f$4afe3785$d8fecf49$42...@PRIMUS.CA...
>>> Yet it is also possible to have D funct chords that do not contain the
>>> dominant of the key and the leading tone at the same time.
>>> I think it's pretty hard to do it without either tone being present
>>> though, but I'll have to think about that before committing to it.
>>> I'm think of chords like:
>>> F Ab D as possibly having D function in C minor.
>>> What do oyu think?
>>>
>>
>> Well, the obvious interpretation of F Ab D to Eb G C would be iio6 - i6,
>> a sort of weak plagal cadence (assuming it ended a phrase). But I
>> suppose that given a particular context, you could hear it as an
>> incomplete viio4/3 (F Ab B D) which would then be clearly a Dominant
>> function - albeit not as strong as V -i. Now as I can't think of one
>> offhand, can you provide that context?
>
> Not right now.
> Maybe later.
> ......
>
> Actually, after thinking about it a bit more I'd have to say that this
> chord is not really capable of carrying D function in the key. It always
> comes out sounding SD to me in C minor or C major.
> One thing's for sure though, it's not a T chord in C! lol
> Thanks.
>
Actually, I was hoping you could think of an example as I have this nagging
suspicion that there is one which simply eludes us. Ah well...
Tom
Orangeboxman
tonic sonority or as a 'pre-dominant' sonority, it quite likely
qualifies as a dominant sonority.
Moreover, if it's not one of these 3 things, then tonality isn't
happening.
tom_k
"Orangeboxman" <Jo...@orangeboxman.com> wrote in message
news:abe58859-8e29-408a...@m38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
What about linear chords such as might be found in a fauxbourdon succession
of parallel 1st inversions? Now if you want to modify your first statement
to read "If a functional chord appears in a tonal context...", then I'd tend
to agree.
Tom
Joey Goldstein
Well I've encountered that idea before and while there is some merit to
it I don't think it really holds up under further scrutiny.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're equating what is known as
subdominant function with what you're calling "pre-dominant" function.
This terminology seems to suggest that in Tonal music any instance of a
Sd funct chord must necessarily progress to a D funct chord, and this is
clearly not true.
I.e. In Tonal music, not all SD funct chords are operating as
pre-dominant chords.
The moverment of a SD funct chord directly to a T funct chord is
extremely common in Tonal music.
And just because a chord proceeds to a T funct chord does not
necessarily make that chord a D funct chord, which is what you seem to
be suggesting.
I generally dislike the term "pre-dominant chord" as a substitute for
"subdominant function chord" for those reasons. Although when a SD funct
chord does actually proceed to a D funct chord I have no objections to
other folks referring to it as a "pre-dominant chord".
LJS
Hi Tom. I have tried to see the beginning of this thought but have not
been able to find a source that makes sense. It sounds like you are
talking about an example of a D F Ab functioning as a iio chord in the
key of C but I must not have found the post in this rather long
thread. I do not know what the function of a "D chord" would be so I
assume that he must mean a iio but that doesn't make any sense as if
this is what you are looking for, an example of the D F Ab functioning
as iio then:
F Ab D to G B F to C Eb G would be a iio V i. and could be voiced
quite nicely in 4 parts With or with out the 7th in the V
This seems to be too obvious to be what you are looking for so what is
is the example that you are trying to find?
LJS
LJS
Aha, I found it. I knew it had to be something stupid that I missed.
It is confusing when one uses their own definitions for well
established concepts like Dominant. That puts it in a different
context entirely. (that is a contextual error on my part)
Yes, there may be one that eludes us, but without the B, it is hard to
see it as a 1st class chord in the key of C. It could be used in Eb as
a viio and if your destination tone set would be C Eb and G it could
be considered a I6 chord in a viio - I (add 6) or a deceptive cadence
in a viio - vi. In both these instances the D F Ab would be a 1st
class or a Dominant function.
Is that what you are looking for? or is there something else that I
missed in my search?
LJS
Joey Goldstein
Yeah. You missed the context and the meaning of the discussion.
J R Laredo
The term, "pre-dominant chord" isn't supposed to be a substitute for
subdominant fuction chord, it is that there are different kinds of chords
that normally in a tonal system preceed a dominant function chord and the
subdominant function chord is one: i.e. the one is a pre-dominant, but not
all pre-dominants are subdominants. Three others I can think of are
secondary dominants, Neopolitan 6, and tonic 6/4.
Joey Goldstein
Ah. OK. Thanks.
I've only run across the term here, in this ng, and I've only seen it
used in reference to SD funct chords.
Is the Neapolitan chord not considered to be SD? I always heard that it was.
I suppose it follows then that chords that are capable of functioning as
pre-dominants are not necessarily always functioning in that manner then?
For instance...
The only secondary dominant that fits your description is V7/V, and only
when it actually proceeds to the V7 chord (as opposed to proceeding to
IIm7/IV, etc.)?
V7/IIm does not normally proceed to a dom7 structure built on S2, but
when it does it would then be a pre-dominant chord?
Etc., etc.
Is that more or less correct?
Joey Goldstein
Also, in jazz, what you folks call the Neapolitan chord (aka bII) often
proceeds directly to I, so in this instance it's not really a
pre-dominant chord, right?
J R Laredo
As you have pointed out, terminology can be shifty, depending on who is
doing the talking. In the circle I learned in, the regular terms of tonic,
sub-dominant, and dominant refer to chords that are normally unaltered in
the key in question. By definition the Neopolitan is built on a flatted
second degree of the scale so it really doesn't fit in as a sub-dominant.
> I suppose it follows then that chords that are capable of functioning as
> pre-dominants are not necessarily always functioning in that manner then?
> For instance...
> The only secondary dominant that fits your description is V7/V, and only
> when it actually proceeds to the V7 chord (as opposed to proceeding to
> IIm7/IV, etc.)?
Normally, not always, but, normally, a secondary dominant seven doesn't
preceed a dominant seven, just a dominant without the seven.
> V7/IIm does not normally proceed to a dom7 structure built on S2, but when
> it does it would then be a pre-dominant chord?
> Etc., etc.
> Is that more or less correct?
I don't think so since there would have to be a chord between it and the
dominant, that would make it a "pre-pre-dominant" which is getting silly. I
think.
J R Laredo
Well, jazz rules and conventions are different, and I defer that knowledge
to someone who knows more than I do.
Joey Goldstein
I see.
The text that I am most familiar with that uses jargon such as "the
Neapolitan chord" is dealing mostly with Romantic era harmony and
Romantic era harmony is considered to be just post CPP, no?
So, if I get what you're saying, it's that in a *CPP* oriented harmonic
analysis the Neapolitan chord is not seen as having SD function. But in
an analysis geared towards Romantic era harmony it might be labelled as
a SD funct chord or it might not. Close enough?
Or are you saying that that in all of classical Tonal theory the
Neapolitan chord would never be analyzed as a SD funct chord?
>> I suppose it follows then that chords that are capable of functioning as
>> pre-dominants are not necessarily always functioning in that manner then?
>> For instance...
>> The only secondary dominant that fits your description is V7/V, and only
>> when it actually proceeds to the V7 chord (as opposed to proceeding to
>> IIm7/IV, etc.)?
>
> Normally, not always, but, normally, a secondary dominant seven doesn't
> preceed a dominant seven, just a dominant without the seven.
Really?
In all of the CPP there are no instances of V7/V moving directly to V7?
V7/V must always go through a V triad before it proceeds to V7?
Also for the other secondary dominants...
V7/IIm can never proceed directly to IIm7? It must go through a IIm
triad to get there?
This can't be right.
>> V7/IIm does not normally proceed to a dom7 structure built on S2, but when
>> it does it would then be a pre-dominant chord?
>> Etc., etc.
>> Is that more or less correct?
>
> I don't think so since there would have to be a chord between it and the
> dominant, that would make it a "pre-pre-dominant" which is getting silly. I
> think.
OK. So if that's true, then V7/V is still the only secondary dominant
chord that can rightfully be called a "pre-dominant" chord because it
precedes the D funct triad of the key.
The other possible secondary dominants do not precede a chord that has D
function.
Right?
But wait. In the chord progression:
C / A7 / |D D7 G G7 |C
Wouldn't the Dmaj triad still have the function of a secondary dominant,
namely V/V?
Secondary dominant function is still a type of D funct.
In this instance is the A7 called a "pre-dominant" chord or not?
You've got me confused with all of this.
Please supply me with an example of how the various secondary dom7
chords can function as pre-dominant chords and some examples of them not
functioning as pre-dominant chords.
Orangeboxman
of parallel 1st inversions?
Fauxbourdon is a modal technique which rarely appears in tonal music
(tonal being a subset of modal),
but it's a great question anyway.
If these chords are not part of a tonal cadence, or 'preparing' a
tonal cadence, then they are not being used tonally,
but only modally.
Moreover, if they are being used tonally, it is almost certainly as
'preparing' (pre-embellishing) either the V7 or a chord of similar
function.
After all, without V7 or its equivalent, where is the tonality?
Orangeboxman
> subdominant function with what you're calling "pre-dominant" function.
It's not actually my terminology, but I use it because chords of
dominant function and tonic function have to conform in certain ways
to standard examples of tonics and dominants, whereas chords which pre-
embellish dominant function chords need not necessarily have anything
in common with the subdominant chord of the implied key in order to
fulfill their function relative to the dominant function chord.
Practically anything that doesn't sound like a tonic or a dominant
will work in this way, although some things work better than others.
The subdominant may be the best example, but it need not be used as a
model, and thus should not be understood as having it's own tonal
function.
I would prefer to reserve expressions like 'subdominant function' for
cases where the subdominant is being specifically referred to in some
way without being stated, as if it were a semantic than grammatical
object. Really, though, 'function',
in such a case is still a misnomer. I just don't have a better term
for that (yet).
I am aware that there are those who will disagree with me.
I hope they have really good reasons, which I am eager to consider.
Orangeboxman
> proceeds directly to I, so in this instance it's not really a
> pre-dominant chord, right?
Please allow me to be clear:
Tritone substitution of the dominant is not a Neapolitan sonority;
Neapolitan chords invoke the Phrygian mode, not the Byzantine mode,
and are not a plagal form of the German 6th. The DO prepare a
dominant, or imply that they will.
Tritone subs replace the dominant with another dominant which shares
the tritone,
specifically producing real or implied parallel 5ths between ii7 and
IMaj7.
The do not prepare a dominant. They are a dominant.
Joey Goldstein
I'm not talking about bII7.
I'm talking about bIImaj or bIImaj7, which is not a tritone sub for G7.
Imagine the progression:
Cmaj7 / / |Dbmaj7 / G7 / |Cmaj7
Here, the Dbmaj7 chord is clearly functioning as both a Sd funct chord
and a pre-dominant chord.
In this progression, it's not pre-dominant:
Cmaj7 / / / |Fmaj7 / / / |Dbmaj7 / / / |Cmaj7
In my circles we actually call this a "subdominant minor function"
(abbrev. - SDM) chord. I.e. It's borrowed from the SD area of the
parallel minor.
tom_k
> I've only run across the term here, in this ng, and I've only seen it used
> in reference to SD funct chords.
> Is the Neapolitan chord not considered to be SD? I always heard that it
> was.
> I suppose it follows then that chords that are capable of functioning as
> pre-dominants are not necessarily always functioning in that manner then?
If you accept the propostiion that there are three main tonal harmonic
functions, the one which tends to move to Dominant is often called
subdominant (possibly not the best term), pre-dominant, or dominant prep.
The IV chord is the primary dominant prep in CPP and the ii in jazz -
although the combination of the two, ii7 is preferred in jazz as you know. I
think your use of S or SD for dominant prep function in a jazz context is
clear enough, but nit picking is always possible around here. As an altered
ii, the Neapolitan is a dominant prep chord as it tends to move strongly to
V.
The main instance of a pre-dominant or dominant prep not going to a dominant
is the plagal progression, IV-I.
> For instance...
> The only secondary dominant that fits your description is V7/V, and only
> when it actually proceeds to the V7 chord (as opposed to proceeding to
> IIm7/IV, etc.)?
> V7/IIm does not normally proceed to a dom7 structure built on S2, but when
> it does it would then be a pre-dominant chord?
> Etc., etc.
> Is that more or less correct?
I sort of like the old-fashioned term for secondary dominant - "Applied
dominant", meaning a V function applied to another goal other than I. So it
seems to me that while V7/V is preparing the V, it is itself a V function
chord, not a dominant prep.
And as Josh said, the bII moving to I is invariably a bII7 and therefore a
tritone sub. for V7. And of course there may be "Applied" or "Secondary"
tritone subs. such as the Tritone Sub./V to V7 (or Ab7 to G7 in the key of
C) - the German 6th!
Tom
Joey Goldstein
> "Joey Goldstein" <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
> news:30cb0$4b004d53$d8fecf49$25...@PRIMUS.CA...
>> I've only run across the term here, in this ng, and I've only seen it used
>> in reference to SD funct chords.
>> Is the Neapolitan chord not considered to be SD? I always heard that it
>> was.
>> I suppose it follows then that chords that are capable of functioning as
>> pre-dominants are not necessarily always functioning in that manner then?
>
> If you accept the propostiion that there are three main tonal harmonic
> functions, the one which tends to move to Dominant is often called
> subdominant (possibly not the best term), pre-dominant, or dominant prep.
> The IV chord is the primary dominant prep in CPP and the ii in jazz -
> although the combination of the two, ii7 is preferred in jazz as you know. I
> think your use of S or SD for dominant prep function in a jazz context is
> clear enough, but nit picking is always possible around here. As an altered
> ii, the Neapolitan is a dominant prep chord as it tends to move strongly to
> V.
>
> The main instance of a pre-dominant or dominant prep not going to a dominant
> is the plagal progression, IV-I.
True. but there are others. Perhaps there are fewer in CPP. But in jazz
and post-CPP Tonality there are a few others that pop up.
>> For instance...
>> The only secondary dominant that fits your description is V7/V, and only
>> when it actually proceeds to the V7 chord (as opposed to proceeding to
>> IIm7/IV, etc.)?
>> V7/IIm does not normally proceed to a dom7 structure built on S2, but when
>> it does it would then be a pre-dominant chord?
>> Etc., etc.
>> Is that more or less correct?
>
> I sort of like the old-fashioned term for secondary dominant - "Applied
> dominant", meaning a V function applied to another goal other than I. So it
> seems to me that while V7/V is preparing the V, it is itself a V function
> chord, not a dominant prep.
Well I always learned that secondary dominant function is still a form
of dominant function too.
But I see no real reason why a D funct chord can not also have the
function of being a pre-dominant chord.
Actually, to be honest, I see no reason for the term "pre-dominant"
chord. If a dominant chord follows some chord then that chord was
obviously a pre-dominant chord. Hell, I (in any inversion, not just 2nd
inv) could be a pre-dominant chord. lol
> And as Josh said, the bII moving to I is invariably a bII7
Not in jazz or in American Songbook-type harmony.
bII is often a maj7 chord.
> and therefore a
> tritone sub. for V7. And of course there may be "Applied" or "Secondary"
> tritone subs. such as the Tritone Sub./V to V7 (or Ab7 to G7 in the key of
> C) - the German 6th!
>
> Tom
>
>
tom_k
> >What about linear chords such as might be found in a fauxbourdon
> >succession
> of parallel 1st inversions?
>
> Fauxbourdon is a modal technique which rarely appears in tonal music
> (tonal being a subset of modal),
> but it's a great question anyway.
It was a useful effect for both Beethoven & Mozart, not frequent, perhaps,
but hardly rare.
> If these chords are not part of a tonal cadence, or 'preparing' a
> tonal cadence, then they are not being used tonally,
> but only modally.
My point was that while they are part of the drive to a cadence, most of the
individual chords are decorative, not functional.
> Moreover, if they are being used tonally, it is almost certainly as
> 'preparing' (pre-embellishing) either the V7 or a chord of similar
> function.
In the Beeth. Piano Sonata #3, Mmt. 4, the movement is from I6 to IV6 one
octave higher, pausing on V65/V followed by a repetition down a fourth from
V6 to I, each phrase containing roughly one dozen parallel 6th chords. Of
course, the phrase beginnings, the H/C on V7/V, the resolutions to V and I
(root position) are strongly functional, but the majority of these "chords"
are harmonized passing tones - neither T, D, or SD, but embellishing.
Tom
tom_k
>
> Well I always learned that secondary dominant function is still a form of
> dominant function too.
> But I see no real reason why a D funct chord can not also have the
> function of being a pre-dominant chord.
>
> Actually, to be honest, I see no reason for the term "pre-dominant" chord.
> If a dominant chord follows some chord then that chord was obviously a
> pre-dominant chord. Hell, I (in any inversion, not just 2nd inv) could be
> a pre-dominant chord. lol
Wasn't it Steve who suggested a while back that in certain types of music,
it's more useful to hear only two functions - Tonic and "not-Tonic"?
>> And as Josh said, the bII moving to I is invariably a bII7
>
> Not in jazz or in American Songbook-type harmony.
> bII is often a maj7 chord.
Sorry, I forgot about the less common N (or Nma7) to I which you described
earlier as a type of minor SD to I.
What about something like Cm/Eb - D7 - DbMa7 - Cm? While the positioning of
the DbM7 would seem to force us to hear it as V, I wonder if everything but
the Cm chords aren't simply passing. Incidentally, in live performance,
Bobby Timmons used that coda to end "Dat Dere", but he would end on the
DbM7 - allowing the listener to silently add the Cm6 (or not).
Tom
Joey Goldstein
> "Joey Goldstein" <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
> news:dce9c$4b00a7c8$d8fecf49$32...@PRIMUS.CA...
>> Well I always learned that secondary dominant function is still a form of
>> dominant function too.
>> But I see no real reason why a D funct chord can not also have the
>> function of being a pre-dominant chord.
>>
>> Actually, to be honest, I see no reason for the term "pre-dominant" chord.
>> If a dominant chord follows some chord then that chord was obviously a
>> pre-dominant chord. Hell, I (in any inversion, not just 2nd inv) could be
>> a pre-dominant chord. lol
>
> Wasn't it Steve who suggested a while back that in certain types of music,
> it's more useful to hear only two functions - Tonic and "not-Tonic"?
It's been mentioned several times in this group and on the jazz guitar
group. sometimes it's been me mentioning it. Sometimes other folks.
Doesn't seem like something that Steve would say though.
In jazz, we often operate along those lines though.
In maj keys anything consisting of diatonic notes that doesn't have S4
in it is T funct. Anything with S4 is not.a
In minor keys, any diatonic chord that doesn't have Sb6 is T. Anything
that does is not.
>>> And as Josh said, the bII moving to I is invariably a bII7
>> Not in jazz or in American Songbook-type harmony.
>> bII is often a maj7 chord.
>
> Sorry, I forgot about the less common N (or Nma7) to I which you described
> earlier as a type of minor SD to I.
>
> What about something like Cm/Eb - D7 - DbMa7 - Cm? While the positioning of
> the DbM7 would seem to force us to hear it as V, I wonder if everything but
> the Cm chords aren't simply passing.
Well, just because it's a "pre-tonic" chord doesn't mean that it's a D
funct chord. lol.
Wasn't it with you that we were talking about S5 or S7 needing to be
present for D funct to be happening?
> Incidentally, in live performance,
> Bobby Timmons used that coda to end "Dat Dere", but he would end on the
> DbM7 - allowing the listener to silently add the Cm6 (or not).
>
> Tom
>
>
J R Laredo
It is a matter of definition. An ordinary ii, for example, a chord built on
D in the key of C is and usually functions as a subdominant since it shares
two pitches from a chord built on F and one pitch from a chord built on G
and is not ordinarily involved with modulations. A Neopolitan, by
definition (the ones I know of, at least) is a major chord built on a
flatted second degree of a scale and in first inversion, nearly always is
used to embellish the dominant, and often used in modulations. For example,
in C, suddenly there is an Eb6 followed by an A7 and then either temporarily
or for extended period in D. I like the sound and I often use this
sequence to modulate to different keys.
>
>>> I suppose it follows then that chords that are capable of functioning as
>>> pre-dominants are not necessarily always functioning in that manner
>>> then?
>>> For instance...
>>> The only secondary dominant that fits your description is V7/V, and only
>>> when it actually proceeds to the V7 chord (as opposed to proceeding to
>>> IIm7/IV, etc.)?
>>
>> Normally, not always, but, normally, a secondary dominant seven doesn't
>> preceed a dominant seven, just a dominant without the seven.
>
> Really?
> In all of the CPP there are no instances of V7/V moving directly to V7?
I guess you missed the "Normally, not always, but, normally" that I wrote.
> V7/V must always go through a V triad before it proceeds to V7?
>
Not always, but, usually. Do you remember the example of the Bach? All of
the V7/V went to V. None went to V7.
> Also for the other secondary dominants...
> V7/IIm can never proceed directly to IIm7? It must go through a IIm triad
> to get there?
> This can't be right.
Where did I put never? Where?
>
>>> V7/IIm does not normally proceed to a dom7 structure built on S2, but
>>> when it does it would then be a pre-dominant chord?
>>> Etc., etc.
>>> Is that more or less correct?
>>
>> I don't think so since there would have to be a chord between it and the
>> dominant, that would make it a "pre-pre-dominant" which is getting silly.
>> I think.
>
> OK. So if that's true, then V7/V is still the only secondary dominant
> chord that can rightfully be called a "pre-dominant" chord because it
> precedes the D funct triad of the key.
> The other possible secondary dominants do not precede a chord that has D
> function.
> Right?
I thought that went without saying. If it isn't pre a dominant, then, it
can't be a pre-dominant, can it?
>
> But wait. In the chord progression:
> C / A7 / |D D7 G G7 |C
> Wouldn't the Dmaj triad still have the function of a secondary dominant,
> namely V/V?
> Secondary dominant function is still a type of D funct.
> In this instance is the A7 called a "pre-dominant" chord or not?
>
Pre-dominant usually refers to the Dominant chord of a key, not before
secondary dominants. I mean, you can call it that, back several times if
you want, all the way through the circle of fifths if you like, but, not
usually. Why would anyone want to?
J R Laredo
>J R Laredo wrote:
>> "Joey Goldstein" <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
>> news:30cb0$4b004d53$d8fecf49$25...@PRIMUS.CA...
>>> J R Laredo wrote:
>>>> "Joey Goldstein" <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:e60ed$4aff0c47$d8fecf49$20...@PRIMUS.CA...
>>>>
> You've got me confused with all of this.
I think not, but I will play along.
> Please supply me with an example of how the various secondary dom7 chords
> can function as pre-dominant chords and some examples of them not
> functioning as pre-dominant chords.
Okay. Let's go with the progression you gave:
C / A7 / |D D7 G G7 |C
In the key of G that would be IV - V7/V - V V7 - I - V7/IV - IV.
Functionally the V and the V7 are the same, the dominant chord of the key
just that the addition of the 7 adds some sonic impetus. So the V7/V is a
pre-domininant since it is a modifying chord that preceeds the dominant, and
the V7/IV is not since the IV is not the dominant of the key.
You are omitting, either by accident or design, that terms in music can vary
by context. The dominant of a chord is not necessarily the dominant in a
key. Just the way it is by definition, and one we have to deal with until
someone comes up with a universally accepted one.
Joey Goldstein
While I appreciate the description of the Neapolitan chord's usage, a
simple yes or no answer was all that I required.
So what is it, yes or no?
Are you saying that that in all of classical Tonal theory (including
Romantic era harmony) the Neapolitan chord would never be analyzed as a
SD funct chord?
>>>> I suppose it follows then that chords that are capable of functioning as
>>>> pre-dominants are not necessarily always functioning in that manner
>>>> then?
>>>> For instance...
>>>> The only secondary dominant that fits your description is V7/V, and only
>>>> when it actually proceeds to the V7 chord (as opposed to proceeding to
>>>> IIm7/IV, etc.)?
>>> Normally, not always, but, normally, a secondary dominant seven doesn't
>>> preceed a dominant seven, just a dominant without the seven.
>> Really?
>> In all of the CPP there are no instances of V7/V moving directly to V7?
>
> I guess you missed the "Normally, not always, but, normally" that I wrote.
Yes. I guess I did.
I was under the impression that chains of dom7 chord were fairly common
in CPP and romantic era harmony. So I was taken aback by your comment.
>> V7/V must always go through a V triad before it proceeds to V7?
>>
>
> Not always, but, usually. Do you remember the example of the Bach?
What "example of the Bach" are you referring to?
> All of
> the V7/V went to V. None went to V7.
OK.
But V7/V still moves to V7 sometimes within CPP harmony.
So, V7/V is rightly called a pre-dominant chord. Fine.
What if V7/V is part of a key change into the key of V? Is it still
thought of as being a pre-dominant chord, or is it just a dominant chord
in the new key?
>> Also for the other secondary dominants...
>> V7/IIm can never proceed directly to IIm7? It must go through a IIm triad
>> to get there?
>> This can't be right.
>
> Where did I put never? Where?
Sorry. I thought that was what you were saying.
Since that's not what you were saying it makes the rest of my questions
irrelevant.
I don't know.
Like I said in another post, I'm not all that fond of the term
"pre-dominant" chord anyway. If a chord proceeds to the dominant, then
it was a "pre-dominant" chord. That doesn't really tell you all that
much useful information about the chord as far as I can see.
J R Laredo
Then, no. By definition it is not considered a sub-dominant chord because
it is an altered chord. I mean, someone might, but, in the set of
definitions I learned it can't fit the definition.
>
>>>>> I suppose it follows then that chords that are capable of functioning
>>>>> as pre-dominants are not necessarily always functioning in that manner
>>>>> then?
>>>>> For instance...
>>>>> The only secondary dominant that fits your description is V7/V, and
>>>>> only when it actually proceeds to the V7 chord (as opposed to
>>>>> proceeding to IIm7/IV, etc.)?
>>>> Normally, not always, but, normally, a secondary dominant seven doesn't
>>>> preceed a dominant seven, just a dominant without the seven.
>>> Really?
>>> In all of the CPP there are no instances of V7/V moving directly to V7?
>>
>> I guess you missed the "Normally, not always, but, normally" that I
>> wrote.
>
> Yes. I guess I did.
> I was under the impression that chains of dom7 chord were fairly common in
> CPP and romantic era harmony. So I was taken aback by your comment.
>
Sequences of dom7 chords prior to Romantic era usually are associated with
tonal ambiguity, such as modulations. When composers stay firmly within a
specific key a secondary dominant usually doesn't embelish a 7 chord.
>>> V7/V must always go through a V triad before it proceeds to V7?
>>>
>>
>> Not always, but, usually. Do you remember the example of the Bach?
>
> What "example of the Bach" are you referring to?
The C major prelude. I wrote that all of the secondary dominants only
embellished chords without 7ths. Maybe it was in a different thread.
>
>> All of the V7/V went to V. None went to V7.
>
> OK.
> But V7/V still moves to V7 sometimes within CPP harmony.
> So, V7/V is rightly called a pre-dominant chord. Fine.
Yes to both. Once you get to Romantic it happens more and more often. If
memory serves Franck did it quite a lot.
>
> What if V7/V is part of a key change into the key of V? Is it still
> thought of as being a pre-dominant chord, or is it just a dominant chord
> in the new key?
If it is a part of the key change, then the new key has not been
established, has it? Otherwise it wouldn't be a change, would it? Once the
new key is established then it is now the dominant. Just like real estate
it is location, location, location.
>
>>> Also for the other secondary dominants...
>>> V7/IIm can never proceed directly to IIm7? It must go through a IIm
>>> triad to get there?
>>> This can't be right.
>>
>> Where did I put never? Where?
>
> Sorry. I thought that was what you were saying.
> Since that's not what you were saying it makes the rest of my questions
> irrelevant.
>
I really avoid "nevers" in music because that is a bad idea: it would be
like claiming that no one had ever written a piece of music that was played
only on open strings of a guitar because, sure enough, someone, somewhere
probably has. It is a lot of statistical analysis: there are trends and
percentages for and against.
You are correct, but it is a definition, and does tell something. Be like
saying, "I ate." There are many different things that could be eaten, but
it does tell something, doesn't it?
LJS
Try to keep up. I think I explained that and it has been corrected.
You should try it sometimes.
LJS
LJS
If you read the definition you will see that this is certainly
correct. The N6 as it is usually notated, it always a 2nd class chord.
If it does not function as a N6 (i.e. proceeding to the Dominant or
the Cadential 6/4 chord) then it might be a bII but it is not a N6,
In jazz there are several ways to account for it in the regular CPP
theory but I will not go into that right now. Later if you like.
LJS
Orangeboxman
I'm talking about bIImaj or bIImaj7
Very good point.
I would say that can easily qualify as a Neapolitan sonority if voiced
as such and succeeded as such.
Orangeboxman
> > (tonal being a subset of modal),
> > but it's a great question anyway.
>
> It was a useful effect for both Beethoven & Mozart, not frequent, perhaps,
> but hardly rare.
True. Only rare as a larger structural element... but that's
important, too.
> > If these chords are not part of a tonal cadence, or 'preparing' a
> > tonal cadence, then they are not being used tonally,
> > but only modally.
>
> My point was that while they are part of the drive to a cadence, most of the
> individual chords are decorative, not functional.
That depends on what we consider to be function. Even the subdominant
is not necessary in tonal music,
and it can usually be replaced almost by a random pile of notes
without actually affecting the form of the composition.
So in that sense, even the subdominant also has no 'function'. In the
sense that the subdominant's 'function' is to provide something to
hear while the dominant isn't yet arriving, long passages of
fauxbourdon, even in some series of distant keys, can substantially do
the same thing... just probably not to as great an aesthetic effect.
> > Moreover, if they are being used tonally, it is almost certainly as
> > 'preparing' (pre-embellishing) either the V7 or a chord of similar
> > function.
>
> In the Beeth. Piano Sonata #3, Mmt. 4, the movement is from I6 to IV6 one
> octave higher, pausing on V65/V followed by a repetition down a fourth from
> V6 to I, each phrase containing roughly one dozen parallel 6th chords. Of
> course, the phrase beginnings, the H/C on V7/V, the resolutions to V and I
> (root position) are strongly functional, but the majority of these "chords"
> are harmonized passing tones - neither T, D, or SD, but embellishing.
One of the rare points in which I would agree with my Schenker
professor (or ANY Schenker professor for that matter),
is that if the string of chords is overwhelmingly in one key which has
already been established as a tonal use of the scale, the individual
chords will all only serve to embellish the tonic or dominant of that
key.
OTOH, If a composition begins with tonics and dominants and then moves
to a bunch of modal-sounding fauxbourdon using the same scale, and
then stops without any reappearance of the dominant, the piece should
either be regarded as an incomplete tonal composition or as s modal
composition with a really poorly-considered opening.
Nonetheless, I will entertain arguments for the merit of such a
composition, if you happen to have one for reference.
Orangeboxman
> secondary dominants. I mean, you can call it that, back several times if
> you want, all the way through the circle of fifths if you like, but, not
> usually. Why would anyone want to?
Secondary dominants also serve an essentially pre-dominant function in
the consideration of a tonal composition as a whole. Their most
interesting effect is not that they cause nontonic chords to sound
momentarily tonic-like, but that they
cause chords graphically equivalent to the ultimate tonic and dominant
triads to sound as if they were serving some kind of pre-dominant
function. The tonic of the piece as a whole can momentarily become the
subdominant of the dominant. The ultimate dominant can become the
subdominant of the dominant of the dominant.
That is: the true purpose of applied dominants is not to tonicize
anything. The true purpose is to disrupt prevailing dominant function,
allowing greater structural meaning to be assigned to prevailing
dominant function upon its return.
Joey Goldstein
Hmm.
I always thought that in CPP-era harmony the only instance of a major
chord with its root on scale degree b2 was the Neapolitan chord
(notwithstanding its inversion).
I.e. I thought that a bII chord that was not functioning as the
Neapolitan chord simply would never occur in CPP-era harmony.
A non-Neapololitan bII chord would have to be seen as modal borrowing
from the parallel phrygian, and I have always thought that this would
not have been allowed in CPP-era harmony.
Live and learn, I guess (assuming that what you say above has not been
botched by you, as is usually the case). Thanks (presumably).
> In jazz there are several ways to account for it in the regular CPP
> theory but I will not go into that right now. Later if you like.
Please no.
Anything but that.
J R Laredo
> Orangeboxman wrote:
>>> Also, in jazz, what you folks call the Neapolitan chord (aka bII) often
>>> proceeds directly to I, so in this instance it's not really a
>>> pre-dominant chord, right?
>>
>> Please allow me to be clear:
>>
>> Tritone substitution of the dominant is not a Neapolitan sonority;
>> Neapolitan chords invoke the Phrygian mode, not the Byzantine mode,
>> and are not a plagal form of the German 6th. The DO prepare a
>> dominant, or imply that they will.
>>
>> Tritone subs replace the dominant with another dominant which shares
>> the tritone,
>> specifically producing real or implied parallel 5ths between ii7 and
>> IMaj7.
>> The do not prepare a dominant. They are a dominant.
>>
>
> I'm not talking about bII7.
> I'm talking about bIImaj or bIImaj7, which is not a tritone sub for G7.
>
> Imagine the progression:
> Cmaj7 / / |Dbmaj7 / G7 / |Cmaj7
> Here, the Dbmaj7 chord is clearly functioning as both a Sd funct chord and
> a pre-dominant chord.
>
> In this progression, it's not pre-dominant:
> Cmaj7 / / / |Fmaj7 / / / |Dbmaj7 / / / |Cmaj7
Depending on the spelling and resolution, this could be an augmented sixth.
Joey Goldstein
Really?
My progression is in the key of C major and you see the Dbmaj7 as
somehow functioning as an augmented 6th chord?
That makes no sense to me.
*The* +6 chord usually has a root on bVI of the key. My chord is bII and
it has no aug 6th interval within it.
Even if you're the type of "modern" CPP Tonal harmony theorist who
allows for things like +6 chords on scale degree b2, *this* is not one
of them, as far as I can see.
Please explain yourself.
LJS
There is that CONTEXT thing again. Maybe you will have some luck with
him.
LJS
LJS
> J R Laredo wrote:
> > I guess you missed the "Normally, not always, but, normally" that I wrote.
>
> Yes. I guess I did.
> I was under the impression that chains of dom7 chord were fairly common
> in CPP and romantic era harmony. So I was taken aback by your comment.
>
Joey. If you would take note of the number of times that you have
responded that you "thought" the CPP, or you were "under the
impression" that in the CPP and other statements, you would start to
see what I am trying to tell you!
If you don't listen to the CPP and if you have not analyzed music from
the CPP then you are not qualified to make comments about the
functional theory and conventions of the CPP yet you do it constantly!
THIS is what gets you into trouble!
Its the same thing as if someone responds to one of your posts or
comments that "I didn't realize that Jazz players used ii-V-I very
often in their music. If someone told you that, then you would
certainly not consider them qualified to talk to you about Jazz
harmony and theory! Well, it goes both ways.
Although Jazz harmony uses most of the various aspects of the CPP, it
is also true that there are adjustments. The FUNCTION process is the
same, but the CONVENTIONS are different. Jazz uses different levels of
consonant and dissonant for one thing and is not concerned with part
writing (as far as the rhythm section is concerned) There are lots of
overlapping, but the N6 for example is DRASTICALLY different when one
tries to superimpose the same CONVENTIONS of the CPP into the CONTEXT
of Jazz theory. And vice versa.
BUT you then continue to ARGUE the wrong facts as you use incorrect
CONTEXTS in your arguments with those that HAVE studied the CPP. I,
for one, and I suspect many others would not care about your lack of
CPP knowledge. After all, except for the Swingle Singers, there is not
a whole lot of CPP in the Jazz world in a verbatim setting and you
would not have your position if you were a CPP Jazz player. There
would not be very much interest in learning that genre.
If you want to be able to discuss CPP and FUNCTIONAL harmony (as the
function is the same, only the conventions are different) then it
would be much more practical if you learned to LISTEN to those that
have studied it and try to understand what they are saying and
especially learn the terms and the definitions of them as applied to
the context of CPP BEFORE you try to profess a certain point of view.
Its really that simple. IF, for example you would not have to ask is
the N6 NEVER a SD chord. That shows that you do not know what a N6 is.
A bII MAY be a N6 (or N) IF and ONLY IF it goes to (FUNCTIONS) as such
and goes to a 1st class chord. IF it does, it is ALWAYS a SD or 2nd
Class Chord. You can call it Pre-dominant if you like as it does come
before a dominant, or a SD if you like as it does functions as a IV
chord in the context of the CPP and as such it is ALWAYS functioning
as a SD.
Btw, the N6 was back in the Scarlatti and Purcell eras not so much in
the Romantic Periods. This is another sign of your not doing your
homework on the subject. Itis if someone started to tell you about the
tri-tone subs and have never bothered to even look up the definition
of what a TTS happens to be.
In the Jazz genre, Generally the bII is just that. It does often and
maybe usually, as you say, go to the tonic. Well, by CPP definition
of FUNCTION and the CONVENTIONS of CPP, this would have to be either a
Dominant chord (maybe a 6+ chord functioning as a dominant) or by some
stretch of the idiom to call is some kind of Plagal cadence. I am not
sure HOW you would actually describe it in Jazz theory. I would be
interested to learn how you would account for a chord of that nature.
I would be limited by CPP conventions and context to name it as one of
the Aug6th chords and I really don't like that as an answer, but
unless you take the time to learn what a bII and N6 is all about, it
will be difficult for you to compare the two. For Comparison, you have
to know the conventions of both contexts.
IF you did take the time to learn what you are talking about, there
could be meaningful discussions between you and CPP trained theorists.
Until you learn the CPP, however, it is impossible for you to have
intelligent comments about it. If you want to learn about it, you have
to learn to listen. Its that simple. Everyone you are discussing this
with is dealing with the same context shifts and lack of basic
information from you. It is encouraging that you are FINALLY asking
about some of these things. But we all are literally fighting to teach
it to you and life should not have to be that difficult. The student
(you in this case) HAS to make SOME effort to know what is going on.
It would also help if you read the posts more carefully. In this post
alone, you apologize for not reading the posts and coming up with
totally different conclusions than were presented. (where have I heard
that before)
So please try to work with people. The amount of effort that is being
given to FORCE you to understand something of what we have been saying
is really a sign of how we would like to help you and be able to share
your knowledge but you are making if VERY difficult.
LJS
LJS
That is pretty much true although I have not heard it described quite
in that manner. I am only curious as to where that particular way of
describing came from? I am especially interested about the way you
describe:
but that they
> cause chords graphically equivalent to the ultimate tonic and dominant
> triads to sound as if they were serving some kind of pre-dominant
> function. The tonic of the piece as a whole can momentarily become the
> subdominant of the dominant. The ultimate dominant can become the
> subdominant of the dominant of the dominant.
thanks,
LJS
LJS
Its not botched and I am glad to see that you are listening a bit.
It is not very prevalent in CPP to have it other than as a N6. I was
pointing out that it could be in functional harmony. I realize that
you were also thinking (or you mentioned that you knew if from the
Romantic period) that it was a Romantic Period functional innovation.
It is really back into the very beginning of the CPP. Scarlatti and
others used it extensively, especially in their operas. The added
color of the N6 carries a different level of emotion and I suspect
that this is one of the reasons that it was popular in that genre.
You seem to have a fairly good preparation for understanding the N6.
If you get the correct terminology and contexts, you should understand
how it all fits in to the overall picture. I have been trying to think
of something that is basically the same in Jazz, but I have not
thought of it yet.
BUT, if you take the discussion into the post CPP era of the Romantic
period, you will see the bII and in THAT case (when it is not in the
older CPP type of function) there is a choice. It is also related in
some ways to the French 6th although I would rather we get the N6
taken care of before we try to compare it to the Fr6.
Nice job. Still that "crusty old character" but still a nice job on
the discussion concept.
LJS
LJS
NOT exactly. First, lets clear up the maj7. When originally mentioned
the color was not considered so if you wanted to extend the N6 (bII
in first inversion) to a 7th, in CPP (classical period and baroque
period) the Maj7 would never be used. They may have it over a Tonic
pedal point, but as a functional chord, it just wouldn't occur as a
sonority. I might in Jazz, but then it would not be functioning as a
N6 but a bII instead.
NOW.
The ROOT of the 6+ chord is NOT the b6th^. It is characteristically
the BASS note, but NOT the root. The ROOT of the Italian and German is
the ^#4 of the scale. In minor, you can arrive at this chord by
sounding a iv7 and chromatically raising the root and the chord is
spelled. In reality, it is a iv7 with a raised root in 1st inversion.
(in the Italian6, the 5th, i.e. the b3^ is omitted.)
See <http://www.utexas.edu/courses/mus612b/fmain/fdocs/notes/
augsixth.html#french> and page down to the French 4/3 for an example.
The French6 however is spelled differently. It is ROOTED on the II and
is a II 4/3 chord or a II chord in the second inversion. IT starts out
(in Cmin) as a D F Ab C chord or a ii7-5 (although called a half
diminished chord in CPP). It has the same Ab in the bass and the F is
altered the same as in the other two and this produces that sonority
the same way by making the ^4 a ^#4 scale tone. In that case, the
chord is a II chord but, as you say NOT a bII but it is a II chord and
as such it is still a 2nd class chord (going to V or ! 6/4) and what
you like to call a SD function chord.
BUT if you are comparing the bII7 in Jazz to the French6 chord, the
comparison is done by "assuming" that the Dominant chord (G in C min)
to be the Tonic chord of G. This is not really the case, but this is
where the comparison comes from. IF you can think of the G (Dominant)
chord as being a temporary tonic, then the Fr6 acts just as the bII
in Cmin going to the Major G chord. I know this is confusing, but bear
with it for a moment and see the link below)
The the Ab7 remember is the enharmonic spelling of the Ab C Eb F# Gr6
chord.
When considering the Fr6 (usually written that way even though it is
a 4/3) going to a G chord, it is the same progression as a bII7-5 to
I in the key of G maj. There is a lot of things going on in this
explanation because when comparing the two, (Fr6 to V and bII to I)
there simply is a whole lot of things going on. And it is complicated.
Compound this with the difficulty of explaining the TTS AND the +6
separately, each is difficult to grasp until it "hits you" and when
you compare each to the other, if you don't fully understand each,
then you will not be able to understand the comparison.
The problem usually is that the Jazz student has problems making this
connection of the 2^ in C min (D in Cmin) as being the ^b6 in G maj.
They usually miss the connection. When considering the G as tonic, the
original spelling is done from the ^2 in C min but the example is from
the ^b6 in Cmin or the bII in Gmaj. In order to compare, it is
necessary to look at it with this dual function of the 6+ chords
going to EITHER the V or the I 6/4. We have to use the V as tonic in
Gmaj and the Fr6 as a #4/b6 in Cmin. YES, it is a difficult comparison
but once all is understood, it WILL make sense to you and this will be
a sign that you understand both the 6+ and the TTS.
This is why it is generally not presented in the beginning classes of
harmony. Usually it is not presented until all of the unaltered chords
are learned and even then it is still difficult for many "legit"
students of theory to understand it. You are really close to it this
time and I hope you will keep your head into it and get this concept
straight this time.
Good luck.
> Even if you're the type of "modern" CPP Tonal harmony theorist who
> allows for things like +6 chords on scale degree b2, *this* is not one
> of them, as far as I can see.
> Please explain yourself.
>
> >> In my circles we actually call this a "subdominant minor function"
> >> (abbrev. - SDM) chord. I.e. It's borrowed from the SD area of the parallel
> >> minor.\
This may very well be true. Since I don't know your circles, I can not
say one way or the other. I can say that if you do consider the
resolution of the Key C FR6 to V to be a key G FR6 to I that the new
spelling of the chord (in G maj) will be D F# Ab C and this is then a
V7-5 and that is where the comparison comes from. This chord can also
be spelled as the Ab C Ebb Gb which is the tritone sub of the D F# Ab
C. This is the comparison of the two concepts. The problems come with
understanding the preliminary knowledge that is above this in this
post.
This is a lot of information crammed into a (relatively) short answer.
Some things may not be perfectly clear. Ask for clarification and I
will be happy to answer it for you. Be advised, however, that I am
rather busy at present. If you want to make sure that I see your reply
and if you want a quicker answer, send a copy of your post to me
directly and I will answer it on line or directly as you specify. (the
same is true for anyone in the group)
LJS
J R Laredo
It all depends on context, how you resolve it, and I do like to
make tonality a little vague at times..
First, of course, the context. Not being familiar with the convention of
jazz
symbolism I don't know what the assumptions are as to the 7ths you are
adding to the chords. I could presume that all the 7ths are in the C major
scale, but, not knowing the convention, I don't really KNOW that, especially
considering altered chords. Next, is resolution, which is very important in
CCP
but, I don't know how important in jazz. And, I do tend mix up the
tonalitiy a little bit
with a little musical sleight of hand.
Cmaj7//|Fmaj7//|Db-F-Ab-Cb/// Now the Db and the Cb (Db-B, which is an
augmented 6th) expand to the octave in C-E-Bb-C, this is the secondary
dominant of F, the sub-dominant of C, and fair game for embellishment.
Is this a typical use of a major chord built on a flatted second scale
degree? No, but
there is no rule against it.
tom_k
"J R Laredo" <jrlar...@comcastREMOVETHIS.net> wrote in message
news:PeGdnaJAT-SMop7W...@giganews.com...
>
> "Joey Goldstein" <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
> news:b58dc$4b02af06$d8fecfcc$96...@PRIMUS.CA...
>>
Uh, which chord are you referring to, Db7 or Dbmaj7?
Joey's example used Db F Ab C, not Db F Ab Cb.
Tom
J R Laredo
"tom_k" <tko...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:gOCdnT7027OR2p7W...@giganews.com...
Like I said, I don't always know the conventions. Since he meant a C, which
I suspected but wasn't certain about, not a Cb, then my example doesn't
apply.
Joey Goldstein
> Not being familiar with the convention of
> jazz
> symbolism I don't know what the assumptions are as to the 7ths you are
> adding to the chords. I could presume that all the 7ths are in the C major
> scale, but, not knowing the convention, I don't really KNOW that, especially
> considering altered chords.
The chord symbol "Xmaj7" means a chord with maj 3rd, P5th and maj 7th
above "X".
I.e. Xmaj7 = 1 3 5 7, where X = 1.
Therefore:
Cmaj7 = C E G B
Fmaj7 = F A C E
Dbmaj7 = Db F Ab C
Joey Goldstein
> "Joey Goldstein" <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
> news:cfb9e$4b0085bb$d8fecf49$11...@PRIMUS.CA...
>> J R Laredo wrote:
>>> "Joey Goldstein" <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
>>> news:30cb0$4b004d53$d8fecf49$25...@PRIMUS.CA...
>>>> J R Laredo wrote:
>>>>> "Joey Goldstein" <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:e60ed$4aff0c47$d8fecf49$20...@PRIMUS.CA...
>>>>>
>
>> You've got me confused with all of this.
>
> I think not, but I will play along.
>
>> Please supply me with an example of how the various secondary dom7 chords
>> can function as pre-dominant chords and some examples of them not
>> functioning as pre-dominant chords.
>
> Okay. Let's go with the progression you gave:
> C / A7 / |D D7 G G7 |C
> In the key of G that would be IV - V7/V - V V7 - I - V7/IV - IV.
But it's not in G. It's in C. Obviously.
Oy.
Joey Goldstein
> On Nov 15, 10:42 pm, Joey Goldstein <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>> J R Laredo wrote:
>
>
>
>>> I guess you missed the "Normally, not always, but, normally" that I wrote.
>> Yes. I guess I did.
>> I was under the impression that chains of dom7 chord were fairly common
>> in CPP and romantic era harmony. So I was taken aback by your comment.
>>
>
> Joey. If you would take note of the number of times that you have
> responded that you "thought" the CPP, or you were "under the
> impression" that in the CPP and other statements, you would start to
> see what I am trying to tell you!
>
> If you don't listen to the CPP and if you have not analyzed music from
> the CPP then you are not qualified to make comments about the
> functional theory and conventions of the CPP yet you do it constantly!
I am qualified to make the statements I make about the maj/min key
system in general. And I am quite qualified to ask questions of the more
intelligent and knowldgeable people here who specialize in or are
trained in CPP-era Tonal analysis.
Again, I wasn't talking to *you* and you've butted into a perfectly sane
conversation and injected a bunch of silly posturing and misinformation.
I don't ask these types of question of you because I do not respect you
and I think you're an idiot.
Go away!
> THIS is what gets you into trouble!
These nonsense posts of yours, where you attempt to boast about your own
non-existent knowledge, are what gets you into trouble.
Oh right. *All* your posts are like that.
> Its the same thing as if someone responds to one of your posts or
> comments that "I didn't realize that Jazz players used ii-V-I very
> often in their music. If someone told you that, then you would
> certainly not consider them qualified to talk to you about Jazz
> harmony and theory! Well, it goes both ways.
I'm asking questions of people here who are making statements about your
beloved CPP-era harmonic theory that don't jibe with what I've studied
in that area myself.
These people, so far, have either been making poorly worded and unclear
statements, or they've been making actual mistakes. Because I respect
them I give them the benefit of the doubt and ask them to clarify rather
than calling them out.
I don't do that with you, because I don't respect you and because you
*always* word your comments poorly and you make out-and-out huge
mistakes *so very often*.
Go away!
As it happens, I was right.
Dom7 chords, in CPP, do resolve onto chords that also contain 7ths in them.
Mr. Laredo never really said that they could only resolve to triads, but
he hinted that resolution of dom7 chord to a new 7th chord was some sort
of a rare bird. I took that to mean not all all, which was a
misinterpretation of his remark. It isn't rare at all.
He and I had resolved our miscommunication and the whole matter was settled.
I can converse with rational people like him.
Conversation with you, on the other hand, is like talking to an idiot.
Go away!
> Although Jazz harmony uses most of the various aspects of the CPP, it
> is also true that there are adjustments. The FUNCTION process is the
> same, but the CONVENTIONS are different. Jazz uses different levels of
> consonant and dissonant for one thing and is not concerned with part
> writing (as far as the rhythm section is concerned) There are lots of
> overlapping, but the N6 for example is DRASTICALLY different when one
> tries to superimpose the same CONVENTIONS of the CPP into the CONTEXT
> of Jazz theory. And vice versa.
You know nothing about jazz music.
Why should I talk to you about it?
Go away!
> BUT you then continue to ARGUE the wrong facts as you use incorrect
> CONTEXTS in your arguments with those that HAVE studied the CPP. I,
> for one, and I suspect many others would not care about your lack of
> CPP knowledge. After all, except for the Swingle Singers, there is not
> a whole lot of CPP in the Jazz world in a verbatim setting and you
> would not have your position if you were a CPP Jazz player. There
> would not be very much interest in learning that genre.
>
> If you want to be able to discuss CPP and FUNCTIONAL harmony (as the
> function is the same, only the conventions are different) then it
> would be much more practical if you learned to LISTEN to those that
> have studied it and try to understand what they are saying and
> especially learn the terms and the definitions of them as applied to
> the context of CPP BEFORE you try to profess a certain point of view.
>
> Its really that simple. IF, for example you would not have to ask is
> the N6 NEVER a SD chord.
Someone here had made a statement that the major chord with root on
scale degree b2 might exist in a piece of classical music without that
chord necessarily being a Neapolitan chord according to the well-known
definitions of Neapolitan chords. I took that to mean that it might have
occurred in CPP harmony.
My studies have told me that this is not correct, so I asked him about it.
Oh yeah. That was you.
Well that's the last time that I'll be giving you the benefit of the
doubt, because you did botch it, just like I suspected you would.
Lol.
I now know that you were not talking about CPP-era harmony, but you
botched it all the same because *you* can't keep the context of a
conversation happening.
> That shows that you do not know what a N6 is.
> A bII MAY be a N6 (or N) IF and ONLY IF it goes to (FUNCTIONS) as such
> and goes to a 1st class chord. IF it does, it is ALWAYS a SD or 2nd
> Class Chord. You can call it Pre-dominant if you like as it does come
> before a dominant, or a SD if you like as it does functions as a IV
> chord in the context of the CPP and as such it is ALWAYS functioning
> as a SD.
>
> Btw, the N6 was back in the Scarlatti and Purcell eras not so much in
> the Romantic Periods. This is another sign of your not doing your
> homework on the subject. Itis if someone started to tell you about the
> tri-tone subs and have never bothered to even look up the definition
> of what a TTS happens to be.
>
> In the Jazz genre, Generally the bII is just that. It does often and
> maybe usually, as you say, go to the tonic. Well, by CPP definition
> of FUNCTION and the CONVENTIONS of CPP, this would have to be either a
> Dominant chord (maybe a 6+ chord functioning as a dominant) or by some
> stretch of the idiom to call is some kind of Plagal cadence.
I've been told by others here that in *CPP-era harmony* bII+6 does not
exist. I'll believe them, not you.
> I am not
> sure HOW you would actually describe it in Jazz theory. I would be
> interested to learn how you would account for a chord of that nature.
Go buy the book I told you to buy, and then fuck off.
> I would be limited by CPP conventions and context to name it as one of
> the Aug6th chords and I really don't like that as an answer, but
> unless you take the time to learn what a bII and N6 is all about, it
> will be difficult for you to compare the two. For Comparison, you have
> to know the conventions of both contexts.
>
> IF you did take the time to learn what you are talking about, there
> could be meaningful discussions between you and CPP trained theorists.
> Until you learn the CPP, however, it is impossible for you to have
> intelligent comments about it. If you want to learn about it, you have
> to learn to listen. Its that simple. Everyone you are discussing this
> with is dealing with the same context shifts and lack of basic
> information from you. It is encouraging that you are FINALLY asking
> about some of these things. But we all are literally fighting to teach
> it to you and life should not have to be that difficult. The student
> (you in this case) HAS to make SOME effort to know what is going on.
> It would also help if you read the posts more carefully. In this post
> alone, you apologize for not reading the posts and coming up with
> totally different conclusions than were presented. (where have I heard
> that before)
>
> So please try to work with people. The amount of effort that is being
> given to FORCE you to understand something of what we have been saying
> is really a sign of how we would like to help you and be able to share
> your knowledge but you are making if VERY difficult.
>
> LJS
>
>
>
Joey Goldstein
>
> Its not botched and I am glad to see that you are listening a bit.
>
Lol.
J R Laredo
>J R Laredo wrote:
>> "Joey Goldstein" <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
>> news:cfb9e$4b0085bb$d8fecf49$11...@PRIMUS.CA...
>>> J R Laredo wrote:
>>>> "Joey Goldstein" <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:30cb0$4b004d53$d8fecf49$25...@PRIMUS.CA...
>>>>> J R Laredo wrote:
>>>>>> "Joey Goldstein" <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:e60ed$4aff0c47$d8fecf49$20...@PRIMUS.CA...
>>>>>>
>>
>>> You've got me confused with all of this.
>>
>> I think not, but I will play along.
>>
>>> Please supply me with an example of how the various secondary dom7
>>> chords can function as pre-dominant chords and some examples of them not
>>> functioning as pre-dominant chords.
>>
>> Okay. Let's go with the progression you gave:
>> C / A7 / |D D7 G G7 |C
>> In the key of G that would be IV - V7/V - V V7 - I - V7/IV - IV.
>
> But it's not in G. It's in C. Obviously.
> Oy.
Again, context and convention. Just because you start with a C chord
doesn't mean we are in C. That is often assumed, but shouldn't be. To be
clear it is best to state the key, because, as I have shown, there was
nothing in your example that would preclude it being in G.
Joey Goldstein
*You're* the only one talking about the 1st inversion (N6) chord at this
point, although Mr. Laredo's initial comment was about the N6 chord.
[Before you write another 20 paragraphs about N6 chords... Yes, I know
that the regular version for the Neapolitan chord is in 1st inversion in
classical music.]
*I'm* the guy who started *this* tangent of the thread.
When 'first mentioned' I was talking to Mr. Laredo about my notion that
*in jazz*, when we play a bII chord it often is not functioning as a
pre-dominant chord.
Neither he nor I specifically limited the discussion to CPP-era harmony
only, so me referring to bII as "what you folks call the Neapolitan
chord (aka bII)" was perhaps not altogether perfectly clear, but other
folks here seemed to get what I was talking about.
But not you. You don't 'get' anything.
> to a 7th, in CPP (classical period and baroque
> period) the Maj7 would never be used. They may have it over a Tonic
> pedal point, but as a functional chord, it just wouldn't occur as a
> sonority. I might in Jazz, but then it would not be functioning as a
> N6 but a bII instead.
My understanding is that bII(maj7) occurs in Romantic era classical
music in both 1st inversion and root position.
My understanding is also that there are instances in Romantic era
harmony where bII is not used as a pre-dominant chord, i.e. it can and
does proceed directly to I.
Whether the chord is in 1st inversion or root position, it is still
known as "the Neapolitan chord" in classical music circles. In 1st
inversion it is called "the Neapolitan 6th" or "N6" for short.
I won't believe *you* if you say this is not so.
So go away!
But I might be more willing to believe someone else.
> NOW.
>
> The ROOT of the 6+ chord is NOT the b6th^. It is characteristically
> the BASS note, but NOT the root. The ROOT of the Italian and German is
> the ^#4 of the scale.
I've seen you say this here in the past, yet I've never seen anybody
else *anywhere* agree with this seemingly totally daft idea.
If there's anybody else out there reading this who agrees that the root
of the bVI+6 chord is really scale degree #4, please speak up and give
your boy some support.
If there's anybody else out there who thinks that is is as daft as I do,
now would be a good time to chime in too.
LJS is saying that the "root" of Ab C Eb F# (as bVI+6Ger.) and Ab C D F#
(as bVI+6 Fr.) is F#.
> In minor, you can arrive at this chord by
> sounding a iv7 and chromatically raising the root and the chord is
> spelled. In reality, it is a iv7 with a raised root in 1st inversion.
> (in the Italian6, the 5th, i.e. the b3^ is omitted.)
>
> See <http://www.utexas.edu/courses/mus612b/fmain/fdocs/notes/
> augsixth.html#french> and page down to the French 4/3 for an example.
>
>
> The French6 however is spelled differently. It is ROOTED
Sounds to me like you don't have any idea what the term "root" actually
means.
> on the II and
> is a II 4/3 chord or a II chord in the second inversion. IT starts out
> (in Cmin) as a D F Ab C chord or a ii7-5 (although called a half
> diminished chord in CPP). It has the same Ab in the bass and the F is
> altered the same as in the other two and this produces that sonority
> the same way by making the ^4 a ^#4 scale tone. In that case, the
> chord is a II chord but, as you say NOT a bII but it is a II chord and
> as such it is still a 2nd class chord (going to V or ! 6/4) and what
> you like to call a SD function chord.
>
> BUT if you are comparing the bII7 in Jazz
SubV7 [aka bII7] in jazz is identical to bII+6(Ger.) in classical
Romantic-era harmony.
SubV7b5 [aka bII7b5] in jazz is identical to bII(Fr.) in classical
Romantic-era harmony.
SubV7(no 5th) [aka bII7(no5th)] in jazz is identical to bII+6(It.) in
classical Romantic-era harmony.
The only things we might do differently in jazz is that we might put all
sorts of extensions on these chords that may not have occurred in any
era of classical music.
You appear below to be trying to compare SubV7/V [aka bVI7] in jazz to
bVI+6 in classical music.
SubV7/V = bVI+6(Ger.)
SubV7(b5)/V = bVI+6(Fr.)
SubV7(no5th)/V = bVI+6(It.)
> to the French6 chord, the
> comparison is done by "assuming" that the Dominant chord (G in C min)
> to be the Tonic chord of G. This is not really the case, but this is
> where the comparison comes from. IF you can think of the G (Dominant)
> chord as being a temporary tonic, then the Fr6 acts just as the bII
> in Cmin going to the Major G chord. I know this is confusing, but bear
> with it for a moment and see the link below)
My God you're confused.
Fuck you.
Joey Goldstein
> "Joey Goldstein" <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
> news:588fc$4b036206$d8fecf76$10...@PRIMUS.CA...
>> J R Laredo wrote:
>>> "Joey Goldstein" <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
>>> news:cfb9e$4b0085bb$d8fecf49$11...@PRIMUS.CA...
>>>> J R Laredo wrote:
>>>>> "Joey Goldstein" <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:30cb0$4b004d53$d8fecf49$25...@PRIMUS.CA...
>>>>>> J R Laredo wrote:
>>>>>>> "Joey Goldstein" <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:e60ed$4aff0c47$d8fecf49$20...@PRIMUS.CA...
>>>>>>>
>>>> You've got me confused with all of this.
>>> I think not, but I will play along.
>>>
>>>> Please supply me with an example of how the various secondary dom7
>>>> chords can function as pre-dominant chords and some examples of them not
>>>> functioning as pre-dominant chords.
>>> Okay. Let's go with the progression you gave:
>>> C / A7 / |D D7 G G7 |C
>>> In the key of G that would be IV - V7/V - V V7 - I - V7/IV - IV.
>> But it's not in G. It's in C. Obviously.
>> Oy.
>
> Again, context and convention. Just because you start with a C chord
> doesn't mean we are in C.
The entire progression, taken as a whole (including the given harmonic
rhythm), with nothing preceding it or following it, is *obviously* in
the key of C major.
I can sort of understand you not knowing what the maj7 chord symbol
looks like or what it means (but not really), but don't be ridiculous.
This progression could be in *any* key if I tacked more stuff onto the
beginning or onto the end. But that stuff simply isn't there.
> That is often assumed, but shouldn't be. To be
> clear it is best to state the key, because, as I have shown, there was
> nothing in your example that would preclude it being in G.
There was nothing there that suggested the key of G. The entire
progression suggests the key of C.
Oy.
Joey Goldstein
> LJS wrote:
>> BUT if you are comparing the bII7 in Jazz
>
> SubV7 [aka bII7] in jazz is identical to bII+6(Ger.) in classical
> Romantic-era harmony.
> SubV7b5 [aka bII7b5] in jazz is identical to bII(Fr.) in classical
> Romantic-era harmony.
> SubV7(no 5th) [aka bII7(no5th)] in jazz is identical to bII+6(It.) in
> classical Romantic-era harmony.
> The only things we might do differently in jazz is that we might put all
> sorts of extensions on these chords that may not have occurred in any
> era of classical music.
Actually... "Identical" is probably the wrong word to be using there.
"Essentially" would probably be a better choice.
We use different spellings of these chords in the notation, and we're
more relaxed as far as voice leading to and from the chords.
> You appear below to be trying to compare SubV7/V [aka bVI7] in jazz to
> bVI+6 in classical music.
> SubV7/V = bVI+6(Ger.)
> SubV7(b5)/V = bVI+6(Fr.)
> SubV7(no5th)/V = bVI+6(It.)
Also...
When something that looks like SubV7/V does not actually proceed to V it
may have some other analysis.
Eg. When, in C; an Ab7 chord moves to G7 we'd call it SubV7/V. But if it
moves to C we'd call it bVI7 - which is a subdominant-minor function
chord (borrowed from C locrian).
LJS
Correct. It is not functioning as a Neapolitan when it does that a N6
has to FUNCTION in order to be called a Neapolitan it has to FUNCTION
as a Neapolitan.
> Neither he nor I specifically limited the discussion to CPP-era harmony
> only, so me referring to bII as "what you folks call the Neapolitan
> chord (aka bII)" was perhaps not altogether perfectly clear, but other
> folks here seemed to get what I was talking about.
> But not you. You don't 'get' anything.\
More trash talk? Give it up.
We all know what you are talking about and we are all trying to set
you straight. You are the only one that does not see that.
>
> > to a 7th, in CPP (classical period and baroque
> > period) the Maj7 would never be used. They may have it over a Tonic
> > pedal point, but as a functional chord, it just wouldn't occur as a
> > sonority. I might in Jazz, but then it would not be functioning as a
> > N6 but a bII instead.
>
> My understanding is that bII(maj7) occurs in Romantic era classical
> music in both 1st inversion and root position.
It might very well. I don' t know of any specific examples. If you
find an example I will address it. Until then, since we have no
examples of this, then it is really not a factor is it? Show an
example and then the CONTEXT can be ascertained and explained.
> My understanding is also that there are instances in Romantic era
> harmony where bII is not used as a pre-dominant chord, i.e. it can and
> does proceed directly to I.
I pointed that out in the post. This is correct IF they are used in
that period. I don't know who did. Tell me and I will address it. I
would more likely thing that it came in the post-Romantic period
although Wagner and some other chromatic composers may have used it.
In any case, if it goes to Dominant or Cadential 6/5 it may be called
a Neap. If it doesn't it can not. It would be a bII. this is all quite
simple and based upon the definition of the terms.
> Whether the chord is in 1st inversion or root position, it is still
> known as "the Neapolitan chord" in classical music circles. In 1st
> inversion it is called "the Neapolitan 6th" or "N6" for short.
The term refers to the FUNCTION. It does not apply to the spelling of
the chord.*you* (what ever the asterisks mean) can call it what you
want, but if it does not function as a N then it is NOT an N.
>
> I won't believe *you* if you say this is not so.
> So go away!
Fat chance. Learn to live with it. You can't keep your head in the
sand for ever! (Well maybe you can)
> But I might be more willing to believe someone else.
lol that is really funny. Truth based upon who says it! You could try
reading and studying. Now there's a thought!
>
> > NOW.
>
> > The ROOT of the 6+ chord is NOT the b6th^. It is characteristically
> > the BASS note, but NOT the root. The ROOT of the Italian and German is
> > the ^#4 of the scale.
>
> I've seen you say this here in the past, yet I've never seen anybody
> else *anywhere* agree with this seemingly totally daft idea.
And you have not seen anyone disagree with it either.
>
> If there's anybody else out there reading this who agrees that the root
> of the bVI+6 chord is really scale degree #4, please speak up and give
> your boy some support.
Spell it. Look at it. Arrange the the tones in tones from the scale so
that they spell the chord. That is how it is spelled. Even in the
examples I showed you it calls the French6 a French 4-3 chord. That
means it is spelled upon the ^2. and (in C min) the F# is the third of
the chord. The cord exists only in the minor with the raised 4th. It
is a F Ab C Eb chord with the ^4 raised. In part writing this will
lead to the ^5 note. with the Bass on the Ab you then have an
augmented 6th. History doesn't lie.Even if I say it.
>
> If there's anybody else out there who thinks that is is as daft as I do,
> now would be a good time to chime in too.
>
> LJS is saying that the "root" of Ab C Eb F# (as bVI+6Ger.) and Ab C D F#
> (as bVI+6 Fr.) is F#.
You are looking for something to argue about. This is really not an
important distinction anyway. Your argument is diverting you from
understanding the principles involved. It is as if you are asking if a
C E G A chord is called an Amin of a C6 chord. The answer to this
question depends its on its FUNCTION. If in C Maj, if it comes after a
Dominant chord, it is a C6. If it goes to a Dmin or ii chord, it is an
Amin. The same chord, but it is spelled according to the function.
In my explanation I pointed out that it is an evolution from the iv7
chord in first inversion. If you start with the iv7 chord in first
inversion, it is still an F Ab C Eb chord even though it is voiced as
Ab C Eb F. When you raise the root, it becomes a Ab C Eb F# chord. and
this is the German 6th and the voices will lead to the proper places
according to CPP conventions. There may be some that will call it an
Ab chord, but this is not FUNCTIONALLY correct.
German 6th chord: an augmented sixth chord consisting of a major
third, perfect fifth, and augmented sixth above a given note. The
German sixth chord is sometimes called an 'augmented six five chord'
<http://www.dolmetsch.com/defsg.htm>
The Augmented 6/5 chord shows that it clearly is considered an F#
chord by its notation. The F is only the 6th if it is the root and the
5 is for the Eb if the Ab is the BASS note.
>
> > In minor, you can arrive at this chord by
> > sounding a iv7 and chromatically raising the root and the chord is
> > spelled. In reality, it is a iv7 with a raised root in 1st inversion.
> > (in the Italian6, the 5th, i.e. the b3^ is omitted.)
>
> > See <http://www.utexas.edu/courses/mus612b/fmain/fdocs/notes/
> > augsixth.html#french> and page down to the French 4/3 for an example.
>
> > The French6 however is spelled differently. It is ROOTED
>
> Sounds to me like you don't have any idea what the term "root" actually
> means.
Try to move on Joey. That statement is just stoopid. (sic)
Joey, I passed ALL these courses. I have used this stuff, I have
taught this stuff. I can analyze, write, hear and teach all that I am
saying. I provide you with links to explain them. There are a lot of
people here that are much more polite than I am, but even you should
be able to tell who is not understanding these things.
If you don't consider the G6 to V as a form of Dominant to Tonic,
there IS NO comparison that will parallel the same in both Jazz and
traditional CPP harmony. IF you or anyone else wants to compare the
bII to I in Jazz to Trad CPP this is the only example that I know of,
but the N6 (or if you insist the N even though it really doesn't exist
in TradCPP except as N8) is a bII IF it goes to Tonic and is NOT a
Neapolitan. The Neapolitan MUST go to a 2nd class cord in order to
be considered Neapolitan. .
lol, I ask you, is that really a response befitting anything except an
idiot?
You have the links, (I did not write them) others have told you the
same stuff from another direction. Now your are just acting stupid.
SO, don't give me any crap about confusion. If you can't back up your
statements, you are the one confused. You have been having the same
argument since before I ever joined the group. You have the same
responses and/or profane statements over and over. You keep thinking
the same way and thus you keep getting the same results.
I did not drop out of college. I got my degree and I passed with A+s
in ALL my theory classes. I then taught theory in Graduate School. I
am not confused. There are some others that have qualifications like
this. Interesting that when we argue, it is about nuances of
principles that both of us understand. WE are not confused, Joey, you
are. If you want to learn, fine, I take your childish retorts by
considering the source. They are the actions and words of a confused
and frustrated person.
I sent you two links that totally reinforce everything I said. Believe
ir or Not!. You don't believe me, you don't believe the UT theory
department, you don't believe Dolmetsch Online. Pick your own book.
Whoever it is that you keep referring to by "I heard that.." , " In MY
circles.." and all the other indefinite references to unspecified
sources of information seem to be wrong. This has been pointed out to
you at least 3 very specific things that you said in error and these
were errors that would be laughed at if you were even a freshman in a
reputable theory school.
Learn or don't learn its up to you. Ignorance is curable with work and
study. Stupidity is not. It is a condition that prevents learning.
Which one are you?
LJS