There's some excellent stuff there, Brent, but I'm going to take issue with on a couple of things - either unconventonal terminology, or confusing use of language.

1. The phrase "natural minor" is generally reserved for Aeolian mode. Dorian mode is not part of the conventional minor key scale set.

2. This is a very confusing statement: "In the case of the Dorian and Aeolian modes, the dominant is the chord built off the 4th and b7th respectively".
The dominant chord in a minor key is the V chord. Built on the 5th step. (E or E7 in A minor.) I suspect you know this, but I think you need to explain what you mean in that quote. (I think I know, but I can see it confusing some people, and I'm not sure of the relevance in that part of the lesson.)
Even if referring to classical modal theory (as distinct from key theory), the dominant note is still the 5th of the scale.

3. The "Circular Minor Chord Sequences Table" is not very clear. Why the two columns? How do they relate horizontally? I'm not quite sure which chords you're referring to.

4. IMO, it's clearer to use "III", "VI" for those chords in a minor key - because they're harmonised from the normal natural minor scale.
With VII there is an obvious issue - even if you use lower case vii for the dim chord. "bVII" makes more sense there, too, because the bVII is not a normal chord in a minor key (while it is normal in Aeolian and Dorian modes, where it can be called plain "VII").
The V and vii are harmonised from harmonic minor. As you say: "For the dominant function, it's possible to use chords built off the fifth degree OR chords built off the raised 7th degree."

5. "Autumn Leaves" is (in my experience)) normally analysed as a ii-V-I-IV in the relative major to begin with. Then ii-V-i in the minor.

6. I'm extremely impressed with the comprehensive table of (apparently) all possible chords that can be harmonised from the 4 minor scales you're looking at!
But IMO it's overwhelmingly complicated. I think it would be better to look at the standard or most common sets of chords generally used in minor keys (i from melodic minor, ii, III, iv and VI from natural minor, V and vii from harmonic minor) - and then at the occasional chords that can be seen as derived from elsewhere (Eg III+ from HM or MM, IV from dorian).
But that's just my take on it! An impressive piece of work overall.

Jon,

Thank you for taking the time to look through the article, I appreciate it!

You wrote: 1. The phrase "natural minor" is generally reserved for Aeolian mode. Dorian mode is not part of the conventional minor key scale set.

As I wrote in the introduction (paraphrased), "possibly the only surprise here might be that there are four minor scales, as opposed to the three that all other theory books list (Aeolian, Melodic, Harmonic)".

The Dorian and Aeolian both are related to the Ionian (which is a naturally occurring physical entity). As such the Dorian qualifies as a "natural" mode.

The observation being that there are only four permutations of b6 vs nat6 & b7 vs nat7 in minor scales.

The Dorian contains the main earmark of the other 3 minor scales (that being a minor pentachord on the bottom).

The Dorian only differs from the Aeolian in only ONE respect - it has a nat6 (which certainly does not disqualify it from being a bona fide minor scale).

And the Dorian only differs from the Melodic Ascending in only ONE respect - it has a b7 (which also does not disqualify it from being a bona fide minor scale - especially considering that between the Melodic Ascending and Melodic Descending both forms of 6th and both forms of 7th are present).

Indeed in common use, most Dorian tunes are commonly referred to as being "minor" (ex: ¿Oye Como Va?).

You also wrote: 2. This is a very confusing statement: "In the case of the Dorian and Aeolian modes, the dominant is the chord built off the 4th and b7th respectively".
The dominant chord in a minor key is the V chord. Built on the 5th step. (E or E7 in A minor.) I suspect you know this, but I think you need to explain what you mean in that quote. (I think I know, but I can see it confusing some people, and I'm not sure of the relevance in that part of the lesson.)
Even if referring to classical modal theory (as distinct from key theory), the dominant note is still the 5th of the scale.

The chord E major or E7 does not reside within the pure Aeolian mode due to its G# which is outside the tones in the Aeolian mode.

Anytime you use a major or dominant chord built off the 5th degree in an otherwise Aeolian progression, you are using borrowed parallel major harmony to effect the cadence.

In pure Aeolian harmony, the dominant is the chord built off the bVII of the Aeolian mode.

This is not an opinion, it is fact.

Similarly, the dominant of the Dorian mode is NOT built off the 5th degree (which would be a minor chord or a minor 7th - neither of which provide any kind of cadence tension).

The dominant of the Dorian IS the IV, NOT the v. I don't understand why this needs explaining to anyone who has dealt in depth with modal harmony.

As long as we're on the subject of modal dominants, remember that the dominant of the Phrygian is the bII, and that the dominant of the Mixolydian is the bVII.

In the case of the Phrygian a chord built off the 5th degree yields a half-diminished chord (which certainly has no tendencies to resolve to the Phrygian tonic) and in the case of the Mixolydian the chord built off the 5th degree is a weak and tendency-less minor.

Only the Ionian has as its dominant the 5th degree.

If you have any dispute with this, all you have to do is play the tonic of any of these non-Ionian modes, and then play the chord built off its 5th degree and you will immediately hear what I'm talking about.

You also wrote: 3. The "Circular Minor Chord Sequences Table" is not very clear. Why the two columns? How do they relate horizontally? I'm not quite sure which chords you're referring to.

The two columns exist because a neat circular movement is not possible. The only horizontal relation is that the bIII and the VI are tritone substitutions for one another as are the bVI and the II.

As I state on that page (paraphrased) "The tonal gravity root movement gravitates towards the tonic minor at the bottom of the table)".

IOW, the chart reads from top to bottom.

And you can use any (or all) of the chords in the vertical order as listed.

In addition, you can use any of the chord "qualities" (from the chord charts) in the abovementioned order to create minor progressions.

Pretty amazing actually.

You also wrote: 4. IMO, it's clearer to use "III", "VI" for those chords in a minor key - because they're harmonised from the normal natural minor scale.

With VII there is an obvious issue - even if you use lower case vii for the dim chord. "bVII" makes more sense there, too, because the bVII is not a normal chord in a minor key (while it is normal in Aeolian and Dorian modes, where it can be called plain "VII").

The V and vii are harmonised from harmonic minor. As you say: "For the dominant function, it's possible to use chords built off the fifth degree OR chords built off the raised 7th degree."

RE: bIII vs III (etc)
In order to have zero ambiguity, I have chosen to call a chord built of the scale degree that is a minor 3rd above the root as a "bIII", etc.

RE: Dominants built of the natVII degree
If one is using borrowed parallel major harmony to create a dominant function, then it is perfectly kosher to use the chord built off the natVII degree even in what is otherwise an Aeolian or Dorian tune.

addendum: The V and natVII are not only built off the Harmonic minor scale, they also occur when using the Ascending Melodic minor scale.

You also wrote: 5. "Autumn Leaves" is (in my experience)) normally analysed as a ii-V-I-IV in the relative major to begin with. Then ii-V-i in the minor.

If you prefer to think of that progression as bi-tonal, that is certainly on way to look at.

There are a great number of minor tunes that use extremely similar progressions (as you are certainly well aware), and everyone I've ever played with has called that tune as a minor starting on the IV.

You also wrote: 6. I'm extremely impressed with the comprehensive table of (apparently) all possible chords that can be harmonised from the 4 minor scales you're looking at!
But IMO it's overwhelmingly complicated. I think it would be better to look at the standard or most common sets of chords generally used in minor keys (i from melodic minor, ii, III, iv and VI from natural minor, V and vii from harmonic minor) - and then at the occasional chords that can be seen as derived from elsewhere (Eg III+ from HM or MM, IV from dorian).
But that's just my take on it! An impressive piece of work overall.

Hey man, it's confusing to me too! That's why I decided that I had to write it out, just to get a handle on it!!!!

Once again thanks so much for taking the time to look through this, and I truly appreciate your kind words.

The bottom line is: hopefully this will be useful ...

"You wrote: 1. The phrase "natural minor" is generally reserved for Aeolian mode. Dorian mode is not part of the conventional minor key scale set.

As I wrote in the introduction (paraphrased), "possibly the only surprise here might be that there are four minor scales, as opposed to the three that all other theory books list (Aeolian, Melodic, Harmonic)"."

Sorry I missed that sentence.
But then, if you are going to include Dorian, why not Phrygian? (I know it's rarer, but still a minor mode.)
Still, as long as you are pointing out the differences between your approach and conventional theory books, that's fine.


"Indeed in common use, most Dorian tunes are commonly referred to as being "minor" (ex: ¿Oye Como Va?)."

Sure. I think, strictly speaking one wouldn't say Oye Como Va was in the "A minor key" - but I accept the broad sense of "in A minor" can include Dorian mode.
I personally think it's useful to make the conventional distinctions - because a Dorian mode tune is usually quite different from a minor key tune. And Aeolian mode is different again (tho more subtly).

But I've got no real quarrel with your broader, inclusive approach. These are analytical issues (understanding existing music), rather than what's useful for making our own music. For the latter, as broad an approach as possible is best.


"You also wrote: 2. This is a very confusing statement: "In the case of the Dorian and Aeolian modes, the dominant is the chord built off the 4th and b7th respectively".
The dominant chord in a minor key is the V chord. Built on the 5th step. (E or E7 in A minor.) I suspect you know this, but I think you need to explain what you mean in that quote. (I think I know, but I can see it confusing some people, and I'm not sure of the relevance in that part of the lesson.)
Even if referring to classical modal theory (as distinct from key theory), the dominant note is still the 5th of the scale.

The chord E major or E7 does not reside within the pure Aeolian mode due to its G# which is outside the tones in the Aeolian mode.

Anytime you use a major or dominant chord built off the 5th degree in an otherwise Aeolian progression, you are using borrowed parallel major harmony to effect the cadence.

Yes, that's one way of looking at it. Minor key harmony can even be explained historically in that way.
But it remains the case that a dominant 7th chord on V is normal in minor keys - not abnormal in any way.
Of course, it's different from Aeolian mode in that respect.
That's how we define the difference between "Aeolian mode" and "minor key".

IOW, the concept of "minor key" (in pop and rock as well as in classical and jazz) includes the major V chord as standard. It's traditional, but still widely used.
A minor v would be more unusual, and would suggest (IMO) a deliberate choice of Aeolian mode (or possibly Dorian).


"In pure Aeolian harmony, the dominant is the chord built off the bVII of the Aeolian mode.

This is not an opinion, it is fact."

Well, it's a slightly misleading use of the term "dominant". You mean a "dominant 7th-type chord" is built off that step.
You don't mean "dominant" in the conventional (theoretical) sense, which refers - almost always - to the 5th step of a scale or mode. It's a note before it's a chord.
In a functional sense, the bVII chord of Aeolian (or the IV of Dorian) is only a "dominant" chord in the relative major key.

I think this is important, because it's about consistent definition of terms, to avoid confusion.
The bVII of Aeolian is NOT the dominant degree. (That's the 5th.)
BUT a "dominant 7th type chord" (the true dominant chord of the relative major) is built off that step. In the context of Aeolian, it's the "subtonic" chord, not the dominant chord (of Aeolian).


As long as we're on the subject of modal dominants, remember that the dominant of the Phrygian is the bII, and that the dominant of the Mixolydian is the bVII.

This is making less sense, unfortunately.
If you mean the step on which a "dom7th-type" chord is built, that's III for phrygian and I for mixolydian.
The "dominant degree" of each scale is still the 5th, whatever type of chord gets built there. (Historically, I think the dominant of phrygian was actually the 6th for a time, but that's modal history.)

Please don't take my word for this (definition of "dominant"). Check some sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominant_(music)
http://www.dolmetsch.com/musictheory22.htm


Only the Ionian has as its dominant the 5th degree.

If you have any dispute with this, all you have to do is play the tonic of any of these non-Ionian modes, and then play the chord built off its 5th degree and you will immediately hear what I'm talking about.

You're just using the word "dominant" incorrectly. What you're saying is quite right otherwise, of course.
When we want to create a major key-style perfect cadence (in Aeolian mode), we construct a dominant 7th-type chord on the 5th degree .
We alter the usual "dominant" chord (which is minor), to make it the same as an Ionian dominant chord (which is major, with a minor 7th).

The problem here is that word "dominant" has come to refer to that specific chord type, as well as to its function. The mistake is to refer to a chord as "dominant" when it doesn't have that function (even tho it might have that structure).
It's misleading (IMO) to call the bVII chord in Aeolian "dominant" - without a proper explanation of the term.

If you can find an authoritative online source which supports your argument and counters mine, I'll take it all back! :-)


"You also wrote: 3. The "Circular Minor Chord Sequences Table" is not very clear. Why the two columns? How do they relate horizontally? I'm not quite sure which chords you're referring to.

The two columns exist because a neat circular movement is not possible. The only horizontal relation is that the bIII and the VI are tritone substitutions for one another as are the bVI and the II."

Hold on. In key of A minor, C (bIII) and F#dim (VI) are not tritone subs of each other. Nor are F (bVI) and Bm7b5 (II).
The roots are a tritone apart, yes. But tritone subs need to be the same chord type, and also need to be dom7 chords.
The only real tritone sub in a minor key is the bII (Bb7 in A minor) which subs for E7.
C and F#dim are quite different sounds (as are F and Bm7b5), so function differently. Therefore they can't sub for one another.

It can still be argued that a "neat" circular sequence exists. One of the 5ths (or 4ths) is not perfect, but it still works. In key of A minor, Fmaj7 can move logically to Bm7b5 - and it works as a chord change, not as a pair of equivalent subs.


"RE: bIII vs III (etc)
In order to have zero ambiguity, I have chosen to call a chord built of the scale degree that is a minor 3rd above the root as a "bIII", etc."

Given that you are referring everything to major "template", for a broad overall view, I accept this. (No big deal, different systems work in different contexts.)


"RE: Dominants built of the natVII degree
If one is using borrowed parallel major harmony to create a dominant function, then it is perfectly kosher to use the chord built off the natVII degree even in what is otherwise an Aeolian or Dorian tune.

addendum: The V and natVII are not only built off the Harmonic minor scale, they also occur when using the Ascending Melodic minor scale."

Not quite. If the V and vii chords are extended (at least as far as standard jazz practice goes) you get a 7b9 on V, and a dim7 on vii. These are Harmonic minor chords, not Melodic minor.
You may occasionally get a melodic minor V (a dom9), but I don't think I've ever seen a melodic minor vii chord (m7b5).

Of course, I'm speaking of "common practice", not potential usages. If your angle is on the latter, that's fine.


"You also wrote: 5. "Autumn Leaves" is (in my experience)) normally analysed as a ii-V-I-IV in the relative major to begin with. Then ii-V-i in the minor.

If you prefer to think of that progression as bi-tonal, that is certainly on way to look at.

Wel, it's not just me. It's every jazz musician and tutor I've ever encountered. Of course, it can be seen as entirely minor key. I would say THAT is the "alternative" way of looking at it. ;-)


"There are a great number of minor tunes that use extremely similar progressions (as you are certainly well aware), and everyone I've ever played with has called that tune as a minor starting on the IV."

Hmmm...
I do see the double action of the initial chord (iv in minor as well as ii in relative major). But I also see the final minor as a double-action vi in the relative major.

As regards "dominants", I am referring to the function of "dominance", not scale degrees.

A chord functioning as a dominant is the specific chord (and second most important chord in the key) which propels you into the tonic.

This also has nothing to do with whether or not a tritone is present in said chord.

If a chord does not directly push you towards the tonic, it is not a functional dominant chord (no matter what scale degree it might be built off of).

It is for this reason that (for example) the chord functioning as the dominant in Phrygian is the bII. It irresistibly pushes you into the tonic.

Incidentally, this "dominant function chord" does not contain a tritone, extending to a 7th chord it becomes a bIImaj7.

Modal and minor harmonies operate on a different set of rules from major harmony. Even though minor and modal tunes tend to be much simpler than major tunes, the differences ARE significant.


You state: tritone subs need to be the same chord type, and also need to be dom7 chords.

That's not actually true, as long as the root motion is maintained, virtually any quality of chord can be used (within the bounds of good taste).

Please visit http://Guitar-Lessons-Riverside-CA.com/Lessons/tritonesub.html for a more insight into this issue.

Hi Jeff,

I have to tell you, I am a bit confused by your comments. I have
to agree with Jon on all his points.

Two things that stick out for me are the concept of functioning
dominants and tritone subs.

In my experience, the harmonic function of a dominant cadence
requires that it be built off of the V degree of the tonic, and it
must include the leading tone to the target tonic chord. If a
chord quality is dominant (R-3-5-b7), that in itself does not
mean it is functioning as a dominant movement (V -> I) in the
harmonic progression. To my ears, for a functional dominant to
"propel" you to the tonic, it requires that it be built off the fifth
scale degree and contain the leading tone to the tonic. I don't
find that in the Phrygian mode, for example, the bII chord
pushes toward the tonic as well as a V7 chord. The amount of
resolution that IS present in a bII->I cadence is due to the fact
that a bII can be a tritone sub for the V chord, which brings me
to...

Tri tone subs. Um...yeah, got some issue with this. Traditionally,
for any chord substitution to be labeled as such requires at least
two common notes from the original chord. Otherwise, it's
considered a reharmonization.

Typically, the term "tritone" sub is applied to dom7 chords
whose root notes reside a tritone away from each other. The
other phenomena here is that the dom7 chord itself contains a
tritone interval (3-b7), which is not only responsible for it's
unstable character, but actually inverts itself in a tritone sub.

example: E7 and Bb7 are tritone subs. Both contain the notes G#
and D. In the E7 those notes are the 3 and b7 intervals of the
chord, respectively. In the Bb7, that tritone interval becomes
inverted, and the G# (enharmonically spelled Ab) becomes the
b7 and the D becomes the 3rd of the Bb7 chord.

What you say IS true however: if you have strong root
movement, any quality of chord can be used if it sounds good to
your ear. I think what we are debating here is the traditional and
conventional uses of terms and devices such as substitution and
cadence, and IMO those are as Jon describes.

IMO, modal harmony is different due to it's general lack of
cadence and traditional harmonic movement. To me, "Autumn
Leaves" is not a modal tune in the sense that it has traditional,
functional harmonic movement. A tune like "so what" is more of
a modal tune IMO due to it's lack of traditional harmonic
movement and its explotation of the dorian tonality.

In any event, I applaud your efforts...very impressive.

keep pickin,

Rob

Robert,

Sorry that you are confused. I wrote this lesson as "intermediate" because the subject of "functional dominants" in modal harmony was covered in my very first semester of theory.

I am equally confused at why you are confused since this seems so intuitively obvious to me.

Let's try using our ears, shall we?

Grab your guitar and play a big fat A minor chord.

This establishes in the listener's mind that the A minor chord is the "home chord".

Now play a monster G major chord.

Where does that chord want to go?

Yup, it wants to go straight back to the A minor chord, doesn't it?

And it feels good, doesn't it?

Try the same experiment again. Only this time DON'T resolve back to the A minor chord.

Feels like it needs to resolve, doesn't it? And it makes you feel uncomfortable if it doesn't resolve, right?

It's OK, you can play the A minor chord again now.

Aah, yeessss. We all feel much better now, don't we?

Note that this functional dominant chord (G major) neither contains a natural 7th leading tone nor a tritone, yet acts with a powerful and compelling need to resolve to the A minor chord.

If your own ears don't prove to you what I've been talking about nothing will.

... and thank you for your kind words!

Sorry Jeff, but that is not an example of a "functional dominant"
in traditional theory. I studied harmony at Berklee and I don't
recall the topic of "functional dominants in modal harmony".
There was analysis of the tendencies of different diatonic chords
to want to move and/or resolve, but the term "functional
dominant" was reserved for primary and secondary dominants
which resolve either up a perfect fourth, down a perfect fifth, or
down a half step (in the case of a bV7 sub).

The tendency of a chord in a progression to want to be in
motion does not in itself does not qualify it for the term
"functional dominant", even though those tendencies are often
due to a chord's relationship to the V chord of the key. For
example, a IV-I cadence has a strong sound of resolution, but
that does not make the IV chord a "functional dominant" (it's
referred to as "sub-dominant").

In your example, the tendency of the G major chord to want to
resolve to A minor is due to A minor being the relative minor of
C major. If you follow your G major chord (the true V chord in
the key of C) with a C chord, to my ears that is a stronger
resolution. Analysis of a G to A minor movement could either be
modal or deceptive resolution of the V chord in C major, but it
would not be a "functional dominant" in my experience.

It is interesting though...where is this modal harmony theory
being taught?

In any event, I think what is much more important to highlight
than theory mumbo jumbo is what you also have stressed...use
your ear! if it sounds good, it is good.

peace,

Rob

Rob et al,

Sorry Jeff, but that is not an example of a "functional dominant"
in traditional theory. I studied harmony at Berklee and I don't
recall the topic of "functional dominants in modal harmony".
There was analysis of the tendencies of different diatonic chords
to want to move and/or resolve, but the term "functional
dominant" was reserved for primary and secondary dominants
which resolve either up a perfect fourth, down a perfect fifth, or
down a half step (in the case of a bV7 sub).

I think we’re caught up in semantics here.

Berklee has the habit of coining terms that are counter-intuitive (such as calling a 9th a “tension? when in reality it is merely an extension and exhibits no actual tension at all) and that’s fine, because ever since Adam, the human race has been obsessed with giving things names (logical or not).

If Berklee has a “set definition? for the term “functional dominant? that does not, in fact, jibe with a term that I used previously to describe “the second most important chord in any key, ie. the one that most forcefully resolves back to the tonic?, that’s perfectly OK with me.

~

In your example, the tendency of the G major chord to want to
resolve to A minor is due to A minor being the relative minor of
C major. If you follow your G major chord (the true V chord in
the key of C) with a C chord, to my ears that is a stronger
resolution.

There is no musician on this planet that could possibly question that the resolution of a G chord to a C chord is stronger than the resolution of a G chord to an A minor chord.

That, however, is NOT the issue here.

The important things here are “What is the final home center of tonality?? and “Which chord offers the strongest final cadence in said tonality’s context??

If a composer of a tune consciously (or subconsciously) chooses to limit his/her chord choices to only those which occur naturally within the pure aeolian scale, there are only 6 (count ‘em - six) chords that can possibly be juxtaposed to perform some kind cadence back to the minor home chord:

1. i vs iidim
2. i vs bIIIMajor
3. i vs ivm
4. i vs vm
5. i vs bVIMajor
6. i vs bVIIMajor

Which one, to your ears, yields the strongest resolution?


The aural evidence overwhelmingly points to the fact that the bVIImaj -> Im yields the best of the bunch.

[It is also interesting to note, that the same cadence exists with the mixolydian ( bVIImaj -> Imaj ).]

~

There is no shortage of folk tunes and rock songs that have sections (or even the entire number) composed of nothing more than going back and forth between Am and G or A and G.

In the case of modal folk songs (Irish, medieval, chanson, etc), they almost never contain chords larger than triads.

We are talking about very very simple stuff here, guys.

In occidental institutions, studies of “world or secular folk musics? tend to get passed over in favor of mainstream musics (ie what’s going to get you hired and paid in the real world – versus that which is kind of interesting but not particularly useful to advancing to your musical career).



As regards Rock and the Am-G-Am progression, I mean, hey …


~

In closing, let me reiterate that “modal harmony theory? is extremely simple stuff.

Jam out over a little “On Broadway? (mixolydian I-bVII-I), then get all emotional over some flamenco improvisation (phrygian E-Fmaj7-E), do the Santana thing for a bit (dorian im7-IV9-im7), and voilá you’re done in one quick lesson.

Has the term “This ain’t brain surgery? been overused?


Jeff


PS: I never said or implied that I believe that “Autumn Leaves? is a modal tune.


PPS: As regards “So What?, I would not put it in the same category as the tertian harmony issues this discussion seems currently focused on.

“So What? is based on quartal harmony. IMHO an in-depth discussion of quartal theory ought to be addressed in a completely separate thread from the tertian modal issues above (that is, if Quartals haven’t already been played to death here recently at WholeNote).

HOWEVER, if anybody is interested in reading a long boring treatise on quartals, you can give yourselves eyestrain with this:

Quartals
60 permutations of the ii-V7-I progression using quartals.
Also includes melodic ideas and comping suggestions using quartals.
http://Guitar-Lessons-Riverside-CA.com/Lessons/quartals.html

Wow, that's the LAST time I ever paste the contents of an msWord document into a thread a WholeNote. What an ugly mess!

Below is the same post in a more readable form:


Sorry Jeff, but that is not an example of a "functional dominant"
in traditional theory. I studied harmony at Berklee and I don't
recall the topic of "functional dominants in modal harmony".
There was analysis of the tendencies of different diatonic chords
to want to move and/or resolve, but the term "functional
dominant" was reserved for primary and secondary dominants
which resolve either up a perfect fourth, down a perfect fifth, or
down a half step (in the case of a bV7 sub).

I think we're caught up in semantics here.

Berklee has the habit of coining terms that are counter-intuitive (such as calling a 9th a "tension" when in reality it is merely an extension and exhibits no actual tension at all) and that's fine, because ever since Adam, the human race has been obsessed with giving things names (logical or not).

If Berklee has a "set definition" for the term "functional dominant" that does not, in fact, jibe with a term that I used previously to describe "the second most important chord in any key, ie. the one that most forcefully resolves back to the tonic", that's perfectly OK with me.

~

In your example, the tendency of the G major chord to want to
resolve to A minor is due to A minor being the relative minor of
C major. If you follow your G major chord (the true V chord in
the key of C) with a C chord, to my ears that is a stronger
resolution.

There is no musician on this planet that could possibly question that the resolution of a G chord to a C chord is stronger than the resolution of a G chord to an A minor chord.

That, however, is NOT the issue here.

The important things here are "What is the final home center of tonality?" and "Which chord offers the strongest final cadence in said tonality's context?"

If a composer of a tune consciously (or subconsciously) chooses to limit his/her chord choices to only those which occur naturally within the pure aeolian scale, there are only 6 (count 'em - six) chords that can possibly be juxtaposed to perform some kind cadence back to the minor home chord:

1. i vs iidim
2. i vs bIIIMajor
3. i vs ivm
4. i vs vm
5. i vs bVIMajor
6. i vs bVIIMajor

Which one, to your ears, yields the strongest resolution?


The aural evidence overwhelmingly points to the fact that the bVIImaj -> Im yields the best of the bunch.

[It is also interesting to note, that the same cadence exists with the mixolydian ( bVIImaj -> Imaj ).]

~

There is no shortage of folk tunes and rock songs that have sections (or even the entire number) composed of nothing more than going back and forth between Am and G or A and G.

In the case of modal folk songs (Irish, medieval, chanson, etc), they almost never contain chords larger than triads.

We are talking about very very simple stuff here, guys.

In occidental institutions, studies of "world or secular folk musics" tend to get passed over in favor of mainstream musics (ie what's going to get you hired and paid in the real world - versus that which is kind of interesting but not particularly useful to advancing to your musical career).



As regards Rock and the Am-G-Am progression, I mean, hey ...


~

In closing, let me reiterate that "modal harmony theory" is extremely simple stuff.

Jam out over a little "On Broadway" (mixolydian I-bVII-I), then get all emotional over some flamenco improvisation (phrygian E-Fmaj7-E), do the Santana thing for a bit (dorian im7-IV9-im7), and voilá you're done in one quick lesson.

Has the term "This ain't brain surgery" been overused?


Jeff


PS: I never said or implied that I believe that "Autumn Leaves" is a modal tune.


PPS: As regards "So What", I would not put it in the same category as the tertian harmony issues this current discussion seems currently focused on.

"So What" is based on quartal harmony. IMHO an in-depth discussion of quartal theory ought to be addressed in a completely separate thread from the tertian modal issues above (that is, if Quartals haven't already been played to death here recently at WholeNote).

HOWEVER, if anybody is interested in reading a long boring treatise on quartals, you can give yourselves eyestrain with this:

Quartals
60 permutations of the ii-V7-I progression using quartals. Also includes melodic ideas and comping suggestions using quartals.
http://Guitar-Lessons-Riverside-CA.com/Lessons/quartals.html

Okie dokie then.

Regardless of your opinions of Berklee, enough professional
musicians have been educated there that whatever terminology
they use is arguably largely the adopted language of most
modern musicians, especially in jazz.

After reading this comment, I don't think we would ever agree
and it's probably not productive to continue the conversation:

There is no musician on this planet that could possibly
question that the resolution of a G chord to a C chord is
stronger than the resolution of a G chord to an A minor chord.


Huh? what? uh...the most common progression in music is the
V7-I, and it most certainly has the strongest sounding
resolution of any chord movement. But don't take it from
me...perhaps other "musician's on the planet" would care to
comment.

comical.

regards,

RS

Robert,

It appears that you mis-read between the lines. Maybe you were fooled by the double negatives.

That statement means that "everyone is obliged to agree that a G -> C is stronger than a G -> Am".

or

"No one could disagree that G -> C is stronger that G -> Am"

I guess that proves the old adage that anything that can be misunderstood, will be.

We are indeed caught up in "semantics" :-)

It still all comes back to the correct definition of "dominant". My understanding is the same as Rob's. I didn't study at Berklee, but it fits with everything I've learned over the last 40 years.

"Dominant" means the 5th degree of a scale (and has done for well over 1000 years).
A "dominant" chord is one built on the 5th degree (V).
A "dominant 7th" is a V chord with a 7th added.
This creates a unique chord type, with a major 3rd and minor 7th.
This tritone in the chord contributes to its "dominant function".

As I understand it, the phrase "dominant function" doesn't require the chord to have a 7th, but it DOES require it to be EITHER a major V chord, OR a diminished vii chord. (Of course, the V7 chord combines both the V triad and the vii triad, which may be why it's so powerful and popular.)

The word "dominant" has no inherent connotations of harmonic "strength". It simply derives from the medieval practice of one note (the 5th) dominating melodies in church modes, as the "reciting tone".

Of course, when we talk about functional harmony (a post-modal concept), the word "dominant" does take on other connotations. It begins to refer to a CHORD. To start with, that's the chord built on V of the major scale (or harmonic minor), but it can also refer to a chord of the same type (major 3rd/minor 7th) used in some other context.
However, it doesn't follow that a dom7-type chord retains its function when used on another scale degree. As a "secondary dominant", it obviously does. And as a tritone sub (a bII chord), it does.
But as a bVII, it's working some other way.
(Eg, it's common for a Bb7 chord to be used in key of C major in jazz, to resolve to C. But the Bb7 doesn't have a dominant function. If anything, it's a kind of subdominant, or plagal substitute - for F or Fm.)


To get to the nub of the argument here:

A G>Am cadence sounds fine and good (I agree). But the issue is not the strength of the cadence; it's the name we give it. G is not functioning as a "dominant", if we define that term correctly (in its most useful, least ambiguous way). (And without an F, it isn't a dom7-type chord either.)
G>Am is a modal cadence featuring the subtonic chord.
However good or strong it is, it is quite different in sound from a true "dominant-tonic" cadence in A minor - which is E>Am.

(Although G>Am is a little like a dominant-tonic cadence in A aeolian: Em-Am.)


I agree, btw, about "So What". It uses quartal harmony - IMO as a deliberate way to avoid the harmonic suggestions of tertian chords. (As does "All Blues" - in part at least - on the same album.)

One could argue that the bridge - being a contrasting tonality a half-step away - is an ironic nod towards a traditional "tonic-dominant" contrast. (bIIs in jazz are a common sub for V, but of course here the bII is minor.)

IMO, Miles Davis was doing a lot of sending-up of old jazz practices in that tune. ;-).
"It's got no chord changes!"
"So what?"
"It doesn't modulate, just goes up a half-step and back!"
"So what?"
"The bass plays the tune and the horns play chords!"
"So what?"
(You can just hear that kind of conversation in the head...)

Hi Jon,

Great post...as usual, your comments are more concise,
eloquent, and easy to understand than any effort I could make.

I had a great big giggle when reading your imaginary Miles
conversation...haha...I've read the book about the making of
"Kind of Blue" and I don't remember anything like that exactly,
but man...it isn't much of a stretch to imagine the tune's name
originating like that. Very funny.

BTW...Jeff: sorry if I misunderstood your statement about the G
to C thing....I guess we were actually in agreement. Good to
know...for a sec there, I thought one of us might be crazy..haha

anyhoo...I don't come around WN much these days, but it's nice
to see this kind of theory talk happening around here...it's what
this site was once about. Right on.

be well and keep pickin,

Rob

Semantics:

The concept of a chord which is:

1. The second most important chord in the key, and

2. which most forcefully pushes towards a resolution to the tonic

was (at my music school) explained as having the function of "dominance" (the exact term used by my professors).

The original meaning of the word "dominance" infers "power" and "influence".

This genre of strong chords which represent "the other main chord in the key", was explained to me as as having "power" and "influence", and consequently possessing the the exact properties of "dominance".

If everyone objects to my using the word "dominant" to classify this genre of powerful cadential chords which exist in the pure modal tonalities, then a descriptive term for these chords should ALREADY exist in the realm of modal harmony theory.

Not being an student of the controversial Schillinger system and its outgrowths, I wouldn't know if a Berklee-ese word is already in common use to describe these chords in question.

But until such time as a reasonable substitute is put forth, I will continue to use the term "dominance" to describe the function that this family of powerful and influential chords in the modal systems exhibits.

Dear Colleagues,

OK, here's the term I have coined for "the second most important chord in any key, ie the chord which most forcefully propels you into the tonic".

the predominant chord

As such, I have changed the verbage on page 5 of my lesson on minors to read:

"The function of a "Predominant Chord" is to push you into the Tonic. In Major harmony the predominant (aka "dominant") chord is built off the fifth degree of the scale.

In the case of the Dorian and Aeolian modes, the predominant chord is built off the 4th and b7th respectively."

In order to insure that this becomes the standard common usage throughout the world, please try to include the term in as many conversations with other learned musicians as possible < g >.

There is still a musical theory conflict in terminology here.

The term "predominant chord" (as in "pre-dominant") is defined as "any chord which leads naturally to a dominant chord."

(As opposed to the more common meaning of predominance being the qualities of "domination" and "strength".)

The bVII->I cadence is know as the "gamma cadence" (the third of only three - alpha = V-I, beta = IV->I).

Defining the cadence still does not actually give a name to this family of dominant functioning chords in pure modes.

However, if "pre[-]dominant" equals the chord that goes to the dominant (usually some kind of ii), then wouldn't it follow that the "pre-tonic" chord would obviously be any and every chord that leads most directly and powerfully to the tonic?

the pretonic chord

(or does it look better with the hyphen "pre-tonic"?)

Okie dokie, then. Whatever ...

Hi Jeff, sorry not to get back to you sooner.

I think you might be interested in these links (apologies if you've already studied them):

Dolmetsch on classical cadences
Modal progressions in pop and rock

They seem to manage without the need for a specific term along the lines you're thinking - but then they don't go into much depth on specifics of modal cadences.

However, a bit more googling threw this one up - which I think you'll like:
"Jazz and the classical guitar" (p.60)
- the phrase "dominant modal cadence" is used without referring to a V chord! So you have Ken Hatfield in your camp at least.
(He seems careful to always use the word "modal" in there, but "dominant" is clearly used exactly the way you are using it.)

But for a truly erudite dissertation on medieval modal cadence types, check this
I don't see a mention of the word "dominant" at all...
(But then I think you would be quite right to say today's music entitles you to be a bit more free with modal theory... ;-) )

Jon,

Thank you for your interesting list of resources!

I'm certainly glad we got this issue cleared up to everyone's satisfaction.

Much appreciated ...

bump

great discussion guys. Tryin to keep up . You've out terminology'd me 10 posts ago

I will add that to me the Am-G wants to move down to F or to C just as much as back to Am .Of course I do hear the G-Am resolution and its common in music but I dont think its anywhere near as concrete as V-I.

but keep it going .Kind of converstaion that actully brings me back to this site to learn more

Matt,

I will add that to me the Am-G wants to move down to F or to C just as much as back to Am .Of course I do hear the G-Am resolution and its common in music but I dont think its anywhere near as concrete as V-I.

The question is not where chord “X? could go, the question is “where it wants to go the most in the context of the piece’s tonality!?

If you get my drift.

[Again, my apologies for having pasted the contents of an msWord doc into a WholeNote thread.]

Matt,

I will add that to me the Am-G wants to move down to F or to C just as much as back to Am .Of course I do hear the G-Am resolution and its common in music but I dont think its anywhere near as concrete as V-I.

The question is not where chord "X" could go, the question is "where it wants to go the most in the context of the piece's tonality!"

If you get my drift.

JB wrote: addendum: The V and natVII are not only built off the Harmonic minor scale, they also occur when using the Ascending Melodic minor scale."

JR wrote: Not quite. If the V and vii chords are extended (at least as far as standard jazz practice goes) you get a 7b9 on V, and a dim7 on vii. These are Harmonic minor chords, not Melodic minor.
You may occasionally get a melodic minor V (a dom9), but I don't think I've ever seen a melodic minor vii chord (m7b5).

The V chord built of the Harmonic minor can be:

1. V major triad
2. V+
3. V7
4. V7+
5. V7b9
6. V7#5b9

Which are all perfectly valid dominant 7 chords.

~

The V built of the Melodic Ascending minor can be:

1. V major
2. V+
3. V7
4. V7+
5. V9
6. V9#5

Which are all perfectly valid dominant 7 chords.

~

The natVII chord built of the Harmonic minor can be:

1. VII dim triad
2. VII dim7

Which are both perfectly valid "substitutes" for the dominant 7th due to the fact that they contain the exact same tritone between their root and b5 degree as the V chord contains between its 3rd and b7th degrees. These tritones included in the abovementioned VII chords exhibit exactly the same tendency to resolve to the tonic as do their counterparts built off the 5th degree. It is equally possible to simply think of them as rootless V chord forms.

~

The natVII chord built of the Ascending Melodic minor can be:

1. VII dim triad
2. VIIm7b5

Which are both perfectly valid "substitutes" for the dominant 7th due to the fact that they contain the exact same tritone between their root and b5 degree as the V chord contains between its 3rd and b7th degrees. These tritones included in the abovementioned VII chords exhibit exactly the same tendency to resolve to the tonic as do their counterparts built off the 5th degree. It is equally possible to simply think of them as rootless V chord forms.

~

In other words, I fail to see your point.

Kindest regards.

Chords built from melodic minor may be interesting, and worth listing - but they are hardly ever used in minor keys, with the exception of the tonic.

While I have seen the odd V9 chord (with a major 9th) used in a minor key, I don't recall ever seeing a m7b5 (V9 sub) as vii.
(Again, I'm not saying it couldn't or shouldn't be done!)

IOW, my point is about standard common practice in minor keys.
My angle (in explaining and understanding music theoretically) is always to work from the way music IS, not from the way it could be.
The assumption being that the way music IS is down to choices made by the majority of musicians and composers down the years (and still today) that that's the way it sounds best. That's where theory comes from - at least to begin with.

From this angle, it's true to say that the V and vii chords in a minor key are harmonised from harmonic minor, not melodic minor. (Any rare exceptions prove the rule.)

But I have no quarrel - as I've said - with your perspective of listing all the possibilities from all the associated scales.
Indeed, it can help us to explain certain minor key rock sequences, like House of the Rising Sun, or Hotel California - these contain chords which (unless you invoke a nearby major key) can only be explained as dorian or melodic minor harmonisations (particularly the major IV chord).
(These tunes still don't contain melodic minor V or vii chords, mind you...)

I should maybe mention that chords harmonised from melodic minor DO appear in jazz, mostly as altered dom7-type chords.
However, they are not harmonised from the melodic minor of the key.

Eg, altered V7 chords, harmonised from the melodic minor a major 3rd below the tonic. (Eg E7#5#9, V of A minor, harmonised from F melodic minor.)
There are also lydian dominant chords - as bIIs, subs for V7s, these are also harmonised from the melodic minor a major 3rd below the tonic. (Eg, Bb7#11, bII of A minor.)
Then there are m9b5s used as ii chords - harmonised from the melodic minor a 4th above the tonic.