The cycles are not considered a part of a key.

Just as basslines sound good moving diatonically, within a specific key, basslines sound good moving in fourths and fifths.

The whole picture with any theoretical point of view is just that; a perspective.

Yes, if you mean moving upwards.
And remember one of those moves is not a perfect 5th/4th: F-B is an augmented 4th, and B-F is a diminished 5th.

The full cycle of 5ths (or 4ths) means perfect intervals; that's how you get 12 keys. Or rather 15 keys, including 3 enharmonic ones:

C - G - D - A - E - B - F# - C#

                   Cb - Gb - Db - Ab - Eb - Bb - F - C

But it doesn't matter a whole lot whether you call the cycle 4ths or 5ths. A 5th up is a 4th down, and vice versa.
As Justin says, it's a matter of perspective. A cycle of 5ths is a cycle of 4ths, if you look at it the other way. :-)

The commonest cycle sequence in chord progressions is a 5th down: E-A-D-G...etc. But you can regard this as a cycle of upward 4ths if you like.
In practice, the root movement usually alternates between 5th down and 4th up, just to stay in a reasonable register.

JonR

BTW, I'd disagree slightly with Justin: tho he's right the normal sense of "cycle of 5ths" is a full 12-tone perfect cycle, the cycle of 4ths/5ths (as you list them) CAN be considered diatonically, as a chord sequence within a key - although you rarely get a full cycle.

E.g., "Fly Me To The Moon" goes:
Am7-Dm7-G7-Cmaj7-Fmaj7-Bm7b5-E7-Am
Dm7-G7-Cmaj7-Fmaj7-Bm7b5-E7-Am

That looks like an entire cycle of 5ths (twice) in the key of C/Am, except there's an E7 chord instead of Em. This means the key changes from C to Am (relative minor). (In fact, the sequence is really half-and-half C major and A minor.)
Even so, the cycle works. And the roots (at least) are all diatonic to C major. The fact that F-B is a diminished 5th (downwards - or aug 4th up) is irrelevant.

JonR

Take a look at Autumn Leaves - it cycles 4ths, and if you look at any of Robert Conti's works, he says that music basically moves in fourths and sometimes it may appear that it is not moving in fourths yet it is as the movement may be to a tritone substitution of the chord that is a fourth away.

Back to Autumn Leaves in Key of Emin or the relative minor of G major: Em9, A7, D9, GMaj7, CMaj7, F#min7-5, B7+5, back to Em9

The song moves in fourths.

Wow a response to a post from 6 years ago! ;-)

I know Autumn Leaves well and it's the same as the second line of Fly me to the Moon - and the first line if starting on the 2nd chord.
(Gloria Gaynor's "I Will Survive" is another one with this sequence.)

Both sequences move in 4ths up, or 5ths down, depending on how you look at it. The more aooustically complete sounding move (resolution) is actually a 5th down, but of course half the moves (on average) need to be a 4th up otherwise we quickly run out of instrument!

A very common theme. Chords only move two ways, through the cycle and chromatically. All chord progressions can be connected or distilled to these two concepts.

Matt, one big thing that the cycle of fifths does for me is tell me the key signature of a key. Other than that it doesn't do to much for me. Let me show you....

If you go up in 5ths a little bit (before it gets confusing you have)

C then G ....D ....A ....E ....etc

the key of C has no sharps and no flats

when you go to G you get one sharp which happens to be F#

then D has 2 which are F# and C#

A has 3 etc

the order of sharps is FCGDAEB so any major key that has D# in it would have all the others...chcek the key of E and you'll see what's up...

When you go "backwards" in fourths you get flats ...

the cycle of fourths is C / F / Bb/ Eb / Ab etc

C has 0
F has 1 (Bb)
Bb has 2 (Bb / Eb)

the order of flats is BEADGCF which is the order of sharps (FCGDAEB) backwards....hope my little discussion helped you...that's about all I use the cycle for man...If anyone knows anything else please let me know :P

tkx

John

Good explanation, John. I used to use the Cycle of Fifths when transposing between keys, as a beginner, but now I do it in my head.

Want to get really confused? The Circle of Fifths (or circle of fourths or cycle of fifths or fourths...or whatever you want to call it today) can be used as a basis for chord substitution. Let's say your song calls for a
Cmaj chord. By playing a chord that is in the vicinity of C on the Circle of 5th, you have chord substitution. (Cycle of 4th's is BEAD GCF BbEbAbDb GbCbFb.....etc, remember that Cycle of 5th's is this sequence only backwards)....Just get out your little Circle of 5th's diagram and memorize it, dang it! Much easier!

Now..G and D are to the right of C on the Cycle of 5ths; and F and B are to the left. Try substituting a D,G,F or B for a C chord... or use some alteration or minor of the substituted chord...Dmin,G9,B11..whatever. See if it sounds goods.

Listen up. The reason the substitutions work is that as you progress around the Cycle of 5th's(4th's), the difference in diatonic scales only change by one note...Let me explain. The only difference in notes between C scale and F scale is one note: Bb in the F scale, B in the C scale. Difference between C scale and Bb scale is that Bb scale has Bb and Eb; C scale has B and E. G scale has F#, D scale has F#,C#. The further you get away from C to the right or left on the Cycle, the more notes on the diatonic scale that are not in common.

Want to Cycle around on the fretboard? Start with an E-form barre chord at the 7th fret...Bmaj. Then an A-form barre chord at the 7th fret...Emaj. Now drop down 2 frets (to the 5th fret) and play the E-form and A-form barre chords again (this is the A and D major chords). Keep dropping down 2 frets at a time and do the same thing...You're working your way around the Cycle of 4th's. Start at a lower fret and work your way up 2 frets at a time...now you're progressing around the Cycle of 5th's.

Now...maybe some of you folks can expand on this and maybe explain how this can be useful. I'm out of hot air......

I do not use the cycle or circle for chord substitutions. I define chord substitution as chords that share two or more common tones such as C major (C, E, G) and Amin (A, C, E). Common tones are C and E. In regards to the circle, I use them:

1) As a way to identify the accidentals within a key.
2) As a way to identifiy the natural progression of tertian harmony.

Here is the example in C major
Chord Type
Cmaj - I
Fmaj - IV
Bdim - vii
Emin - iii
Amin - iv
Dmin - ii
G7 - V
Cmaj - I

In reference to chord substitution in Western Harmony, you can use the chart above to outline natural chord substitution. The natural order of chord substitution is as follows:

I - iii - vi
ii - IV
V - vii

If you follow the natural harmonic progression , you will notice that each chord group all share common tones.

You can also chord substitution by type ex. Cmaj becomes C7. If done in this way, you will have a modulation of keys.

If you subtitute Cmaj to Cmin, you key will change as well or it may just be a passing chord where the inner harmonies are moving.

I look at your analogy more on the basis of what is called borrowed chords. This is when chords are borrowed from adjacent keys but do not follow the standard rules of tertian harmony.

Example in Cmaj:

Cmaj - I
Dmaj - II
G7 - V

Dmaj is V chord in the key of G (adjacent key to C) but a Major II chord in C. Please notice that all we did really, was change the chord type from minor to Major.

I hope that helps.

I read something years ago about chord substition that is based on finding two common tones - my theory "education" is not formal, just based on finding books over the years, and self study.

Let me line this bulls--- out please.

No offense to anyone, but most of you are wrong.

First Jon, you speak of the use of an E7 within the cycle not equating. Totally wrong, the cycle does not care about chord quality or key. The root is what matters.

You are confusing key concept with the cycle concept and trust me, the two twains shall never meet or should they.

Diatonic substitution on the other hand has swung the concept to the other side of the spectrum.

When using chords interchangeably, you really are not doing a lot other than changing some basic diatonic chord option and experienced players use it only as a platform to go deeper into a cadence or creat a pivot point for a more complex substitution.

For example, the I vi iii are not what I consider true subs, rather interchangeable chords,

Dm7

G13

Ebm7

Dm7

G13

Cmaj7

Why the Ebm ? Well, it is a tritone sub for an Amin which interchanged with with the I. This opened up new possibilities for the harmonic structure.

Just a comment about chord substitution.

To my knowledge, a chord "substitution", by definition, is substituting one chord for another which shares at least two common chord tones.

Any other harmonic device is technically a "reharmonization".

$.02

I've seen that definition a few times. Doesn't mean it ever made anyone a better player.

No matter how you slice it, my proof is in the progression. There is no other way to look at it than a simple repeating ii V I in C.

I know you are a good player

To call it a reharminization just not the case. If walks, talks and quacks like a duck, then it's a duck. If moves, sounds and and resolves like a...well you get the picture.

MY .02

I think it's important to know the distinction between what a
chord substitution is and what reharmonizations are, and
understanding both can certainly make one a better player. Both
are deep topics, and both have different, but major implications
for composing and improvisation. Their definitions are important
for music education and application, IMO.

I'm not sure I understand the rest of your response. I didn't call
anything a reharmonization, I just outlined the distinction above.
What exactly are you talking about?

I thought this post was about the cycle? To me, the cycle of
4th/5ths is just an educationa vehicle for
learnig/hearing/understanding all the major
keys and common 4th and 5th based root movement in
functional, diatonic harmony. As you go clockwise around the
cycle of 5ths, each key adds one sharp. As you go
counterclockwise around the cycle of 4ths, each key add one flat.
The cycle itself doesn't provide complete information for
constructing harmony. It's use a tool doesn't have anything to do
with the topics of chord substitution and reharmonization. When
you learn those topics in school, they don't hand you the cycle of
5ths.

In Jazz, the cycle is commonly referred to for understanding the
concept of back-cycling. Again, just root movement based on
the interval of a 4th.

If your analyzing John's comment about E7 in the cycle, I believe
he was just alluding to the fact that it's a secondary dominant
and not diatonic to the key of C major since it contains a G#. In
terms of subs/reharmonization, in a C major diatonic
progression, it's a sub for E-7, commonly used to modulate to
the key of the related minor.

I guess in total that makes $.06 cents between us!

PS - I never heard that comment before about Bird and tritone
substitution...hmmm....have to look into that one

I have agree with in some parts and disagree in the other. Please remember when I prefenced the I-iii-vi combo, I said this within the Western Harmony context.

I do agree with you about tritone substition. But also note that in Western Harmony, tritone substition is not common. Jazz harmony does break many of the Western Harmony rules and does open a whole lot more possibilities.

Good look-out Randy, that is an important distinction. The tritone sub was never (or rarely) used before Charlie Parker, in fact they didn't even come up with the name until years later when scholars tried to explain what he was doing.

I sure wish I had a tenth of Parker's genius.

You and me both bro. Parker could blow but ironically he could never stop as well so his phrasing at times could be construed as a run on sentence - lol. None the less a shredder for his time as well as today.

The tritone sub is actually very similar to the classical augmented 6th chord (or at least one variety of it). The difference being that the augmented 6th chord resolves - conventionally - to a dominant, not a tonic.
IOW, an aug 6 chord is a kind of subdominant sub, not a dominant sub.

This link explains how Aug 6 chords came to be used instead as dominant subs - although of course it's doubtful that your average jazz musician went through that thought process...! (This is theorists putting 2 and 2 together after the event.)

IMO, the tritone sub could easily have arisen from the habit of using a passing b5 in the bass to approach the next chord root by a half-step.
G7/Db is not so different to Db7. Both chords contain Db, F and B(Cb), the essential tones of Db7. At any rate, that's an easy move to discover intuitively.

And tritone subs are generally lydian dominant chords - retaining the V note of the key as the #4 of the chord.
(The chords they replace can often be altered dominants, which consist of the exact same set of tones and possible extensions. G7alt = Db13#11.)

How goes Jon? Don't you just love Aug 6th chords? Italian 6th, German 6/5, Italian 4/3 - those chords where not among my favorites when I studied way back when. Anyway I tend to view them more as Dom7b5 chords.

Why would I vi iii be interchangeable chords?

Just look at the key of C.

The I is C - C, E, G
The iii is Em - E, G, B

Common tones are E and G

The I is C - C, E, G
The vi is Am - A, C, E

Common tones are C and E

The iii is Em - E, G, B
The vi is Am - A, C, E

The common tone is E, but because of the relationship to I, they are interchangeable. Please also note the stipulation that it is rare that iii will sub for vi and vis-versa. You would more likely see a chord progression go: iii (Em) - vi (Am) - ii (Dm) - V (G) - I (C).

The circle of 5ths in the root movement.

Interchangeable - capable of replacing or changing places with something else; permitting mutual substitution without loss of function or suitability.

I understand the concept but don't really believe it because the change, although subtle, is discernible to the ear.

C = C E G
Cmaj7 = C E G B
Both chords are I and have the same function. If a song uses the C chord and you replace it with Cmaj7......the song won't sound right (that is---->to my ear). But if you're going for a different sound or want to be a jazzer for jazz's sake then it would be okay.

There is a difference between function and interchanging. Yes I agree about Cmaj7 and the C triad are the same but also note that musical styles and taste come into play. In western tertian harmony, major 7 chords were not used much, however the dom 7 was used heavily. This is where theory can get blown out of the water if spoken out of context. If you look at modern harmony as we spoke about earlier with tritone subs, that takes on a whole new ball game where yes, jazz would come into play.

Extending the chords to 7ths definitely reveals even more similarities...

C E G B
E G B D
A C E G

However, although all these chords can substitute for one another, their relationship to the bass determines their harmonic effect. They only function interchangeably if played over the same bass note. Otherwise, they function differently and sound different in the context of a progression, even though they are closely related. For example, if you play an A-7 chord over a C bass note, the resulting sound will be Cmaj6. E-7 over C yields Cmaj7/9.

So, using these chords as substitutes has different effects depending on the context. If they are all played over the same bass note (i.e. C) they yield different chord voicings. If substituted completely, they yield a different tonality...your ear is telling you the right thing Adriano. To say these chords "function" all the same in incorrect...they are simply closely related structures, and that fact can be exploited for composition, voicings, or improvisation.

One very common example of a progression that uses this is to go to the vi- instead of the I chord:

D-7 | G7 | C

D-7 | G7 | A-

The resulting effect is still one of resolution, but to the darker sounding related minor instead of the bright and happy sounding I chord. This progression happens in all kinds of music, especially pop and rock.

What I am trying to stress is that context is king. These concepts don't happen in a vacuum. To say these chords are simply interchangeable is incomplete IMO, and to say that they function interchangeably is incorrect IMO.

keep pickin,

Rob

These chords are the I iii vi and can all function as the tonic chord, no matter what style you playing.

As a matter of fact, I go one step further and make the statement when it comes to western music especially jazz, when improvising solos, there are but two chord functions -Tonic and Dominant.

Someone please disagree with me so we can have a great debate!

Eminor7

C6

C

Aminor

Why is it that we always come back to jazz? Can you give a list of popular songs that were hits, were later reharmonized by other artists, and became hits again?

We come back to jazz because 'hits' as you call them usually have very simple harmonic structure.

Keep in mind that many songs jazz players play were once chart topping hits (even many that are considered standards today) and rework many songs of current popularity.

Jazz itself kind of evolved from players bored with playing the same ol' melodies expanding the complexity of well known songs of the day. The more interesting and techically difficult the version, the better player you were thought to be.

There wasn't a set blueprint on how to do this, so much of jazz theory evolved to explain and preserve the best innovators works.

BTW, a lot of players still do it. The gu that teaches next to me has arranged great chord solo and fingerstyle versions of everyone from Rob Thomas to Led Zeppelin.

Oh, hits...

just one example is Christina Aguilera, here's the wipi explanation.

Aguilera collaborated with jazz artist Herbie Hancock on a cover of Leon Russell's "A Song for You" recorded for Hancock's album Possibilities, released in August 2005. Aguilera and Hancock were later nominated for the Grammy Award for Best Pop Collaboration with Vocals. She helped open the 50th Anniversary for Disneyland performing "When You Wish upon a Star", and she also collaborated with Andrea Bocelli on the song "Somos Novios" for his album Amore.

Aguilera's third English studio album, Back to Basics, released August 15, 2006, debuted at #1 in the U.S., the UK and eleven other countries. Aguilera described the double CD as "a throwback to the 20s, 30s, and 40s-style jazz, blues, and feel-good soul music, but with a modern twist

Seriously, you gotta do better than Christina Aguilera. She's so good looking that anything she sings will do well on the charts. By the way simple melodies are not so simple as one would think, if they were a lot of jazzers would be in the money. The Grammy Awards are BS, who was it that was best new female artist of the year and was already singing for 5 years and had 4 cd's out? Chris, you gotta convince me.

Okay, just can't go on with this forever.

I will say to try and equate talent to making money is just silly. If that were true, then all you would have to do to get rich is practice. Most "famous" folks would be the first to tell you that just about any music store has a kid sitting in it right now ripping shreds that can probably out play them.

If there was an "it" factor to selling a lot of records, no one has figured it out yet.Even the epople who make their living signing bands and other artists probably get a success rate of 1 out of hundreds of bands signed.

These guys are great musicians but is this really Limehouse Blues

Feels more like Jazz to me.

Limehouse Blues is the name of the tune. Don't feel funny for not knowing it, unluess you listen to a lot of jazz, it's not one that comes up that often.

I have mixed feelings about Cannonball. There is a lot to learn from him of course he's a great player, but by no means the innovator Parker was.

He came into NY city at the tail-end of the bop movement and hooked up with Miles Davis a deciple of Gillespie and Parker.

You might think of him as the Jake E. Lee to Randy Rhoads, not good as the original but tecnically sound and pretty damn good by any standard

The thing about Christina is she can really sing. The girl has been blessed with a great voice since the day she of Mickey Mouse club. Today she now has the sex appeal to match the voice but the voice has always been there.

She does have quite a voice! Its great on the upbeat songs. She is getting better on the slower numbers.

That " Aint No Other Man" that she did is a well done pop record. I love how the tambourine comes in on it..... sounds like a classic 60s record.

She changes her look so much that if I ran into her somewhere out shopping or in a restaurant I would not know who she is!

Not sure if this is what you mean, but Santana's Europa is pretty much Autumn Leaves redone in a different style.

Rick - thanks for posting this info!

How about songs that were not reharmonized. One that comes to mind in the modern day era is George Michael's - Kissing A Fool.

How 'bout lookint at the Allman Brothers version of Stormy Monday. The original by T-Bone Walker isn't the same progression.

Not a hit though but Robben Ford's version of Help The Poor vs. B.B. King's.

Love is a Battlefield. Original song by Holly Knight. Redone version by Pat Benatar.

Bro, I love Robben Ford's Help The Poor version. Help poor me!

Yeah Robben's version is so different compared to BB's. It's like day and night.

How on earth can the above be compared to BB King's version

You can't. The two styles and two players are just flat out different and respected separately. I love them both and need to be treated apart - after it is the same song with Robben's reharmonized.

They are both talented guys. I can appreciate both versions of that tune.

BB's version "got me" and I really liked the dynamics and his singing.