Theory behind using M7 chords as dominants?

[aniss1001]

Hmmm ... the more I read the more confused I get. But perhaps there is no need to. I mean possibly there are simply several ways to describe the same thing.

It does make sense that in C minor a chord containing an F minor triad can be seen a subdominant as Jens suggests.

However if you look at this progression...

Dm7b5 - C#7 - Cm7

... I think we would all agree that it's a minor 2-5-1 (with a tritone sub). So I just can't help seeing/hearing this progression...

Dm7b5 - C#M7 - Cm7

... As a derivation of the latter.

But I don't know which is the more correct or useful way to view this?!

[Prome]

Aniss, there is a big difference between DbM7 and Db7/G7 -- it has to do with the key we're in, C. Two of the most "stable" scale degrees are uncontroversially the 1 and 3, C and E (G, the 5, is another). The two most dissonant tones in this key would be B, a half step below C, and F, a half step above E. The B wants to push up to C, the F down to E. This is of course dramatized when both the 4 and 7 are contained in the chord, because the interval between these two pitches is a tritone -- so we have not only the tonal dissonance, our ear's desire to hear 4 ---> 3 and 7 ---> 1, but we also have the intervallic dissonance these two tones create with respect to one another!

What characterizes "subdominant" sounds is they have the 4 in them, but not the 7. Chords like Dm7 and FM7, Dm7b5 and even DbM7 all have s.d. 4, but no s.d. 7.

"Dominant" sounds have the 4 and 7, as I mentioned earlier, and you'll notice both Db7 and G7, as well as Bm7b5, Bo7, and Fm7b5, have s.d. 4 and 7 (F and B) in them.

Let me spell chords according to the scale degrees that comprise them:

"Subdominant" sounds

Dm7 = 2 4 6 1
FM7 = 4 6 1 3
Dm7b5 = 2 4 b6 1
DbM7 = b2 4 b6 1

Notice, no 7 in any of them!

"Dominant" sounds

G7 = 5 7 2 4
Db7 = b2 4 b6 7
Bm7b5 = 7 2 4 6
Bo7 = 7 2 4 b6
Fm7b5 = 4 b6 7 b3

Hope this helps!

[Prome]

C Phrygian mode: 1 b2 b3 4 5 b6 b7

DbM7 (as s.d. in key of C): b2 4 b6 1

Notice, if you use chords with s.d. b3, b6, or b7 in them you are getting sounds from the parallel natural minor scale (C minor). But when you add the b2, you are clearly getting the characteristic s.d. from the parallel phrygian mode, C phrygian in this case. Accordingly, DbM7 is better seen as a phrygian modal interchange chord; in a sense, the "subdominant" sounding chord from C phrygian.

[aniss1001]

@Prome

I understand. But I'm just thinking that perhaps sometimes it makes more sense to look at how a chord functions in a progression, rather than looking at what notes it contains.

For instance what about this progression:

Dm6 - G7sus4 - CM7

Is that a 2-5-1, a 5-2-1, a 5-4-1 or something else entirely?

Dm6 = 2 4 6 7
G7sus4 = 5 1 2 4

A couple of days ago I would have said a 2-5-1, but now I don't know. It's possible that I pay too much attention to the root movement. Just trying to understand this better as I said...

[Prome]

Think of what classical, functional harmony experts call "the phrase model":

T-PD-D-T

i.e. Tonic Predominant Dominant Tonic

For legit theory, the "predominant" is basically our subdominant chord. So, in your example of Dm6 -> G7sus -> C, you're going D-PD-T, which is not an authentic, but rather a plagal cadence.

Another way to look at it though, as an authentic cadence instead, is:

D ------> T

You can embellish, or "prolong" (to use legit terminology) the D with the PD chord, so the above becomes:

D (PD) --------> T

Practice playing | G7 | G7 | C | C | over and over until V7 --> I becomes ingrained. Then, start randomly, whenever the muse strikes you, playing Dm7 or G7sus, whatever, on any beat where G7 normally lives. You'll notice, it'll just start to sound like you're embellishing (prolonging) the G7 sound. I like this explanation far better than thinking of Dm6 -> G7sus -> C as a plagal cadence.

Also, Dm6 in this context isn't really Dm6, it's G7/D. m6 chords function as tonic minor sounds, not subdominant/predominant sounds. Dm6, iow, is the i chord in D minor.

[JensL]

Dm7b5 - C#7 - Cm7

... I think we would all agree that it's a minor 2-5-1 (with a tritone sub). So I just can't help seeing/hearing this progression...

Dm7b5 - C#M7 - Cm7

... As a derivation of the latter.

But I don't know which is the more correct or useful way to view this?!

A fews things about this:

1. If you play Dm7(b5) Dbmaj7 Cm7 does it sound like a II V I?

2. Would you interpret it differently if it was written Fm/D Fm/Db - Cm?

There are lots of examples of things that look like II V I cadences but are not. Chord symbols are a very crude way of notating harmony.

A few examples in C:
F#m7b5 Fm7 Em7
Em7 Ebdim Dm7
Dm7 Bb7 Cmaj7
Fmaj7 Bb7 Cmaj7
Am7 Ab7 Cmaj7
etc.

are all standard progressions and resemble II V I but are not .

Jens

[Prome]

[chord]

||---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|-*-|---|
||---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|-*-|---|
||---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|-*-|---|
||---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|-*-|---|

[/chord]


[chord]

||---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|-*-|---|
||---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|-*-|---|
||---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|-*-|---|---|
||---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|-*-|---|

[/chord]


[chord]

||---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||---|---|---|---|---|---|---|-*-|---|---|---|
||---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|-*-|---|---|
||---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|-*-|---|---|
||---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||---|---|---|---|---|---|---|-*-|---|---|---|

[/chord]

You wouldn't call the chords above Dm7-Dm6-CM7

More accurately we're playing Dm7-G9/D-CM7

Or more simply Dm7-G9-CM7


[chord]

||---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|-*-|---|---|
||---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|-*-|---|
||---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|-*-|---|
||---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|-*-|---|

[/chord]

[chord]

||---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|-*-|---|---|
||---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|-*-|---|
||---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|-*-|---|---|
||---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|-*-|---|

[/chord]

[chord]

||---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|-*-|---|---|---|
||---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|-*-|---|---|---|
||---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|-*-|---|---|---|---|
||---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|-*-|---|---|---|

[/chord]

But here we clearly have Em7b5-A7b9/E-Dm6

Or more simply Em7b5-A7b9-Dm6

[aniss1001]

@Prome

To be honest I know close to nothing about classical theory. For instance I never heard the term "predominant" before. Is it costomary to mix up jazz theory and classical theory like that? It's not a retorical question I honestly don't know but I did have the impression that they are two separate things entirely.

Anyway I got your point. The example I mentioned would be a 5-2-1 then. Makes sense.

The example you gave in you last post are very clearly 2-5-1's even though the bass note has been changed. The root motion isn't the only thing to look at off course allthough it can be quite powerful in itself.


@Jens

"If you play Dm7(b5) Dbmaj7 Cm7 does it sound like a II V I?"

Yes absolutely. An odd 2-5-1 perhaps but still.. This is the main reason I presumed it was.

"Would you interpret it differently if it was written Fm/D Fm/Db - Cm?"

Possibly. Mainly because I tend to presume that whoever wrote it like that had some idea behind choosing that particular notation over others (which isn't always the case though).


Generally speaking I think you are both right off course. Not argueing against that. I am simply keeping an open mind towards the possibilty that you could also see it the other way (in a strictly JAZZ context).

The 2-5-1 for instance is so strong and used in jazz so when I hear something that resembles one just when I am actually expecting one I can't help thinking there is a relation.

The first example I gave was from Scofields tune "Since you asked" (one of my favorites). The A section goes:

| Cm7 | A7b5 | C7b9 | G7Alt | Cm7 | Ebm7 | Dm7b5 | DbM7 | Cm7 | Fm7 | Bb7 | A7 | AbM7 | DbM7 | Bb7sus | Cm7 |

In this case the 1st four bars are clearly a 1-6-2-5 leading back to the tonic (Cm7) in the 5th bar. The bars 5 to 8 are so similar to a 1-6-2-5 that I am expecting just that and furthermore it leads back to the tonic in bar 9 just when I expect it.

Hope I made sense.

Anyhoo thanks a lot for your replies. You've given me a lot to think about

[Prome]

Terms like "predominant" help us understand functional harmony -- to the extent a jazz tune uses functional harmony, "predominant" is an apt way to describe certain chords. Again, root motion is important, but the guts of the chord are more important. If you don't have s.d. 4 and 7 in a chord, the chord simply isn't a dominant.

[aniss1001]

@Prome

Ok, now I'm starting to get the feeling that we're talking past eachother here...

I am aware that the definition of a dominant chord is one that countains a major 3rd and a flattened 7th. That is when we're talking about single chords.

What I am talking about is that in some cases a chord that doesn't contain these notes can FUNCTION as a dominant in a given context.

There is a big difference here!

I have read that in JAZZ sus chords can act as dominants. I also read that this wasn't the case until around 1960. Until then they would always resolve to a dominant.

On a related note I also read that for instance altered dominants are perfectly capable of functioning as dominants WITHOUT the 3rd or 7th. The tensions alone will give the listener an impression of hearing a dominant.

Or a simple augmented triad can have the same function.

Hope I made sense....

EDIT: Ah and yes the term "predominant" makes sense of course. I just never heard it before and I'm not sure exactly what the difference is between a "subdominant" and a "predominant" then...

[Prome]

A chord cannot function as a dominant unless it has s.d. 4 and 7. It's really that simple. A G7sus4 is, accordingly, not a dominant functioning chord. Don't over-complicate this stuff. The "dominant" sound in functional harmony is not about root motion, but the sound of s.d. 4 and 7 resolving to s.d. 3 and 1 respectively.

A subdominant and predominant chord are basically the same thing -- it's called predominant because, in the phrase model, the predominant comes before the dominant. Of course, we both not that sometimes the predominant goes to the tonic, in plagal cadences. But the chords we call predominants are the same as those we call subdominants, namely, any chord w/ s.d. 4 but no s.d. 7.

[Prome]

About chords like a G major triad or a G augmented triad: sure, neither chord contains the s.d. 4, though both have the s.d. 7. This makes them ambiguous. Sure, I'd concede that they're dominant function, especially in root position, even without s.d. 4 -- but G7sus4 and DbM7 are unambiguous, because they both have s.d. 4 and no s.d. 7 -- they are clearly defined subdominant/predominant sounds.

Look, what about G6sus4? You wouldn't call that a dominant functioning chord, just because of the 5th in bass, would you? If you look at it in another light, it's clearly a Cadd9/G. It has no s.d. 4, no s.d. 7. You're getting hung up on root motion, not the guts of the chords, which is what really determines their function.

Also, to reiterate how ambiguous triads are, G Major can very well be part of a C Major, tonic sound;

CM9 = C E G B D

G augmented can be a C minor, tonic sound:

Cm(M7) = C D#(Eb) G B

[Prome]

"If you play Dm7(b5) Dbmaj7 Cm7 does it sound like a II V I?"

Yes absolutely. An odd 2-5-1 perhaps but still.. This is the main reason I presumed it was.

"Would you interpret it differently if it was written Fm/D Fm/Db - Cm?"

Possibly. Mainly because I tend to presume that whoever wrote it like that had some idea behind choosing that particular notation over others (which isn't always the case though).

See, this is what it all boils down to -- ear training. If you are hearing Dm7b5 -> DbM7 -> Cm7 the same way you hear Dm7b5 -> G7/Db7 -> Cm7, that's a problem. It could be the way you're voiceleading the chords.

Try this: Play only the guide tones (3 and 7) of the first two chords, and the 1 and 3 for the Cm sound (be sure to play a C minor scale and strum a C minor chord to firmly establish that tonic sound in your ear before trying this exercise), which gives us this:



Dm7b5 -> DbM7 -> Cm7 =

[chord]

||---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||---|---|---|---|-*-|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||---|---|-*-|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

[/chord]
[chord]

||---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||---|---|---|---|-*-|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||---|---|-*-|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

[/chord]
[chord]

||---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||---|---|---|---|-*-|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||-*-|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

[/chord]



Dm7b5 -> G7/Db7 -> Cm7 =

[chord]

||---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||---|---|---|---|-*-|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||---|---|-*-|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

[/chord]
[chord]

||---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||---|---|---|-*-|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||---|---|-*-|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

[/chord]

[chord]

||---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||---|---|---|---|-*-|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||-*-|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

[/chord]

You should hear a marked difference between the two, and if you don't, ear training should be your focus, not theory, with all due respect.

[Prome]

[chord]

||---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||---|---|---|---|---|-*-|---|---|---|---|---|
||---|---|---|---|-*-|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||---|---|---|---|-*-|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||---|---|---|---|-*-|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

[/chord]
[chord]

||---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|-*-|---|
||---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|-*-|---|---|
||---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|-*-|---|---|
||---|---|---|---|---|---|---|-*-|---|---|---|
||---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

[/chord]

[chord]

||---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||---|---|---|---|---|---|---|-*-|---|---|---|
||---|---|---|---|---|---|-*-|---|---|---|---|
||---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|-*-|---|
||---|---|---|---|---|---|-*-|---|---|---|---|
||---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

[/chord]

What would you call the above chords in the key of C?

[aniss1001]

A chord cannot function as a dominant unless it has s.d. 4 and 7.

Ok now you are directly contradicting a lot of the established "authorities" on jazz theory I believe. I don't have time to find any sources at this time but I am certain that I have read on several occations that chords like 7sus4, 9sus4 and 7sus4(b9) can act/function as dominants allthough they are clearly not dominants (they do not contain a 3rd).

The same can be said about altered dominants where either the 7th or the 3rd has been omitted. As well as augmented triads as I mentioned.

I have no problem with that. You are entitled to view this as you find it most useful. However I think a lot of folks would disagree on this particular matter that's all.

You should hear a marked difference between the two, and if you don't, ear training should be your focus, not theory, with all due respect.

I don't doubt that I need to keep training my ears but obviously I can hear a clear difference. But what does that prove? I can also hear a clear difference between a 6 chord and an M7 chord but they can still fulfill the same function.

A very obvious way to play the mentioned progressions would be:

Dm7b5 - Db7 - Cm7:
x5656x
x4646x
x3534x

Dm7b5 - DbM7 - Cm7:
x5656x
x4656x
x3534x

Can you honestly say that they don't sound somewhat similar? By no means identical off course but similar.

[bako]

Ear training should always be an important focus.
An expanded palette of 2 note chords implying movement to CmMa7 and CmMa9.

FC---FB---EbB

FC---FC---EbB

FC---FDb---EbB

FC---FBb---EbB

FC---FA---EbB

FC---FAb---EbB

FC---FG---EbB

FC---FD---EbB

FC---FEb---EbB

---------------------------

FC---FB---EbD

FC---FC---EbD

FC---FDb---EbD

FC---FBb---EbD

FC---FA---EbD

FC---FAb---EbD

FC---FG---EbD

FC---FD---EbD

FC---FEb---EbD

[JensL]

What I am talking about is that in some cases a chord that doesn't contain these notes can FUNCTION as a dominant in a given context.

It get's a bit confuising if you insist on using "function", when it is not a dominant in functional harmony.

Could you answer me this because that is what the whole discussion is coming down to:

How would you define a dominant?

Jens

[Prome]

Ok now you are directly contradicting a lot of the established "authorities" on jazz theory I believe. I don't have time to find any sources at this time but I am certain that I have read on several occations that chords like 7sus4, 9sus4 and 7sus4(b9) can act/function as dominants allthough they are clearly not dominants (they do not contain a 3rd).

The same can be said about altered dominants where either the 7th or the 3rd has been omitted. As well as augmented triads as I mentioned.

I have no problem with that. You are entitled to view this as you find it most useful. However I think a lot of folks would disagree on this particular matter that's all.

Forgive me if I am beginning to get impatient and cranky with you, but you are driving me nuts!

Appealing to some ghost "authority" whom you can't even name, whose work you can't even cite, isn't really moving this discussion forward. Send those "authorities" this way, and we can have a discussion about what does and does not constitute a dominant sound. I have described at length the ambiguity problem with chords that do not have both the s.d. 4 and 7, but you have either ignored it, or are deliberately glossing over that hole in your argument.

Look, where you might be confused is that certain chords may substitute for others. For instance, instead of Dm7 -> G7 -> C, one may simply play Dm7 -> Dm7 -> C. Improvisers do this melodically all the time, i.e. they continue to think "iim7" chord even when the "V7" is supposed to hit. But using that Dm7 in place of G7 does not make Dm7 "dominant" in function. It results in a different type of cadence, namely a plagal cadence. Again, you seem to also be confusing "dominant function" w/ cadence. There are other cadences than V7 -> I (aka authentic cadences).

To be candid, your stubbornness, coupled with your confessed shortcomings in "classical" theory and ear training make me wonder if you are less interested in learning what DbM7 is doing than in "proving" your supposed "discovery" that M7 chords can be "dominants."

Sus chords, bIIM7 chords, etc., etc., are cadential, but they are not dominants.

[Prome]

It get's a bit confuising if you insist on using "function", when it is not a dominant in functional harmony.

Could you answer me this because that is what the whole discussion is coming down to:

How would you define a dominant?

Jens

This.

[Prome]

Don't know who this dude is, but this sums it up pretty well, and confirms what Jens, myself and others have been saying.

Functional Harmony

[aniss1001]

@Jens

"How would you define a dominant?"

Hmm.. I allready did just above the paragraph you quoted. I wrote:

"I am aware that the definition of a dominant chord is one that countains a major 3rd and a flattened 7th."

I also thought I made it pretty clear what I meant in that same post and others; That sometimes a non-dominant can REPLACE dominant and FUNCTION (or act) as such.

Sorry if the word "function" bothers you or if I generally lack the correct lingo to describe what I mean. I tried using the word "act" instead as you may have noticed. Don't know if that is more appropriate?

However if you read my following comment to Prome you'll see that Mark Levine uses the word "function" in the same manner.


@Prome

Look if you're getting cranky then I suggest we end the dialogue here. I mean getting cranky over this is just silly. We're talking about CHORDS for christ sake.

And when I said that I didn't have time to find the sources at that time I didn't mean that I can't find the sources. I actually meant that ..well.. I didn't have time to find the sources at that time.

But OK here we go...

Mark Levine - The jazz theory book - Page 44:

"Gsus resolves just as smoothly to CM7 as G7 does. Sus chords function a V chords."

Same book - Page 51:

"Susb9 chords are often played in place of sus chords, dominant 7th chords and II-V progressions"

It sounds pretty clear to me. You may or may not like Levine but he IS considered an "authority" on the matter nonetheless. And on this particular subject he isn't that original actually. I read similar things many times elsewhere, but I really don't have time to find more quotes for now. In the weekend I may find more if you like.

But frankly I'm getting the feeling that you are argueing for the arguement's sake? I mean in your latest post you're seriously twisting my words into something I never said. And you seemingly know more about jazz theory than I do, so I find it very hard to believe that you haven't come across this EVER given that I have read similar things frequently (from different sources) in the roughly 15 months I've been studying jazz theory.

PS: About my ear training... yes I still find it hard to make out individual notes when listening to jazz. But I am capable of hearing the difference between a G7, a G7sus, a GM7 or a Gm7 for instance, so I don't see how that is relevant at all in this particular discussion?

And I am interested in JAZZ. I have zero interest in classical music/theory which explains my "shortcomings" in that regard. For similar reasons I confess that I know nothing about for example cars or fashion either (in case you wanna point that out in your next post).

Forgive me if my last remark seems provoking but .. well .. read your last reply to me.

[Prome]

The word "function" is the problematic word here. In functional harmony, a chord's function is determined not by root motion but by harmonic motion.

Levine uses the word rather loosely, and frankly, incorrectly. He is using the word "function" much like "sub for." I imagine if pressed, he'd agree that, while Gsus -> C is a "smooth" resolution, it is not a dominant -> tonic cadence.

As far as "classical" theory goes, if you are serious about harmony, you should read more than the Levine book. You should study CPP (common practice period) harmony to learn how harmony itself works ( Piston/Kostka-Payne/Laitz ). Jazz harmony is an extension of that tradition, not removed from it. You might check out Barrie Nettles' Chord Scale Theory stuff (Berklee's Harmony), Bert Ligon's Jazz Theory Resources, etc.

I have studied harmony seriously for 15+ years to your 15 months, from those books and many others. If you want to ignore what I, Jens and others have to say, suit yourself.

Best of luck.

[Prome]

@aniss:

From the Frank Singer site:

Sub-dominant examples - note that the first two examples include scale degree 1 as a chord tone, and the second two examples allow scale degree 1 as tension 9.


IVm7, bIImaj7

[jster]

They are not dominants, they are minor subdominant chords:Neapolitan chord - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In jazz they appear as IVm with the b6 in the bass, so in C: Fm/Db = Dbmajor7

Jens

Jens consistently and rightly makes reference to the whole category of subdominant minor chords. Other chords in this category are (in the key of C): Dm7b5, Fmi6, Fmimaj7, Fmi7,Bb7, Abma7 and Dbma7. These are borrowed from C natural minor, C harmonic minor, C melodic minor, C mixolydian, C mixo flat sixo, C dorian and C phrygian.

I like the Neapolitan Chord idea, but am not confident that M7 chords are really Neapolitan chords. I mean, Neapolitan chords, for starters, are usually pre-dominant in function, if I remember correctly, so they more accurately sub for ii or iv/IV chords, not V7 chords. Another thing is that Neapolitans really sound like ivm triads with the 5th sharped, by that I mean s.d. 4 is usually in the bass, not the s.d. b2.

Yes, but if you look at the Wikipedia article, they are not always pre-dominant, and sometimes they occur in root position (Chopin).

Subdominant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (sorry that I post links to wikipedia all the time but it is the best online reference I know right now...)

You could use this one also: teora - Music Theory Web

Aniss, there is a big difference between DbM7 and Db7/G7 -- it has to do with the key we're in, C. Two of the most "stable" scale degrees are uncontroversially the 1 and 3, C and E (G, the 5, is another). The two most dissonant tones in this key would be B, a half step below C, and F, a half step above E. The B wants to push up to C, the F down to E. This is of course dramatized when both the 4 and 7 are contained in the chord, because the interval between these two pitches is a tritone -- so we have not only the tonal dissonance, our ear's desire to hear 4 ---> 3 and 7 ---> 1, but we also have the intervallic dissonance these two tones create with respect to one another!

What characterizes "subdominant" sounds is they have the 4 in them, but not the 7. Chords like Dm7 and FM7, Dm7b5 and even DbM7 all have s.d. 4, but no s.d. 7.

"Dominant" sounds have the 4 and 7, as I mentioned earlier, and you'll notice both Db7 and G7, as well as Bm7b5, Bo7, and Fm7b5, have s.d. 4 and 7 (F and B) in them.

The category of subdominant minor chords is characterized not just by the 4 (which makes it subdominant) but the b6 also (which makes it minor [n.b. it is the minor third for the IV chord]). So while we can understand harmony fundamentals in terms of the leading tone going to the root and the 4 going to the 3, we shouldn't leave out the 5 which is where the b6 goes. This extra tension makes the subdominant minor chords fall somewhere between subdominant chords and dominant chords. This is all explained very well in my favorite jazz resource, Charlie Austin's An Approach to Jazz Piano, a book I cannot recommend highly enough: Charlie Austin - An Approach to Jazz Piano: Volume 1 I think you should check it out Aniss. You can pick up the ebook for 20 bucks and it will give you nice systematic answers. Charlie explains, "in general, subdominant minor to tonic is a strong motion, not as strong as dominant to tonic but almost as strong..."

@Prome

I understand. But I'm just thinking that perhaps sometimes it makes more sense to look at how a chord functions in a progression, rather than looking at what notes it contains.

Prome is looking at how the chord functions by looking at what the notes it contains are doing. Correct me if I'm wrong Prome.

But OK here we go...

Mark Levine - The jazz theory book - Page 44:

"Gsus resolves just as smoothly to CM7 as G7 does. Sus chords function a V chords."

Same book - Page 51:

"Susb9 chords are often played in place of sus chords, dominant 7th chords and II-V progressions"

It sounds pretty clear to me. You may or may not like Levine but he IS considered an "authority" on the matter nonetheless.

Hope you have life insurance cause I bet this thread is going to get pretty intense now.

And I am interested in JAZZ. I have zero interest in classical music/theory which explains my "shortcomings" in that regard.

They aren't different things. They use somewhat different terminology and have somewhat different concerns, but are basically intertranslatable languages.

Everything I have read by Jens has been correct. A couple of times I though I had found a mistake, but I was wrong. Prome was right to press Jens about the Neopolitan stuff because it is a root position Neopolitan which is rare, so Prome is clearly extremely focussed on this discussion. And Aniss, I love your contributions always. But you are getting some good answers here. When they are talking about notes, they are talking about function. They aren't definitions in a vacuum.

[JensL]

@Jens

"How would you define a dominant?"

Hmm.. I allready did just above the paragraph you quoted. I wrote:

"I am aware that the definition of a dominant chord is one that countains a major 3rd and a flattened 7th."

I also thought I made it pretty clear what I meant in that same post and others; That sometimes a non-dominant can REPLACE dominant and FUNCTION (or act) as such.

Sorry if the word "function" bothers you or if I generally lack the correct lingo to describe what I mean. I tried using the word "act" instead as you may have noticed. Don't know if that is more appropriate?

However if you read my following comment to Prome you'll see that Mark Levine uses the word "function" in the same manner

So maybe we should just find those defining properties:

1. It resolves to a tonic
2. You can use it as a sub for the dominant

Do you want to add something to the list?

I am sure you can understand that I find it strange that you want to use the term function while ignoring the real function of the chord.

Jens