Theory behind using M7 chords as dominants?

[aniss1001]

... Well atleast that's what I think is the case. I've encountered this a couple of times. For instance:

... Cm7 | Ebm7 | Dm7b5 | C#M7 | Cm7 ...

or

... Fm7 | D7(#9) | C#M7 | F#M7(#11) | Fm7 ...

Just trying to understand the theory behind this a bit better

[brwnhornet59]

I have seen this kind of motion, especially when outlining, using the the M7 where you would expect to see the tritone sub..It seems I have seen it more in players like Wes or old Martino not that I am an authority. It creates movement as an approach chord.

The second example looks like, iii/ bII7/ I/ IV/ iii....The D7#9 being the tritone sub of G#7....What do you think?

[bako]

First off root motion is very powerful by itself.

The Ma7#11 as a bII shares both the 1 and 5 of either major or minor I.
DbMa7#11 (DbFGC) Cm7 (CEbG)Bb

G7sus can resolve to C without a B leading tone and so can DbMa7#11.

[timscarey]

Yeah, its all about the root movement and the smooth voiceleading. I use the maj7 with either a flat or Sharp five as a sub for a 5 chord in a minor 2-5 (in compositions) and I've seen it in a bunch of tunes and different versions/arrangements of tunes.

Just another small thing that relates to the title of your post. Try using a major 7 with a #5 and a #9 as a dominant chord that resolves up a fourth to a minor chord.... I've heard this and also use it sometimes, although, I write the first chord as a slash chord....

Dm7(-5) ---- Bmaj7/G ---- Cmin7.

Or as a "five of two" in a major key.... which is one of my favorite sounds.

Am7----C#maj7/A----Dmin7----Dbmaj7(-5)----C69---------

Just some thoughts on the subject.

[JensL]

... Well atleast that's what I think is the case. I've encountered this a couple of times. For instance:

... Cm7 | Ebm7 | Dm7b5 | C#M7 | Cm7 ...

or

... Fm7 | D7(#9) | C#M7 | F#M7(#11) | Fm7 ...

Just trying to understand the theory behind this a bit better

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

[timscarey]

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

Very nice explanation! +1

[M-ster]

... Fm7 | D7(#9) | C#M7 | F#M7(#11) | Fm7 ...

This one, in particular, can be viewed as borrowing from a parallel mode - It's all F phrygian, except for the sub-V of the Dbmaj7. Consider:

F-7 | D7(#9) | Dbmaj7 | Gbmaj7(#11) | F-7

... Just another small thing that relates to the title of your post. Try using a major 7 with a #5 and a #9 as a dominant chord that resolves up a fourth to a minor chord.... I've heard this and also use it sometimes, although, I write the first chord as a slash chord....

Dm7(-5) ---- Bmaj7/G ---- Cmin7.

Or as a "five of two" in a major key.... which is one of my favorite sounds.

Am7----C#maj7/A----Dmin7----Dbmaj7(-5)----C69---------

Liking this, Tim. To me, though, these voicings are alternatives to 7(#9)(b13) - they just include the maj7 tension! They still resolve down a 5th, etc. Interesting.

[JakeAcci]

There is significance in the fact that these major seventh chords are appearing where you would normally see subVs.

This is again the type of progression that I see often and 'feel' it, but don't have a formal verbal concept to explain it. Let me try verbalizing and you guys tell me what you think.

The following is a very common progression:

C Eb7 Abma7 G7 C

The Abma7 is borrowed from the key of C minor. Ab to G7 is a standard cadence in Cm, so can also resolve to C. the diatonic seventh for Ab in either the key of Cm or C major is G (rather than Gb), so if we're talking about it as chord in the key rather than a subV7/V, the Ab takes a major seventh rather than a flatted seventh.

Eb7 is V7/Ab, V7/VI.

Look at this progression:

C Ebma7 Abma7 G7 C

It's the same except Eb is major seventh rather than dominant. As already stated, the root motion is strong, but now the seventh of Eb is diatonic to the key, which may be less 'functional' in that we're no longer dealing with V7 to I movement, however, Ebmaj7 is a diatonic chord in the key of Cm. It's a simple borrow/modal interchange coupled with strong root motion to the following chord makes it a pretty solid and strong sound. That's my vote re: it's popularity. It combines modal interchange with a very strong root motion.

Another change:

C Ebma7 Abma7 G7sus4 C

As Bako said, G7sus4 can resolve to C without the presence of a B note. The root motion is strong, common tones are strong, and the b7 (F) of Gsus can resolve nicely down to the 3 (E) of C. If the C is Cmaj7, the 4 (C) of G can resolve down a half step to the 7 (B) of C.

Now this:

C Ebma7 Abma7 Dbmaj7 C

Dbmaj7 and G7sus4 share two important tones in this progression - F, which can resolve down to the 3 of C, and the root of the key, obviously a strong common tone (or could resolve down to B like I mentioned above.) The root motion of G to C is strong, the root motion of Db down a half step to C, the tonic, is also quite strong. I think of it/hear it as a sort of "phrygian cadence." Jens is probably right about the Neapolitan view - I can't really say because I'm just not very knowledgeable about classical theory.

Any possible extension you could put on that Dbmaj7 - Eb, G, Bb, all have a strong function in the key of C. Eb can resolve very well down to the 9th, G a great common tone, and Bb up or down a half step. To me it's significant that Eb and Bb would happen be altered notes over G7. The way they resolve over C from Dbmaj7 is similar to my ears. I mean, the only difference between C phrygian and G altered is the C/B.

Being more practical, bIIImaj7 bVImaj7 bIImaj7 I is a very common little move. I always have heard it and think about it as cycling through parallel minor modes, the first two chords from aeolian and the last obviously from phrygian. Or you could say the first chord is from dorian, and each maj7 takes a #11. You get darker as you go until you resolve back to I.

It's not really about replacing dominants with major sevenths per se, as the progressions being discussed are a lot more common than C Amaj7 Dmaj7 Gmaj7. Tim's examples are very hip, but when we turn V7 into Vmaj7 the 4 of the key becomes the #4, when we turn II7 into IImaj7 the 1 becomes #1. Nothing wrong with that, but bII, bIII, or bVI are actually more diatonic when they are maj7 than when they are dominants. These three chords, as maj7 chords, fit very nicely in modes of C.

The choice to turn a bII, bIII, or bVI into maj seven rather than dominant is, to me, about modality, what I am going to clumsily call "modal cadences," and they almost function as tritone substitutions of sus4 chords!

Let me know what you think. It's interesting to have to try to explain the way I hear these, and maybe what I'm explaining sounds like total BS...

[aniss1001]

Ah a lot of (complicated) answers :/

1st off... Both examples are from Scofield tunes. Respectively "Since you asked" and "Don't shoot the messenger". I've have seen similar movements in other cases too though.

I guess I was completely off then.. More wrong than I had even imagined. I actually thought that both the examples were derivations of minor 1-6-2-5's. I believe a basic 1-6-2-5 in minor goes something like this (correct me if I'm wrong):

| Cm | Am7b5 | Dm7b5 | G7 |

So I thought the 1st example was subbed something like this (-> indicates a sub):

Cm
Am7b5 -> A7 -> Eb7 -> Ebm7
Dm7b5
G7 -> C#7 -> C#M7

And the second one:

Fm7
Dm7b5 -> D7(b9)
Gm7b7 -> G7 -> C#7 -> C#M7
C7 -> F#7 -> F#M7(#11)

But I guess I have some reading up to do :/

Thanks for the replies guys..

[JakeAcci]

Ah a lot of (complicated) answers :/

1st off... Both examples are from Scofield tunes. Respectively "Since you asked" and "Don't shoot the messenger". I've have seen similar movements in other cases too though.

I guess I was completely off then.. More wrong than I had even imagined. I actually thought that both the examples were derivations of minor 1-6-2-5's. I believe a basic 1-6-2-5 in minor goes something like this (correct me if I'm wrong):

| Cm | Am7b5 | Dm7b5 | G7 |

So I thought the 1st example was subbed something like this (-> indicates a sub):

Cm
Am7b5 -> A7 -> Eb7 -> Ebm7
Dm7b5
G7 -> C#7 -> C#M7

And the second one:

Fm7
Dm7b5 -> D7(b9)
Gm7b7 -> G7 -> C#7 -> C#M7
C7 -> F#7 -> F#M7(#11)

But I guess I have some reading up to do :/

Thanks for the replies guys..

Aniss, that interpretation is pretty in line with my analysis.

[aniss1001]

Aniss, that interpretation is pretty in line with my analysis.

Ah ok! To be honest I still haven't read your comment thoroughly. I read the previous ones and the wiki article and I read your comment superficially and noticed that you wrote "It's not really about replacing dominants with major sevenths per se". Well that is exactly what I think is the case; That a dominant is subbed for a major 7th chord.

Anyhoo I'll read you comment more thoroughly in a bit

[aniss1001]

Aniss, that interpretation is pretty in line with my analysis.

Hi again Jake. Read your comment and learned quite a bit thanks. But I still don't quite see how that is "in line" with my interpretation?!

[aniss1001]

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

Hmmm ... Sorry but I don't quite understand. You say it's a IVm (minor subdominant) chord? The wiki article says it's kind of a VI chord I believe? But if it precedes and resolves down 1/2 a step to a tonic chord then it's acting more like a tri-subbed dominant isn't it? I mean neither a IV or a VI usually precedes the tonic?

Could you elaborate a bit (and perhaps dumb it down a tad)?

[Prome]

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. Example:

Key of C

Db/F -> G7 -> C

My view is that Dbmaj7 in the key of C is either a phrygian modal interchange chord, or part of some constant structure or "planing" agenda.

In this example, I prefer enharmonically realizing that M7 as Dbmaj7. What seems simpler to me is the chromatic root movement down from the obvious iim7b5 in Cm to what is the same chord w/ the root flatted, Dbmaj7. IOW, Dm7b5 = DFAbC, Dbmaj7 = DbFAbC

Cm7 | Ebm7 | Dm7b5 | DbM7 | Cm7

That Ebm7 is a weird guy in the key of Cm7 (Locrian modal interchange?), but going back to the constant structure idea, you can move m7 chords in all sorts of ways that sound good, so it's more sensible to say Sco was "planing" by just moving that structure around.

In the other example, instead of the chromatic voice-leading being the most important factor, it is the root motion down a P5 from the bVI chord that makes this work. Again, this could legitimately be a Phrygian modal interchange chord, and I wouldn't be surprised to see Sco describe it that way. To harken back to the Neapolitan chord stuff mentioned earlier, I actually don't think these chords sound like dominant functioning chords, but more like altered subdominant chords, so to come full circle, they kind of do behave like Neapolitans except you rarely see them go to some V7 or substitute for V7 like Neapolitans do -- they're basically plagal iow.

[JensL]

Hmmm ... Sorry but I don't quite understand. You say it's a IVm (minor subdominant) chord? The wiki article says it's kind of a VI chord I believe? But if it precedes and resolves down 1/2 a step to a tonic chord then it's acting more like a tri-subbed dominant isn't it? I mean neither a IV or a VI usually precedes the tonic?

Could you elaborate a bit (and perhaps dumb it down a tad)?

When they say in the article it is a sixth chord they are referring to the inversion. First inversion is notated bII6, it is not a VI chord. Inversions in classical notations are notated like I I6 I6/4 (those are triad inversions)

Around here it often seems that if something is leading to a tonic chord we have to call it a dominant. That is often not the case (which is nice, because otherwise it would all sound the same...)

I think it is to some degree obvious that since the chord (In C..) contains an Fm triad it is a subdominant chord. You could think of the Db as an extra leading note for the root. One reason why it is not dominant is that it does not contain a B (even if those classical markers are vague in jazz...)

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...)

One reason why the examples in the article are different from here is probably that in classical harmony they don't like parallel fifths so Dbmaj7-C is a bit tricky for voice leading so they usually put a V chord in between. In Jazz we don't really have that issue for some reason or other.

Jens

[bako]

If a chord leads to the tonic I think of it as cadential, playing a similar role as the dominant.

I can see the logic of IVm/bII.
How does thinking of it in this way influence how you respond musically?

Using a similar logic would it follow that F/G is also subdominant?

[JensL]

If a chord leads to the tonic I think of it as cadential, playing a similar role as the dominant.

Ie. Everything going to I is a sort of V chord. I know we get trained in recognizing II V I but if you have to push every possible turn of the harmony into that box you're leaving out too many options.

How do you get back to I from bars 5-6 in a blues? It is IV-I or IV-#IVdim-I or IV- IVm- It happens all the time. None of those options are dominant functions

It is tempting when you get a progression that is II - X - I to try to force X to be a V, but it does not always have to be the case.

I can see the logic of IVm/bII.

How does thinking of it in this way influence how you respond musically?[/quote]
It probably does not make too much difference in how you choose scales and notes on the chord, it might make more of a difference in how you view the progression or song as a whole and how it moves, and what you can replace the chord with.

Using a similar logic would it follow that F/G is also subdominant?

I think in most functional contexts I would hear F/G and Fm/G as a dominant because I'd hear that it wants to resolve to G7 or G7(b9) and then move on from there (to Dbmaj7 ?)

Jens

[bako]

How do you get back to I from bars 5-6 in a blues? It is IV-I or IV-#IVdim-I or IV- IVm It happens all the time. None of those options are dominant function

Good point. IV-I or IV-#IVdim-I or IV- IVm-I are clearly not V - I

Not every time the I chord is played is equal. It's placement in the phrase structure plays a part in that as well.
The I chord in motion feels different than a tonic resolution.

Because of the common progressional interchangeability of movements in 4ths and descending half steps, (with or without the leading tone),
I tend to group the movement as part of the cadential/dominant continuum.
I believe you to be saying it only earns the status of dominant if it contains b7-3 and lacking that, it is therefore other and in this case
IVm/bII or subdominant in nature.

For me, regardless of how it is named I like to view all chords that can arrive at a given destination as being somehow related.

[JensL]

Not every time the I chord is played is equal. It's placement in the phrase structure plays a part in that as well.
The I chord in motion feels different than a tonic resolution.

What are you trying to say with that in the context of the bII as a sub dom chord?

Because of the common progressional interchangeability of movements in 4ths and descending half steps, (with or without the leading tone),
I tend to group the movement as part of the cadential/dominant continuum.

So if it moves down a half step it is dominant? (that is what you are saying right?)

But who said that subdominant functions cannot move down in half steps? I think that is done quite often and there are examples of it in harmonizations of standards too. Night and Day has one such progression with only a dominant at the very end.

I believe you to be saying it only earns the status of dominant if it contains b7-3 and lacking that, it is therefore other and in this case IVm/bII or subdominant in nature.

Well, I actually said it needed to contain the leading note (so in C the note B) and then I said that that was not the strongest argument in jazz harmony.

The reasons for it being subdominant is that it contains an Fm triad, it contains a C and no B, and it wants to resolve to C.

For me, regardless of how it is named I like to view all chords that can arrive at a given destination as being somehow related.

What do you mean? If a chord can move to another chord it is in this group? That group is called: "Chords"

Jens

[bako]

Not every time the I chord is played is equal. It's placement in the phrase structure plays a part in that as well.
The I chord in motion feels different than a tonic resolution.

"What are you trying to say with that in the context of the bII as a sub dom chord?"

This is not a bII reference. I am reminding myself that contexts matters.

"So if it moves down a half step it is dominant? (that is what you are saying right?)"

No I am saying that the root motions of 4ths and descending half steps are strong paths to the same places.
The root motion itself can get you there even without leading tones and in that way is similar to a dominant sequence.

"Well, I actually said it needed to contain the leading note (so in C the note B) and then I said that that was not the strongest argument in jazz harmony.

The reasons for it being subdominant is that it contains an Fm triad, it contains a C and no B, and it wants to resolve to C."

Thanks for the clarification.

"What do you mean? If a chord can move to another chord it is in this group? That group is called: "Chords"

That's funny, yes a very large group. Fortunately the connections I am able to see are more limited than that.
What I am trying to say is that being aware of multiple paths to a common destination is useful to generate alternative melodic and harmonic responses.
This collection of pathways are in some linked to each other by the endpoint.

[JensL]

"So if it moves down a half step it is dominant? (that is what you are saying right?)"

No I am saying that the root motions of 4ths and descending half steps are strong paths to the same places.
The root motion itself can get you there even without leading tones and in that way is similar to a dominant sequence.

So do you mean that

1. Dm7 and Abmaj7 are both dominants of G7, Ebdim is the dominant of Dm7 and Fmaj7 is the dominant of Bb7 and Em7.

or

2. Stepwise and fifth root movement are the strongest possibilities?

I don't agree with 1 and 2 is true but does not really tell you anything aobut the function or type of a chord, because thats true for root movement for I-IV, IV-I, V-I and IV-V movement, which is 90% of all harmony.

"What do you mean? If a chord can move to another chord it is in this group? That group is called: "Chords"

That's funny, yes a very large group. Fortunately the connections I am able to see are more limited than that.
What I am trying to say is that being aware of multiple paths to a common destination is useful to generate alternative melodic and harmonic responses.
This collection of pathways are in some linked to each other by the endpoint.

Hm... The group of chords that can be part of a cadence is still pretty big and maybe not much of a description?

Which chords are not in that group in the key of C?

It seems to me that you want to make your own groups of the chords different from the functional groups but you end up with too big or too small groups of chords all the time, but maybe I don't understand what you are trying to do?

What's wrong with the functional classes? If you accept that #IV-I etc. exist and are not dominant then you might as well get used to f.ex II - #IV - I as a cadence and live with that instead of trying to make a group containg #IV, IVm and V because they all lead to I?

Jens

[bako]

Dm7 is not a secondary dominant of G7 in the key of C and neither is AbMa7. D7 is and Ab7 is the tritone sub.

Dm7 extended and AbMa7 have G as a common tone to G7

D7 and Ab7 have F#/Gb leading tone to G

The root motion is D G C (II V I) or Ab G C (bVI V I).

It is my personal proclivity to view chords as linked in some way by the possibility of where they can end up.
That does not mean they are the same, it is the incremental ways that they are different from each other that is interesting to me.

I didn't understand all of what you were asking but perhaps this is enough sidetrack discussion for now.

Best,
Bako

[aniss1001]

Damnit! You jazzers sure know how to complicate everything (just kidding)

Don't have much time now so I'll reply later....

[Prome]

If a chord leads to the tonic I think of it as cadential, playing a similar role as the dominant.

"Cadential" is a great way to put it. You either have "subdominant" or "plagal" cadences, or "dominant" or "authentic" cadences.

ii/II/iv/IV (I'd even argue bIIM7) ---> I = "plagal" cadences

V/vii07/viim7b5/bII7 ---> I = "authentic" cadences

I can see the logic of IVm/bII.
How does thinking of it in this way influence how you respond musically?

Using a similar logic would it follow that F/G is also subdominant?

F/G is a great chord, and at the end of the day it is basically a Vsus4 variant, just like Dm7/G is. The beauty of this chord is its root motion is V ---> I ("authentic") with its guts/harmony being IV ---> I ("plagal"). I usually improvise on this chord like its a iim7, i.e. I go for subdominant sounds.

[JensL]

It is my personal proclivity to view chords as linked in some way by the possibility of where they can end up.

That does not mean they are the same, it is the incremental ways that they are different from each other that is interesting to me.

I didn't understand all of what you were asking but perhaps this is enough sidetrack discussion for now.

Best,
Bako

I was asking you to describe the way you link the chords.

The way you explained it untill know did not make sense to me so I wrote how I understood your explanation, and how it did not make sense to me as an classification of chords.

Jens