What does "must resolve" mean?

[oldane]

I too smell religion. The rules are set up to appear to operate logically and comprehensibly, in order to camoflage the fundamental anti-rationality, which means they must ultimately fail; and when they do, the scribbling monks say: it's a big mystery, and we are its authoritative spokesman, just because. The medieval mindset, driven out elsewhere, lives on to oppress humanity in the realm of music theory.

So you're right, it's not a debate, it's an assertion of arbitrary authority. The only issue is to submit, or not.

Huh? I have a hard time understanding what you talk about. I don't smell "religion" or "opression of humanity", nor do I see any "big mystery". What I smell is a striving towards consensus about definitions and the words we use. It is practical that you and I understand words the same way if we are to speak with each other in a meaningful way. And when the word "resolve" is used, we - the majority of musicians, composers etc. - understand it as "the half step down from the 7th of the dominant chord to the third of the tonic chord". It's not a rule. It's a definition. One could of course define it otherwise, but it would not be practical to do so unless there was concensus about that new definition. And it would be total chaos if each of us all defined it differently and in our own way. We would no longer speak the same language - so to speak (no pun intended). We would be in the same situation as the Babylonians when they built the tower of Babylon and suddenly spoke a lot of different languages.

Everyone should feel free - and is indeed free - to let their II-V progressions not resolve to I (or not use the II-V progression and functional harmony at all for that matter), but please, let us agree that this is not alternate resolving. It is non-resolving - a deceptive cadenza - which has BTW ocurred commonly in western music for centuries and is perfectly legitimate.

[cubistguitar]

Must resolve is not literal, don't act offended
Things do resolve in a certain way within those chords, I love freedom but facts is facts. If you like the sound of western music your ears already agree, in fact there are rules to counterpoint just so the cacophony of possibilities is limited to the most common, most satisfying ones. You may certainly disobey those rules, all good composers use the rules as fuel, but are savvy enough to abandon rules when they don't supply the most satisfying results.

[JohnRoss]

Name one.

Get some manners first.

[randalljazz]

voice leading came before "chord construction"...chords and harmonic progression result from common practice part writing...

[2bornot2bop]

might a simple keyboard allow the OP to use his eyes and ears to both see and hear what's actually occurring with voice leading "mumbo jumbo" theory. this is basic stuff...if you can't see it on a guitar go to a keyboard.

or in the words of Miles when asked how he discovered things not common to horn players? "study piano MF!"

[lkmuller]

Music theory isn't 'mumbo-jumbo', just because you find it difficult, it's jargon, specialised language which outsiders find difficult because it is very slightly different from ordinary language. Here, I don't think you quite know what 'must resolve' means. Vladan explained these particular resolutions perfectly. And 'butthere aren't any other possibilities' is 180 degrees out, possibilities are myriad.

Well said. +1