What does "must resolve" mean?

[Ron Stern]

Got to page 4 and got stopped dead in my tracks by the typical music theory mumbo jumbo.

In the classical voice leading tradition there are strict rules that govern how individual chord tones and tensions should move . . . In a II-7/V7/I progression, for example, the seventh of the II-7 chord must resolve to the third of the V7 chord. Additionally, the third of the II-7 chord must resolve to the seventh of the V7 chord.

-- John Thomas, Voice Leading For Guitar (2002) Berklee Press.

According to my calculations:

The 3d of the II is the 7th of the V; the 7th of the II is not the 3d of the V. So "must resolve" is some kind of operation that produces two different results. In one case,
a note of the first chord is a note of the second chord. In the other case, not so. How? Why? Who cares?

"Must resolve" also implies that there are other possibilities which are excluded by the rule, that being the purpose of the rule. But there aren't any other possibilities. If the 7th of the II is not the 3th of the V, then the V is not the V and the progression is not a ii-V. V means a chord with a major 3d. Given the tonic, only one note can be the 3d, by definition. What is this "rule"?

[Vladan]

7th of iim7 is half step above 3rd of V7.
3rd of iim7 is 7th of V7.

[BigDaddyLoveHandles]

Think in terms of horns playing these notes rather that a guitar or a piano grabbing chords.

Suppose we are in C major. The author is saying that if one horn is playing the C of Dmin7 he "must resolve" or go to the B of G7, and if another horn is playing the F of Dmin7 he must hold onto that F and play it over G7 as well.

Why? Who cares? It's all about smooth voice leading and tendencies. For example, 1/2 step movement can have a strong pull so that is why voice leading suggests C to B as the chords go from Dmin7 to G7. Sustained notes also have a pull so that is why voice leading suggests you hold them (hold that F as the chords go from Dmin7 to G7).

One thing I do believe in, which your author may not: voice leading in chords is more important in horn charts, for example, than on a guitar or piano. This is because the timbres of the horns make the individual lines stand out more than they do on a guitar or piano chord progression. That said, when you hear a guitarist like Ed Bickert who understands how horn charts work, it's a cool sound on guitar.

[Petimar]

Record yourself playing a Dm7 chord, then a G7 chord. Play it back and play a C note against the Dm7 and a B note against the G7. I suggest playing the C and B notes an octave higher than those notes in your chord voicing. You will hear how the C "resolves" to B.

Do the same for a G7 to CMaj7 using the notes F and E. You will again hear F "resolve" to E.

Creating fOrward momentum in music can be partially accomplished by using intentional "clashes" which you then "resolve" a note or a few notes later.

[jtizzle]

It's a common type of resolution. From ii7 > V7, 3rd goes down a half step to become 7th. From V7 > I7, 7th goes down a half step to become 3rd.
The ii7 > V7 is not as important as the V7 > I7 resolution. Many people ignore the ii chord to do various things, including, make a passage just sound like a V I rather than a ii V I, or replace the ii, or even the ii V for something else, in order to make it sound as a V7alt passage. The 7-3 resolution is what takes the outside passage and resolves it to the I.
It's just about the same reason you take a scale, and the scale's leading tone wants to resolve to the tonic.

[bako]

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

This allows you to see the movement or commonality between the literal chord symbols.


"Must" is a strong word.

II-V-I in C (some lead line resolutions starting on the b7 and b3 of Dm7)

C-B-B

C-C-B (G7sus)

C-Db-D (G7b5-CMa9)

C-Bb-A (G7#9-CMa6)

C-Eb-D (G7b13-CMa9)

F-F-E

F-G-G

F-E-E (G13)

F-D#-E (G7+)

F-Ab-G (G7b9)

F-F-F# (CMa9#11)

I try to confine my personal use of the word must to life and death circumstance.
In music I prefer to dwell on concepts like options and possibilities.

[fep]

"Must" is a strong word.

+1

I had a guitar teacher, Bill Thrasher, who said, "The words "always" and "never" don't apply to music".

I think "must" falls into that same category.

[randalljazz]

historical context...

[JohnRoss]

Got to page 4 and got stopped dead in my tracks by the typical music theory mumbo jumbo.


According to my calculations:

The 3d of the II is the 7th of the V; the 7th of the II is not the 3d of the V. So "must resolve" is some kind of operation that produces two different results. In one case,
a note of the first chord is a note of the second chord. In the other case, not so. How? Why? Who cares?

"Must resolve" also implies that there are other possibilities which are excluded by the rule, that being the purpose of the rule. But there aren't any other possibilities. If the 7th of the II is not the 3th of the V, then the V is not the V and the progression is not a ii-V. V means a chord with a major 3d. Given the tonic, only one note can be the 3d, by definition. What is this "rule"?

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.

[RyanM]

When he says "classical voice leading tradition" what he's referencing is classical counterpoint.
Studying counterpoint is a method for learning composition, and it's the method through which all the classical/romantic era composers were taught.

When 'rules' are spoken of, it doesn't mean "it can only be done this way to be considered correct". In the context of counterpoint, it is a progressive method, where one learns to compose within stages of development: starting with note-against-note, with a specific set of rules, progressing towards complete freedom. It starts with mastering the basic movements and working outwards from there.

Ever notice how classical composers can seemingly write full symphonies with just a pencil and manuscript paper? Ever wonder how Beethoven could still compose after he went deaf? It's because studying counterpoint is about learning the sounds, and you learn to master the sounds of the basic resolutions before anything else.

[oldane]

In a II-7/V7/I progression, for example, the seventh of the II-7 chord must resolve to the third of the V7 chord

I don't know if one can say that it must resolve that way in a IIm7 - V7 cadenza. But it sure does - can't do anything but that.

[Ron Stern]

I don't know if one can say that it must resolve that way in a IIm7 - V7 cadenza. But it sure does - can't do anything but that.

Yes, that was my point. That resolution occurs as the result of the definitions of the chords. Yet it, and the other resolution, are said to be the product of a rule. What is the rule?

[Ron Stern]

Think in terms of horns playing these notes rather that a guitar or a piano grabbing chords.

That makes a certain practical sense but sounds more like a rule of orchestration than a rule of harmony.

[Ron Stern]

historical context...

. . . has its place.

[Ron Stern]

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.

Name one.

[BigDaddyLoveHandles]

I think you're fixating on "must". The word is just acknowledging common practice, and that is just what the "rules" of harmony are, after all. What sort of rule or justification for a rule would you accept anyway?

[Vladan]

Yes, that was my point. That resolution occurs as the result of the definitions of the chords. Yet it, and the other resolution, are said to be the product of a rule. What is the rule?

it's not the rule, it's the law. Like in physics. If it's to resolve, it'll resolve there. So it's a must. You can go whichever other way you chose, but it won't be a resolving there. From there, at later time, it may resolve to some other place, but under the same law as it would first place.

[Guitarzen]

Sometimes people use the wrongs words to describe something. In the case of music, the word "rule" or "must" etc...are frequently misused by musicians / teachers that don't fully understand what they are talking about and are just repeating what they read or heard someone else say, or they just assume was implied.

There is categorically no rules in music, and never has been. If there had at any time been rules in music, we would not have any of the music that we have today. As soon as "rules" were put in place (and people decided to follow them) all musical innovation and creativity would have stopped dead in it's tracks.

Only bad music teachers use such terminology, in my opinion. Luckily for me, I had a good music theory teacher who never once made us believe that these were a set of rules we had to follow.

Change your definition of music theory to something like this: the recognition of patterns in existing music, and the science of labeling such patterns. You will no longer have any more problems with music theory, for the rest of your life. Maybe I didn't word the definition in the best possible way it could be, but I think that is pretty darn close to how all people should be taught what music theory is. It's nothing more than that. It's totally free of judgement and rules and limitations. The greatest innovators in classical music (i.e. Bach, Beethoven, to name a couple) were exactly so because they did not limit what they could do because of someones opinion of what the "rule" was. They in fact went against what all the bad music teachers at the time may have been calling the "rules". Despite all the evidence for this, bad music teachers still continue let their students believe in this falsehood today. It's not always bad teachers though---it is something that novice musicians often assume as well. You resolve the 3rd to the 7th if you want to write music that sounds like Bach or Beethoven! But that does not equal "you must resolve the 3rd to the 7th if you write music". That's just bad logic!

[jasaco]

What's the big hubbub about, folks? The quote says:

"In the classical voice leading tradition there are strict rules that govern how individual chord tones and tensions should move . . . In a II-7/V7/I progression, for example, the seventh of the II-7 chord must resolve..."

As I understand it, this statement is completely true: "In the classical voice leading tradition" it is true. Doesn't mean you can't break the rule, or choose to ignore it and resolve things differently if you wish. But in that tradition, this is the way they want you to resolve tension. In the Christian tradition the "rule" is that you remove your hat when entering a house of worship; in the Jewish tradition you put one on! Some people ignore those rules too; that doesn't mean the "rules" of the house don't exist. What's the debate?

[oldane]

As I understand it, this statement is completely true: "In the classical voice leading tradition" it is true. Doesn't mean you can't break the rule, or choose to ignore it and resolve things differently if you wish. But in that tradition, this is the way they want you to resolve tension.

As we understand the word resolve, the 7'th of the dominant chord (V7) indeed does resolve to the 3'rd of the tonic chord (I) - like it does in a II-V-I cadenza. Its kind of a musical law of gravity.

But mind you, that is if we want the 7'th of the dominat chord to resolve. There are many ways we can go against the real law of gravity - for example when travelling by airplane. The same with the musical "law of gravity". There are many situations where composers/songwriters choose not to let the 7'th of the dominant chord resolve. The harmony goes II-V but then not to I but somewhere else. In that case the 7'th of the dominant does not resolve to the 3'rd of the tonic. That happens in classical music too. It's so common that it too has a name in the classical harmony/voice leading "law book" - the deceptive cadenza. Just think of the ever so common III-VI-II-V-I progression. The III-VI part is a deceptive cadenza because the 7'th of the dominant doesn't resolve to the 3'rd of a tonic while the II-V-I part is a true cadenza, because it does resolve that way. Or think of a tune which modulates abruptly after a II-V progression (maybe it's more common that the modulation is started with a II-V in the new tonal center, but that's another story).

This resolving concept is closely related to functional harmony. It may be less relevant in a strictly modal context, just like it is less relevant in "impressionistic" classical music like Debussy - and even less in later classical music like Schoenberg and his 12-tone music.

One piece of classical music I like a lot is Francis Poulencs organ concert. Apart from it's sombre emotional content, it plays around with those deceptive cadenzas in many ways while still being rooted in functional harmony. For example (I don't recall the exact keys in the concert - just examples): Cm7-F7-C. Or Dm7-G7-Cm7-F7-Bbm7-Ebm7-Abm7-Db7-Gb. This is used as a technique for modulation. In the first examle it's a modulation from Bb to C. In the latter example a modulation from C to Gb.

So ..... the 7'rd of the dominant chord "must" not resolve to the 3'rd of the tonic - but if it resolves, well, that's the way it does it.

[Ron Stern]

What's the big hubbub about, folks? The quote says:

As I understand it, this statement is completely true: "In the classical voice leading tradition" it is true.

As I see it, it is completely false, and has been false since whenever it was first written.

Given a ii V I, certain notes are involved. They cannot be other than what they are, by definition; regardless of how or whether they resolve. If there is such a thing as a rule of resolution, there is nothing upon which it could operate to insert any new notes, because if it did, you would no longer be speaking of the same chords or cadence.

IOW if the rules of chord construction produce a ii V I, then the rules of resolution do not. Nothing else can, by definition.

Next question: if they don't operate here, where do they operate?

[Ron Stern]

Sometimes people use the wrongs words to describe something. In the case of music, the word "rule" or "must" etc...are frequently misused by musicians / teachers that don't fully understand what they are talking about and are just repeating what they read or heard someone else say, or they just assume was implied.

And grimly cling to it, having paid dues to become an insider.

Change your definition of music theory to something like this: the recognition of patterns in existing music, and the science of labeling such patterns.

Exactly. The labeling is either logical and therefore useful, or not. Obviously the Great Mystery can be at least partly analyzed, or we wouldn't be here.

[Ron Stern]

I think you're fixating on "must". The word is just acknowledging common practice, and that is just what the "rules" of harmony are, after all. What sort of rule or justification for a rule would you accept anyway?

That's just it, there is no justification for a rule of any kind that I can see, in this context. If the definitions of the chords specify the notes, what is the justification for a rule that specifies the notes? If it specifies the same notes, it's superfluous. If it specifies different notes, it's wrong.

[Ron Stern]

But in that tradition, this is the way they want you to resolve tension. In the Christian tradition the "rule" is that you remove your hat when entering a house of worship; in the Jewish tradition you put one on! Some people ignore those rules too; that doesn't mean the "rules" of the house don't exist. What's the debate?

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.

[BigDaddyLoveHandles]

As long as you are sticking it to the man, post a link to some of your comping. I want to know what freedom sounds like.