-
I've been wondering about equivalence, in terms of function, between these two worlds in tonal music.
The trigger of my thoughts is this possible misconception I had (or have): in the key of A minor, I used to think that E7 was "basically Em turned into the E major triad to provide the tone G#, namely the leading tone to A" (which relates to the classic way to explain the minor tonal paradigm, the harmonic minor scale and so on). But these days, in terms of triad equivalence, I see E7 more as a G#dim (or maybe Bdim or Fdim) than E [*].
I don't know whether either of these two perspectives is useful.
E7 is E? Is it one of these dim triads? Is it something more complex?
Further, related to this, I'm not sure anymore what to think about G7 (key of C or A minor). Is it G? Bdim? Something else?
Learning about this is difficult for me because I don't really listen to decent triad-based music.
What is a general rule here? Do you know any text on this?
Cheers,
Alex
[*] Chord E has no tritone (by itself, as chord, it "sounds stable" because it's so consonant). It doesn't resolve to Am by contrary motion (Bdim and Fdim do). Tone E doesn't really do much in terms of voice leading to chord Am, it's purpose seems to provide a strong bass line (in ascending fourth intervals).
-
05-12-2021 03:04 AM
-
There's a distinction to be made between seeing/hearing other relationships vs understanding the basic functional basis for something. E or E7 is very much a thing in all styles, with or without respect to diminished harmony itself.
There's a degree to which diminished is implied by the G# itself in C major (A harmonic minor), but the "diminish-isation" of harmony like that (and even 4-note voicings) is "a level up" from basic triad harmony and traditional music. Filling out harmony, beyond three note triads and using modal interchange with other scales is an EMBELLISHMENT, not the basis for understanding basic harmony.
Get a copy of Bert Ligon's Jazz Theory resources volume 1.
-
Thanks for the great response. I see. I already had a feeling that the tone G# is a strong characteristic, in the sense that everything that features it (or its enharmonic Ab, like Fm, Bb7, etc.) has significant commonality in terms of function. Interestingly, chords Ab and Ab7 seem more dominated by their 5th, tone Eb ¿? Then again, maybe not, I don't know.
Interesting re. "diminish-ation". I thought dim (triad) was a common thing in triad based music, like it totally belonged in it, I'm surprised to read it's "a level up".
I'll look for Bert Ligon's book. I've found a local place with plenty of good music books for sale, it may well be there.
Thanks!
-
Yeah I think so myself. Basically you can put a dominant chord into any weird inversion and it will always sound like a dominant seventh chord (not true of a major seventh)
Originally Posted by alez
It’s all about that tritone. 7b9 adds a tritone, as does dim7.
Decent triad based music... well the thing is the voice leading is very rich in classical music. While cadential points resolve to triads, chords can be very complex. Really the interest lies in the counterpoint. So you why seventh chords, sus chords, 9th chords, crazy pedal point chords there aren’t even names for.
Sit down with a classical score and try to reduce it to chord symbols... it doesn’t go..
So in jazz, some of the passing dissonances got reinterpreted as extensions in things like Stella. OTOH in jazz the function of the leading tone melodically is totally different. There’s that West African influence coming in...
-
It’s not a level up. People construct theory in a certain way for pedagogical purposes, but it doesn’t mean it has anything to do with musical history. as you say it’s been in common use for centuries. Originally Posted by alez
Thanks for the great response. I see. I already had a feeling that the tone G# is a strong characteristic, in the sense that everything that features it (or its enharmonic Ab, like Fm, Bb7, etc.) has significant commonality in terms of function. Interestingly, chords Ab and Ab7 seem more dominated by their 5th, tone Eb ¿? Then again, maybe not, I don't know.
Interesting re. "diminish-ation". I thought dim (triad) was a common thing in triad based music, like it totally belonged in it, I'm surprised to read it's "a level up".
I'll look for Bert Ligon's book. I've found a local place with plenty of good music books for sale, it may well be there.
Thanks!
that said in basic classical harmonisations you tend to encounter inversions of the dominant chord most often. Diminished seventh chords are also common. You will often hear Bach and Mozart outlining VIIdim7 in major keys even.
Its a bit difficult to discuss this in depth because the most natural language to discuss baroque and classical/gallant harmony, figured bass, is inaccessible to many jazzers. Jazzers often impose their own paradigm, but the actual truth is there are many elements that are common.
-
Seeing E7 "more as a G#dim (or maybe Bdim or Fdim)" is fine, as long as you understand that at a basic level it's FUNCTIONING as a dominant chord, in the same way that it would in an unembellished folksong with triads ...or maybe no chords at all. Originally Posted by alez
At the lowest level of analysis, it's G. The fact that it can be EMBELLISHED to be more ...or substituted for something else… or reduced to a pair of triads… is somewhat beside the point. Originally Posted by alez
Again, not talking about EVERY possibility here. Saying that Bach used diminished seventh chords is somewhat of a separate conversation. You can use Fdim for G7, but that's not the same as viewing basic dominant seventh chords as "variations of diminished". One comes FROM the other, not necessarily the other way around.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but I thought this was the confusion expressed in the OP.
-
Alez are you talking about diminished seventh or diminished triads?
-
Classical V chord and vii chord are clearly differentiated though they belong to the same function. Originally Posted by alez
You see... in general in classical music we mostly have to deal with real functional tonality... where not the chords but the functions are the most important vehicles of musical form and contents. T - S - D
In jazz chord becomes itslef a function.. as I say "any chord as voicing' can be 'any chord as function'
Fumctionality becomes vague and flexible
-
alez -
I don't really want to get into this but I might a little.
First, your initial post isn't terribly clear. That's hardly surprising otherwise you wouldn't be posting the query. But let me say this. It might take some space but it's probably worth it if it clarifies things.
As you probably know, chords are built from scales, stacked in thirds. If we take just the first three triads in, say, C major we get C major (CEG), D minor (DFA), and E minor (EGB).
When we get to the fifth degree, the triad is G major (GBD). That IS a major triad and a major chord.
When we get to the seventh degree, the triad is B diminished (BDF). That IS a diminished chord.
************
It's only when we go above the octave, again stacking notes in thirds, that the chords change. Adding one more note changes both the chords and their names, i.e. CM7, Dm7, Em7... G7 (GBDF) and Bm7b5 (BDFA).
I suspect your confusion is between, for example, G major as a triad and G7 as a dominant 7 chord. Or B diminished as a triad and Bm7b5.
************
If we go to A minor, don't forget there are three minor scales, natural, harmonic and melodic. Again, the chords are built from the scales.
The notes of the natural minor scale are the same as those of C major so both the triads and extended chords are the same, although their placement, and hence their function, is different.
The notes of A harmonic minor contain the G#. So your E triad is now by default EG#B, still an E major chord.
When the triads are extended, the E triad then becomes EG#BD which, of course, is E7.
It's not until the E7 is further extended by another third that is becomes E7b9 (EG#BDF).
That IS a 7b9 chord, not a diminished chord.
***********
So it's important to distinguish the chord name from its function.
Very little music in a minor key is likely to be based on simple triads. A minor ii-V-i is very unlikely to be based on basic triads.
So although B dim - E - Am is technically correct you're not likely to encounter it. It will nearly always be Bm7b5 - E7 or E7b9 (or an altered variant) - Am or Am7.
***********
Soloing is different because then it's legitimate to treat a 7b9 chord as a diminished chord - or rather a diminished sound - because of the similarity of the notes. But we shouldn't get confused about the actual name and function of the chord.
This is why a chord built from a certain set of notes may have different names depending on how and where it's positioned in a progression. And that, admittedly, can potentially get a bit confusing.
Hope this clarifies things a little.
-
The truth is chord function like any theoretical concept is vague and flexible. A ii chord does not really sound like a IV chord, but function argues that there is some quality that they share. A V chord does not work like a vii chord, and so on. what function does is abstract some quality of those chords and then turns it into a theory. Originally Posted by Jonah
So a classic one is - what function is diatonic chord iii? And it turns out that it depends on how you define chord function. In practice it comes down to the specific function of the leading tone, and how important the melodic cadence 7-1 is for your conception of harmony. (Weakened in jazz, strong in classical.)
Classical theory says, IIRC, dominant. In practice, a iii-I obviously doesn’t sound like a V-I and would not be used in the same way in common practice music. So - function is vague?
So all of these concepts are useful in only in they serve to guide hearing and mental organisation.
As I get better at music I get less interested in generalisations and more interested in specifics. The general gets very general.
-
To return to your point, I think both your understandings are true, and complementary, and you may find one useful in some circumstances and the other in others. Originally Posted by alez
And there may be other ways of understanding that chord that may be helpful in other ways.
Music theories should be plural. People get taught one way sometimes and get very adamant it’s the right way. I know a lot of (too much) theory, and the thing I’ve learned is it’s all an interpretation. How people put these things together is a matter of pedagogical logic. If they think it helps the student to understand a Bo triad as an incomplete G7 that’s what they will frame that chord.
It’s amazing the stuff people will come out with sometimes in defence of whatever it is they were taught; like how musicians must have been ‘subconsciously’ using later theory and stuff like this (functional harmony is a development of 19th century German theorists, for example, unknown to Mozart, Bach etc.)
This all seems a bit Platonist. While I can accept a Platonic idea in mathematics in music theory I find it quite daft. (Well it’s music of the spheres and all that baggage I guess..)
It’s all trying to get a grip on sound, and while it shapes the way we hear music, we shouldn’t imagine that’s the only way.
-
Not actually, Christian... or even not at all.The truth is chord function like any theoretical concept is vague and flexible. A ii chord does not really sound like a IV chord, but function argues that there is some quality that they share. A V chord does not work like a vii chord, and so on. what function does is abstract some quality of those chords and then turns it into a theory.
So a classic one is - what function is diatonic chord iii? And it turns out that it depends on how you define chord function. In practice it comes down to the specific function of the leading tone, and how important the melodic cadence 7-1 is for your conception of harmony. (Weakened in jazz, strong in classical.)
Classical theory says, IIRC, dominant. In practice, a iii-I obviously doesn’t sound like a V-I and would not be used in the same way in common practice music. So - function is vague?
So all of these concepts are useful in only in they serve to guide hearing and mental organisation.
As I get better at music I get less interested in generalisations and more interested in specifics. The general gets very general.
Login • Instagram
in classical functions of chord is T (only one chord), D (3 chords), S (3 chords)... when I say classical I mean something from Braoque to relatively late Romantic music.
In classical music Functions are the vehicles of the form.... relationschips between T-S-D exists on key leveles even in realtively simple forms... without it there is not real Functional tonality...
If one thinks of functions as of relationships within cadences - like ii-V-I or V-I it does not make a functional tonality yet... it is some kind of harmonic modality.
No it is not vague. It is quite clear. It is Dominant function but who said that any chord of Dominant function must be resolved to Tonic? Or who said it should sound and be used in the same way?n practice, a iii-I obviously doesn’t sound like a V-I and would not be used in the same way in common practice music. So - function is vague?
Functional tonality consists of many different prosseccess (for example you cannot exclude minor/,ajor relationship too) and they all define the loggics fo using this of that chord...
-
I understand the theory. But function is still a vague concept, even while well defined. Originally Posted by Jonah
For instance: in what way is a iii chord really like a V chord? And so on. They may have some quality in common, but what exactly is it?
What is the concept of chord function actually for?
(I mean obviously it’s unnecessary for actually writing common practice music, so it must have some other purpose.)
And what privileges one definition on over the other? I’m sure if you go back over the historical theory literature you’ll find differing perspectives.
Presumably theory must progress from the idea of it being helpful to understand what is going on in music.
Anyway I don’t have a particular axe to grind with any branch of music theory, it’s more that they are often held up to be the laws of physics or something, and people accept them on the same level. In fact they are all working models adopted (and not usually subjected to an exacting standard of proof/disproof I have to say.)
-
It is not about theory... it is about real music. Originally Posted by christianm77
To me most of the problems come from the point that people do not understant how it works in classical music...
they think they do... but in most cases they don't.
I think Functional tonality is the most vivid and true to life theory in arts history...
-
TL
R. It’s only a model. Don’t sweat it too much.
(I mean even modern physics is only a model and it’s a damn sight more predictive than most music theory.)
-
Do you think it has some Platonic existence? That it was discovered rather than invented? Originally Posted by Jonah
(a lot of musicians appear to hold this view about music theory actually.)
-
No... but it is definitely much more than just a tool to explain some musical event....Do you think it has some Platonic existence? That it was discovered rather than invented?
(a lot of musicians appear to hold this view about music theory actually.)
besides opposition 'discovered'/'invented' may put it in rather complex philosophical context... (Platonic existance is hardly connected with this opposition too)....
It is difficult to me to get into these things deeper in the forum format... maybe there'll be the day we can chat about it... maybe not
-
Yeah, maybe! Originally Posted by Jonah
To be honest I just see all of this stuff as a theoretical construct, a model. And a model can be an aesthetically pleasing thing in many ways.
At uni I studied General Relativity, and I remember thinking it was the most beautiful thing I’d ever encountered.
It’s still only a model. In fact - it CAN only be a model. I don’t see why I should privilege the stylistic norms of 18th-19th century posh person music over the laws of the flipping universe.
(OTOH Mathematics is a different thing again.)
-
Huh. Were Bernhard and Hugo Riemann related?
-
To me that's not always true. For example take the cowboy D major chord on the upper three strings (x x x 2 3 2), put C in the bass (x 3 x 2 3 2), it doesn't sound like a D7 to me anymore (out of context), it sounds like a C major of sorts. C-F# is no longer a dominant tritone but more a lydian relationship, especially if you play a G7 before this chord. Originally Posted by christianm77
Also for example if you invert a Dom-sus chord, to me it doesn't sound like dominant chord out of context. If you're alternating inversions with less ambiguous voicings, then they do sound like the original chord, but out of context this is not always the case.
I think whether an inversion of a chord sounds like the root position depends on how symmetric the chords is. A dim7 inversion will obviously sound like a dim7. Triad inversions to me sound like triads of the same quality (major, minor, half dim , aug), regardless of the inversion. Quartal chords mostly preserve their quartal character when you invert them as well.
But when you go to the less symmetric chords, inversions I think really need a context to not sound ambiguous (or something else altogether).Last edited by Tal_175; 05-16-2021 at 07:23 PM.
-
that’s true, compounding the tritone weakens it a lot. Originally Posted by Tal_175
I think the contemporary guys like the ambiguity. Does x 5 9 5 5 x or x 7 x 5 3 7 really sound like a Cmaj9? No, and therein lies the charm... but these sounds are tritone less and therefore ‘floating’; now sub in for a Ab7alt and you kill any functionality in that chord, which is a bonus.
To be honest a lot of modern jazz harmony post Bill Evans is sort of bass - some sort of cluster of four or notes belonging to the relevant mode - melody note. If the bass is being played by a, errr bass, you have free reign provided the chord scale shit is kosher (so that sub for example is compatible with the Ab altered scale, and would work with any tune where you have the Ab7 with a #9 in the melody or whatever). And that how you do a modern.
The real challenge is creating dynamism in an interesting way; non functional harmony where the chords couldn’t simply be played in any order but lead somewhere. For me dissonance is essential in that, and if you treat every chord as a colour you can lose that a bit.
-
x 7 x 5 3 7 ......... this chord does really sound like Cma9
x 5 9 5 5 x ............ This one doesn't although up an octave over a C bass note it would. In this register the D is a pretty convincing root note.
-
If! If! Stuck In A Corner Stiff!
In the military you will learn that doing anything is preferable to doing nothing. Do nothing and you'll sit there until someone kills you or you get shot while searching for food.
It's Your Journey
I've taken my jazz journey, as a Dedicated Amateur Musician, without paying the big bucks to be spoon-fed all the answers. I just keep digging. Learning something on your own is the best reward. You can almost claim it as yours. Set the goal, spend the $33 on a good method book, like Johnny Smith, Mel Bay, William Leavitt, Johnny Rector or Roger Edison and don't buy another until you've worked the spine off of that one book and filled it with coffee stains, notes and dog-eared pages, you've slept on it and haunted the coffee shops with it. Is great if you can form a Master Mind Group in your province, state, county, city, shire or borough as the "collegiate mind" studying an agreed upon method will correct you before you stray too far or solve misunderstandings and vexations before they frustrate you.
The Journal
Keep a permanent hard-cover journal, with some manuscript sheets and graph paper clipped to the pages. Write down what you believe about your current item of interest. Your mini-thesis. Say, the rule for possible substitutions for a V7 or VI7 using Diminished Principles. Test them in a 251 matrix. What works for you is good. What doesn't sound good is tossed aside. Your journal is your record, especially after you've gone through your divorce and the guitar has collected an inch of dust in a closet. All is not lost.
Mistakes Are Milestones Along The Road
At least you're making decisions and moving forward on those decisions. Make mistakes. Correct the mistakes. Learn from mistakes. Even dead-ends are forward motion. Follow your thesis until you end up with more questions than answers. You can always modify your beliefs as you grow.
Pick A Path
Learning guitar is like crossing through the woods to get from the hot dusty road to the cool flowing river. There are a hundred courses you could have taken to get there, but you can only take one at any given time. And the first time is the toughest. Once you get your drink, you'll know the woods better and tomorrow your trip to the river will follow a course tread by sure feet.
You Have To Walk This Lonesome Valley By Yourself
People can give you snippets of knowledge here and there until you develop a headache, but the best way is on your own two legs. Follow your ears. Often, you're just spinning your wheels in click-bait on the internet without firstly forming a stated course of action.
...Last edited by StringNavigator; 05-17-2021 at 08:39 PM.
-
Yeah, the second one sounds more like a major 9 Originally Posted by bako
Anyway, I think the point stands...
-
If you are doing this you are missing the most important aspect of learning jazz; which is the informal learning that occurs when you get together with other musicians. Originally Posted by StringNavigator
Not the easiest thing to do ATM.
Reply With Quote
Mental check on buying a good guitar
Today, 10:38 AM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos