Minor i vi ii V question

[Laurence Finston]

music theorists have a vested interest in making things complicated, probably because where it actually gets interesting is the way Wagner uses that first chord Fm7b5 which would normally just be a passing dissonance as a very important structural feature in its own right, so in context it seems perverse and to miss something to simply call the chord a passing dissonance as it seems to have its own importance to the whole piece - but that’s again, another rabbit hole.

There's a whole chapter in de la Motte about Wagner's harmony. I can't summarize it, because I don't remember it and I'm not sure I read the whole thing. I'm not a Wagner fan, although Mark Twain did say that Wagner's music is better than it sounds.

[princeplanet]

Hehe, entertaining responses thus far, cheers. I'm glad Christian popped in for this, as I recall him saying how much he detests any kind of 1 6 2 5 in anything when it's played straight (but who does that?).

Of course there are thousands of variations with this typical progression, but if we were to lock in the Am(6,7 or maj7), Bm7b5 and the E7b9, then the chord preceding the Bm7b5 can have certain options. Now imagine you've been asked to write something using these chords so you have no melody yet, or voice leading restrictions. You might consider some chord options based on an F root, or perhaps an F# root, or a D or even a C root. Many others too, but let me take a look at some:


Fmaj7 - (vanilla- no "outlier" notes) * Dm7 has similar sound and function

F7 - (Eb)

Fm7 - (Eb , Ab)

F#m7b5 - (F#) of course this also implies D7 or D9

F#m7 - (F#, C#)

F#7b9 - (F#, C#, Eb) this implies G dim, Bb dim, Db dim and E dim

Cmaj7(9) - faux subdom because of chromatic pull to B ??

C7(9) - (Bb)

C7b9 - ( see Db dim above)

Cm(7) - ( Eb, (Bb) )

Cm7b5 - ( Eb, Bb, Gb)


Of all these (which sound fine to me), I think that F7 and F#m7b5 are more commonly used, but I could be wrong. I get how the bVI7 is a common sound in minor (especially min blues) and how the F#m7b5 gets its F# from Dorian / MM, but as for why they work, along with the other possibilities above (and elsewhere), this has not been made clear to me in any theoretical context I've encountered. Then again, even if there was a text book explaining why chords work in specific contexts, there would be so many chapters needed to cover all possibilities, I'd never want to read it!

Still, would be good to have a resource to refer to once in a while for such conundrums, then I wouldn't need to bother you guys with these petty questions . But then I realise that since Shorter, Henderson, McCoy etc, at some point you might wish to write your own rules based on what just sounds good to your own ears....?

[Laurence Finston]

Of all these (which sound fine to me), I think that F7 and F#m7b5 are more commonly used, but I could be wrong. I get how the bVI7 is a common sound in minor (especially min blues) and how the F#m7b5 gets its F# from Dorian / MM,

I don't understand what you mean by this. F# is the dominant of B and resolves to it. You are going around the circle of fifths. It doesn't have anything to do with modes, if we're talking about traditional harmony.

but as for why they work, along with the other possibilities above (and elsewhere), this has not been made clear to me in any theoretical context I've encountered. Then again, even if there was a text book explaining why chords work in specific contexts, there would be so many chapters needed to cover all possibilities, I'd never want to read it!

I disagree. Explaining how chords work together with melodies and how we perceive this is the purpose of the theory of harmony. There are a limited number of possibilities and they fall into a few categories. I've tried to explain how this particular sequence of chords "works". Generally speaking, chord changes are meaningless without a melody. Sometimes there's a pause in the melody, but that's also part of the melody. The key to understanding a chord progression is to look at the voice leading.

Still, would be good to have a resource to refer to once in a while for such conundrums, then I wouldn't need to bother you guys with these petty questions

I recommend reading a good book on harmony. Harmonielehre by de la Motte is very good. I don't know whether it's been translated into English. Unfortunately, there are a lot of not-so-good books on harmony.

But then I realise that since Shorter, Henderson, McCoy etc, at some point you might wish to write your own rules based on what just sounds good to your own ears....?

I think it would be a pointless exercise but that's just my opinion. I think it would be more rewarding to learn counterpoint after one has learned harmony.

[Laurence Finston]

I'm glad Christian popped in for this, as I recall him saying how much he detests any kind of 1 6 2 5 in anything when it's played straight (but who does that?).

Maybe they should once in a while. I think it's better to have a solid understanding of the fundamental principles before starting to mess with things. In addition, the more alterations you specify in a chart, the less freedom the soloist has. When I solo, I'm not thinking about chords or alterations or note names, I'm playing by ear. It's not the job of my left hand to restrict what my right hand is doing (if I'm playing the piano). If I'm not playing by ear, it sounds like a scale exercise rather than music.

[princeplanet]

I don't understand what you mean by this. F# is the dominant of B and resolves to it. You are going around the circle of fifths. It doesn't have anything to do with modes, if we're talking about traditional harmony....

I don't know why you disagree here, I mean we are talking about Jazz Harmony I hope? Surely you understand that there is a point where Traditional Harmony will not explain certain Jazz idioms?

[Laurence Finston]

I don't know why you disagree here, I mean we are talking about Jazz Harmony I hope? Surely you understand that there is a point where Traditional Harmony will not explain certain Jazz idioms?

I will be very happy to explain. In my opinion, there is no such thing as jazz harmony. The harmony used in jazz and popular music is basically the harmony of Schumann. It's not the harmony of Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven and it's not the harmony of Debussy, it's somewhere in the middle. You can certainly explain jazz idioms using the vocabulary of traditional harmony. Idioms that you can't explain are when you start going beyond the boundaries of traditional harmony, e.g., in modal jazz.

The principle of Ockham's Razor states that the simplest explanation that fits the facts is the one that's preferred. In this case, I think that explanation is that F# is dominant of B. The basic idea behind traditional harmony is the sequence of falling fifths. I don't know if that's the proper term, I learned harmony in German (although I'm American). The term in German is Quintfallsequenz. Popular music like we're talking about is built around the idea of the cadence. That's just a sequence of falling fifths with the diatonic chords built on them as roots. Alterations are deviations from the diatonic notes of the key. Generally they are used to increase tension and mostly on the dominant. The tonic is considered the resting place and the dominant is the maximum "distance" from the tonic, i.e., the chord with the most tension (dissonance). The subdominant is considered "low-tension distance from the tonic".

This is just an interpretation of how we perceive this kind of music. Harmony developed out of counterpoint, it didn't exist before. If you really want to understand what's going on harmonically in a given passage, you need to look at the voices. This kind of music is horizontal and vertical. The voices, including the melody, are horizontal and the chords are vertical.

This isn't the only way of looking at it, but it's the conventional way. I didn't make any of this up. There are other valid ways of looking at it.

[Laurence Finston]

The basic idea beyond traditional harmony is the sequence of falling fifths.

I meant "behind", not "beyond" (fixed above).

[Christian Miller]

It wasn't my intention to "throw theory" at anybody. My intention was to not just name a bunch of chords but to try to explain how things work. If the OP understands the principles, he or she can figure out for him or herself what alterations are possible and won't have to ask. "Give a person a fish" etc.



I would interpret F7 - E7 simply as chromatic motion, not as the F having some function within Am.

For the purposes of jazz it may not matter; it’s sufficient just to recognise the progression and practice it.

in terms of the history of music, it’s an augmented sixth, which is well understood in classical theory.

Jazzers might interpret it as a tritone sub for II7 which is also a very common chromatic chord in a minor key. (I’m less likely to do that for various boring and convoluted reasons.)

[Christian Miller]

If there's a Dm7 before the Bm7b5, then you have the subdominant. There are lots of examples of harmonies that aren't ii V I or IV V I or ii V i, etc.



I don't know what the source of this definition is. According to the book I learned harmony from, a cadence is subdominant - dominant - tonic. That book is Harmonielehre by Dieter de la Motte. If you learned harmony from a different source or sources, then you might have learned different definitions.



The concept of a suspension of a cadence is unfamiliar to me. I know what a suspension is, but according to what I learned, the term isn't used this way.



Have you ever sat through it? It never resolves. I found extremely difficult to listen to and was never so glad that an opera was over, except for when I sat through Parsifal, where I thought I would die of boredom.



Again, I don't know what the source is for this interpretation. According to what I learned, there is no "augmented sixth". You can certainly notate it, with a "#6" below and to the right of the root of the chord, but I don't know what it would be meant to express. I think it would be heard as a dom. 7th, but that's subjective.



I'm not familiar with the term "chromatic variant". I don't think there is such a thing, but there may be in some theory of harmony that I don't know.



If we're talking about Bach, then it's not sufficient to label the chords. Bach is both contrapunctal and harmonic at the same time. It is necessary to look at the voice leading.

I’m talking about voice leading. Just look up augmented sixth - it’s based on chromatic contrary motion.

It’s kind of beside the point but you can easily recognise chords like I, IV, Neapolitan sixth etc in Bach regardless of the contrapuntal texture. While this is obviously true for his figuration preludes and dance movements, it is even true of his inventions, fugues and so on.

For example while it’s not all there is to it, you can describe the opening of invention no13 as basically I-V-I-V and then round the clock. In this sense the contrapuntal imitation etc is a foreground embellishment of the harmony.

if you aren’t happy with that approach to Bach you could go look at some Mozart or something . In any case you will find that aug 6 voice leading.

[Laurence Finston]

For the purposes of jazz it may not matter; it’s sufficient just to recognise the progression and practice it.

I disagree. I don't make a distinction between jazz and any other kind of music where the theory of harmony applies. I don't apply a lower standard to any kind of music.

in terms of the history of music, it’s an augmented sixth, which is well understood in classical theory.

I'm not familiar with this term, but then I didn't learn harmony in English. You may well be right. I'd have to look this up.

Jazzers might interpret it as a tritone sub for II7 which is also a very common chromatic chord in a minor key. (I’m less likely to do that for various boring and convoluted reasons.)

I'm sort of lost here and would have to go back and check which chord we're talking about exactly. However, I don't see any reason to bring tritones into this, but if that's what the theory you're using says, why not?

[Laurence Finston]

I’m talking about voice leading. Just look up augmented sixth - it’s based on chromatic contrary motion.

You can easily recognise chords like I, IV, Neapolitan sixth etc in Bach regardless of the contrapuntal texture. If this wasn’t the case it would be impossible to write out continuo parts for his music. While this is obviously true for his preludes, it is even true of his inventions, fugues and so on.

You can recognize chords in Bach's music. I dispute the "easily" part. Sometimes, it's easy, sometimes one thinks "what is going on here?". It is definitely not easy with the inventions, which only have two parts.

I would never write in symbols for figured bass in any score. If they're there, I would write in the chords using modern notation, if anything. I can interpret figured bass, but I don't understand it intuitively enough for it to give me an overview of the harmony if I were to write it in. If they're there, great. Otherwise, I just use modern notation.

I will certainly review the Neapolitan sixth, which I had forgotten completely. I don't think you can augment sixths in Germany, something about the air, maybe, but I'll look this up, too.

[Laurence Finston]

Otherwise, I just use modern notation.

Not that I do this very often. I usually only do it for songs (or arias) or things I want to play on the guitar.

[Christian Miller]

You can recognize chords in Bach's music. I dispute the "easily" part. Sometimes, it's easy, sometimes one thinks "what is going on here?". It is definitely not easy with the inventions, which only have two parts.

No? while the texture is not sounding a full chord at any point you can see how the bass and melody work together in the opening bars. It’s embellished but it’s still clear. Maybe trusting your ears is important too.

this is even more the case for the solo string music; but you can do it with this as well.

I would never write in symbols for figured bass in any score. If they're there, I would write in the chords using modern notation, if anything. I can interpret figured bass, but I don't understand it intuitively enough for it to give me an overview of the harmony if I were to write it in. If they're there, great. Otherwise, I just use modern notation.

figures work from the bass rather than theoretical root like our modern system, so it gives you a different perspective. It is also a bit more contrapuntal which I like, although not a perfect system for understanding counterpoint either. But it’s better.

I was a die hard figures guy, but these days I can see the value in using the Roman numerals as well… John Mortensen, Michael Koch and quite a few other classical improvisers use a mixed theoretical approach for teaching, as does JGO’s own Rob MacKillop.

otoh I quite like looking at jazz tunes from a figured bass and counterpoint perspective; things like Jobim tunes lend themselves especially well to this approach.

At the end of the day it is counterpoint, but figures and chord symbols are all about what they imply; it’s not like good continuo players or jazz players just plonk down an unconnected series of note stacks and leave it at that. We want to put in a bit of movement and voice leading ie counterpoint. In fact I have a continuo book for guitar that cites Joe Pass as a model!

What I have slowly learned for both idiomatic classical and jazz improv is that it’s more important to know what the moves are and how to make them well rather than understand why they happen - the latter is more of an academic thing.

I will certainly review the Neapolitan sixth, which I had forgotten completely. I don't think you can augment sixths in Germany, something about the air, maybe, but I'll look this up, too.

What about the German sixth then? ;-)

Moonlight sonata - the slow movement - has a classic N6 in the opening. There’s also a sneaky one near the end of Bachs invention no13

[grahambop]

Well this is odd: the thread title in the postings list is "Minor i vi ii V question" but everything is capitalized at the top of the thread: "MINOR I VI II V". Most (all?) answers address VI or VI7 rather than vi. Which did the OP intend? (And yes, I do know that you can often replace vi with VI or VI7 and its subs in this sort of static progression.)

All thread titles are capitalised when viewed from within the thread, the forum software presumably does this.

[Laurence Finston]

No? while the texture is not sounding a full chord at any point you can see how the bass and melody work together in the opening bars. It’s embellished but it’s still clear. Maybe trusting your ears is important too.
What about the German sixth then? ;-)

I find it difficult, for example, if there's a D and an F. Is it a Dm or is it the fifth and the seventh of G7? Well, it depends on what came before and what came after. With three voices, it's much easier. But even that I don't find easy. But that's me, for somebody else it might be easy.

I just looked up what de la Motte has to say about the Neapolitan sixth chord. With all due respect, I think it doesn't apply in this case. The reason is because we're using seventh chords which are inherently ambiguous. In the era where the N. 6th chord was used, harmony was mostly triads. I would not hear D F Bb as a sixth chord with D as the root, but as an inversion of Bb. This isn't directed toward you, because you already know harmony and weren't asking a question, but to anyone who doesn't know, I will say what I always say in cases like this: Don't take my word for it, check the facts for yourself.

There's no index in de la Motte, unfortunately. There is a table of chord symbols and he refers to "hochalterierte" ("raised") sixths, whereas the term for "augmented" is "übermässig". To the best of my knowledge, it's only applied to fifths. However, if they're called augmented in English, who am I to object? I don't think I would hear them this way, I would hear them as a dom. 7th, but that's subjective.

[Laurence Finston]

I've read up on figured bass but I've never practiced continuo playing. I haven't been playing Baroque music much lately. I have played some Bach lately because I'm learning the viola, but of course that's the melody, not the accompaniment.

[Christian Miller]

I disagree. I don't make a distinction between jazz and any other kind of music where the theory of harmony applies. I don't apply a lower standard to any kind of music.

This is a bit silly imo. Jazz has commonalities with classical harmony but it is not the same. Trying to understand the former through the lens of the latter alone will lead to problems.

I'm sort of lost here and would have to go back and check which chord we're talking about exactly. However, I don't see any reason to bring tritones into this, but if that's what the theory you're using says, why not?

most jazz students are more familiar with concept of tritone substitution than augmented 6ths? And it’s a sub of a II V I which is how jazzers like to understand harmony …

that is B7 E7 Am
Becomes F7 E7 Am

[Laurence Finston]

This is a bit silly imo. Jazz has commonalities with classical harmony but it is not the same. Trying to understand the former through the lens of the latter alone will lead to problems.

I'm very happy to discuss things but I'd rather not be told that my ideas are silly.

I don't believe that there is any such thing as "jazz harmony". It's the harmony of popular music from about 1900 to 1950. In fact, in many cases, the harmonies are "borrowed" entirely from popular songs. There's a reason why people are still playing "jazz standards". It's because it isn't so easy to come up with a well-constructed song.

‘lower standard’ is a use of language I would question

This is what I was responding to:

For the purposes of jazz it may not matter; it’s sufficient just to recognise the progression and practice it.

I think it's just as important to understand the music for a jazz musician as it is for any other kind of musician. I don't have a jazz hat or a folk hat or a classical hat.

most jazz students are more familiar with concept of tritone substitution than augmented 6ths? And it’s a sub of a II V I which is how jazzers like to understand harmony …

that is B7 E7 Am
Becomes F7 E7 Am

I think it's easier and simpler to explain what's happening using conventional harmony. I don't think that the concept of tritone substitutions or lydian dominants or shlonic scales adds anything. Just my opinion. It's like if you're on the North Side of Chicago and you want to go to State Street: You can take the Englewood/Jackson line or you can take the Ravenswood line, but the Ravenswood line is the long way around.

[Christian Miller]

I'm very happy to discuss things but I'd rather not be told that my ideas are silly.

I think you’ll cause yourself a lot of confusion trying to push square pegs into round holes if you try to relate everything to classical theory. Some things really don’t fit. So yeah I think it’s a bit silly. See below

That said the F7 E7 is something that does, in fact fit into trad harmony.

I don't believe that there is any such thing as "jazz harmony". It's the harmony of popular music from about 1900 to 1950. In fact, in many cases, the harmonies are "borrowed" entirely from popular songs. There's a reason why people are still playing "jazz standards". It's because it isn't so easy to come up with a well-constructed song.

popular song repertoire may be broadly based on 19th century harmony, and it is also true that many tin pan alley and ragtime composers were classically trained.

However this not constitute all jazz repertoire and it certainly doesn’t encompass how jazz musicians treated these songs and how they played their changes. Take the blues just for a simple example.

I mean I don’t want to patronise you, you must realise this right?

I am someone who goes a lot further with classical theory than many here, but it has sharp limits.

This is what I was responding to:

I think it's just as important to understand the music for a jazz musician as it is for any other kind of musician. I don't have a jazz hat or a folk hat or a classical hat.

Stylistic harmony specific to these styles exists. If I’m going to play folk guitar I will be happy include a lot more open string drones to spice up simple major and minor chords than if I am improvising a Bachian prelude, and I’m not going to worry about and may in fact embrace consecutive fifths.

If I play a resolved tonic chord in jazz it may have added notes unacceptable in common practice harmony.

To be a good idiomatic improviser you need to be able to hear what the music specifically requires. It’s one of the things that gets you the gig.

I think it's easier and simpler to explain what's happening using conventional harmony. I don't think that the concept of tritone substitutions or lydian dominants or shlonic scales adds anything. Just my opinion. It's like if you're on the North Side of Chicago and you want to go to State Street: You can take the Englewood/Jackson line or you can take the Ravenswood line, but the Ravenswood line is the long way around.

it is an opinion, sure. I don’t think it’s an opinion grounded in the reality of the musics

Some players are more ‘classical’ than others (Sonny Stitt?) but even then you’ll often see a layered approach to harmony we’re each musician may layer a slightly different progression or pathway over the other - everyone from Louis Armstrong* on did this, most definitely including Charlie Parker. Then there’s harmonic generalisation as practiced by for instance Lester Young.

‘Gapped Parallelism’ in traditional big band section harmonisation and so on can be traced back to Balafon traditions in West Africa. That’s even before getting into the colouristic approaches using the whole tone scale and Billy Strayhorns developments in the 40s. And that’s before we get even into the 50s… and of course there’s plenty of players who quite consciously used fancy pants concepts like the LCC, Slominksy’s thesaurus and chord scales

There’s more going on.

*I’m in agreement with Ethan Iverson that what Gunther Schuller classifies as ‘harmonic mistakes’ in hot fives and sevens recordings (his book Early Jazz) are nothing of the kind and it’s exactly Schuller’s classical mindset that prevents him from understanding what’s going on in this music.

[princeplanet]

Yes, that's all very interesting chaps, but will no-one comment on some of the ideas raised in post #27?

[Christian Miller]

Yes, that's all very interesting chaps, but will no-one comment on some of the ideas raised in post #27?

Not sure if I have much to say tbh.

Well if I was writing I would probably be thinking mostly about the bassline against the melody. Not sure if that helps?

The melody calls a lot of the shots. Then it’s simply a matter of selecting the middle notes. So if it’s an Eb in the melody, that strongly suggests we want an A in the middle, so F7. If it’s an A in the melody, you have some options depending on what sounds good with the other chords. Eb/D# is nice because it introduces some chromatic movement. For instance if I wrote Am F7 Bm7b5 E7 Am with an A-A-A-G#-A melody, I could have an inner line going E-D#-D-D-C. So far, so traditional.

I don’t like too much fourthwise motion in bass on the whole, it’s a bit of a disease of the real book. Hence the reason I don’t like 1-6-2-5.

The bassline should be the ‘second melody’ (Schoenberg) and once that’s chosen choosing the middle voices is usually not so hard. Then I render the result as chord symbols. I don’t really care about ‘functionality’ so long as the counterpoint is good and interesting.

To be honest a lot of the time when comping and soloing on minor turnarounds I’ll just improvise movement around the tonic, implied I-V-I while the bass player does their thing. Barry harris is good for that, as well as more modern ways like using the altered scale or even just staying on Valt.

For swing music there’s set riffs and things people use. Am G7 F7 E7 is a classic.

I like scalar bass a lot. Can’t go wrong even if your changes are very non functional.

[Laurence Finston]

I already commented on posting #27 with quotes from it. I'm guessing you're not satisfied with what I said. F and F# have been addressed. I will add that C maj. is the relative major of Am and if you use C7, that will be the dominant of F maj. or F min. You could use that to modulate to either of those keys. Otherwise, I recommend you read through what I wrote before carefully which should give you a good start on being able to figure it out for yourself. I also recommend finding a good book on harmony. The jazz harmony books I've seen or owned contain watered-down versions of conventional harmony, so I don't recommend them.

[KingKong]

Just do f flaming major 7th, keep it simple and melodic!

The more you deviate from the original f maj 7th chord notes with the substitutions described above, the worse it will sound.

[princeplanet]

Just do f flaming major 7th, keep it simple and melodic!

The more you deviate from the original f maj 7th chord notes with the substitutions described above, the worse it will sound.

Yeah, but what about F flamin' 7, or F# freakin'' m7 friggin' b5? Surely they are just as basic? Has anyone tried all the other options listed in #27? Not sure if I agree that they sound "worse"...

Ya gotta try everything, you can't always tell how things will sound by how they look on paper (well, most of us can't). For example, if you take this little progression - Cmaj7 - Ebmaj7 - Abmaj7 - Dbmaj7 - Cmaj7 , sure, it's easy to say most of it falls by 5ths and resolves by semitone, but would you have come up with that if Coltrane hadn't? I studied counterpoint and Harmony as well as Atonal composition at uni for many years, but I still get confounded by why some things sound good and others don't. You think Jobim came up with the B section in GFI by using any kind of predictive theory?

[Christian Miller]

Just do f flaming major 7th, keep it simple and melodic!

The more you deviate from the original f maj 7th chord notes with the substitutions described above, the worse it will sound.

Why do you hate the blues Kong?