Chord functions of III and VI in minor key

[Jonah]

I don't know where you get this stuff from. The tonic is the first chord or tone, the pre (or sub) dominant is the fourth, and the dominant is the fifth. In A natural minor that's Am, Dm and Em. In C that's C, F and G.

The second, third and seventh are irrelevant to this. Same chords, different positions, different functions.

T-S-D are not chords, they are functions... there are only 3 functions in this setup but plenty of chords (harmonic vertical sounds) that all fit one of the 3 functions.

It is as much connectd with the relations between keys as between chords within a key.
It resembles a multileve tension system - like a universe (I think by the way that it is not a coincidence that heliocentric unverse conception came up almost at the same time as the functional realtions in music began to form).

If you get more into classical music starting from late baroque.. you will see that the form is built around (and from) these functions (not chords).


The chords of I, IV, V are just the simplest expression of functional relations within the key but they are not functions.

It became common though in pop music to sort of use function as just a specific chord type... basically it makes functional logics almost meaningless. It probably comes from the simplicity of the pop tunes where functional T-S-D logics in a broad sense is not that important any more and each chord is getting more and more idependent and receives its own function that has close to nothing to do with classical functions(which leads to modal tonality at the ustmost form.)

It is an interesting and complex topic that requires lots of dicussion actually.

[christianm77]

I except of course that Mozart and Bach wouldn’t have a clue what any of this stuff means. This is a later conception - Reimann.

[Jonah]

I except of course that Mozart and Bach wouldn’t have a clue what any of this stuff means. This is a later conception - Reimann.

Well... for terminology of course they did not know this setup. But Rameau was already quite clse to it right?)))

But I do not think it is correct to say 'they would not have a clue'.

This system describes quite clearly how the form of their music is built.. and I am quite sure that they would easily catch it, firs of all because they heard it even if they did not conciously operate with these terms.

In practical sense you are right of course: they thought in counterpoint and movement (basically in high baroque it is '2-voices and feel free ti fill in').

But the biggest difference between 'Tom Greene baroque improvizing' and 'authentic baroque improvizing' is that 'Ted-style player' thinks and enjoys more playing from one note to another without much reference to the overall form (very jazzy way - 'it is nice now and it is ok')..

Real baroque improvizer always knows where he should arrive in a longer distance (even if he does not know - he will arrive there!).
The most interesting thing in classical music is how each composer arrives to these familiar points.... this is the most important tool for them.

Their smaller steps that seem so deceptively familiar and easy to grasp are a part of a bigger form. They heard it naturally.


That is why I think it is quite ok to study Bach today with Riemann system.. it will teach you to hear the most important thing in it. In some way it will compensate the lack of natural hearing for this form today.
c.

[ragman1]

It resembles a multileve tension system - like a universe.

Rubbish, Jonah! Are you on LSD?

I know they're functions. In A natural minor the Dm functions as the sub-dom because it's the 4 chord. The Em functions as the dom because it's the 5 chord. So what?

There's no difference between saying Dm functions as the sub-dom and saying it IS the sub-dom. Who cares?

You people are...!

[Jonah]

Rubbish, Jonah! Are you on LSD?

I know they're functions. In A natural minor the Dm functions as the sub-dom because it's the 4 chord. The Em functions as the dom because it's the 5 chord. So what?

There's no difference between saying Dm functions as the sub-dom and saying it IS the sub-dom. Who cares?

You people are...!

You are really heading into my ignore list like a rocket..
I think I have never seen anyone that would so persistently flood any thread.

[ragman1]

I don't care. It's nonsense.

Would anyone doubt that in C major the F is the the sub-dominant and the G7 the dominant? So why change it because we're dealing with any other scale or key?

[Jonah]

I don't care. It's nonsense.

Would anyone doubt that in C major the F is the the sub-dominant and the G7 the dominant? So why change it because we're dealing with any other scale or key?

You achieved the destination!

Bye!

[christianm77]

Well... for terminology of course they did not know this setup. But Rameau was already quite clse to it right?)))

But I do not think it is correct to say 'they would not have a clue'.

This system describes quite clearly how the form of their music is built.. and I am quite sure that they would easily catch it, firs of all because they heard it even if they did not conciously operate with these terms.

In practical sense you are right of course: they thought in counterpoint and movement (basically in high baroque it is '2-voices and feel free ti fill in').

But the biggest difference between 'Tom Greene baroque improvizing' and 'authentic baroque improvizing' is that 'Ted-style player' thinks and enjoys more playing from one note to another without much reference to the overall form (very jazzy way - 'it is nice now and it is ok')..

Real baroque improvizer always knows where he should arrive in a longer distance (even if he does not know - he will arrive there!).
The most interesting thing in classical music is how each composer arrives to these familiar points.... this is the most important tool for them.

Their smaller steps that seem so deceptively familiar and easy to grasp are a part of a bigger form. They heard it naturally.


That is why I think it is quite ok to study Bach today with Riemann system.. it will teach you to hear the most important thing in it. In some way it will compensate the lack of natural hearing for this form today.
c.

I don’t think Rameau was taken seriously by the professional composers of his era.

I think it would be rather like explaining the rules of grammar to someone who’s been speaking a language since early childhood given how young professional musicians started.

Anyway, most of my info is based on the scholarship of Gjerdingen, and I’m loathe to get into that again as you don’t take his ideas very seriously.

But, there are ‘licks’ in 18th century music - specific cases of which the fourth cycle is a famous one. It seems to me very likely given the speed with which music was written that composers would be working from an assembled practical knowledge of things that work well, rather than an overarching concept of chords and their functions.

Which is where I think it makes sense to talk about a division between music making and the study of music. The toolset required to compose a piece of music might be unsatisfying as a system of thought. The latter became more important post Rameau and a thing unto itself and I think the confusion between the two things is actually endemic in the jazz and pop education system...

To take a familiar example, I can construct bop lines using Barry Harris’s set of tools, and really not be aware of what note are being expressed over what chord. Someone could analyse my lines from the point of view of CST for instance, but that’s not how I put that stuff together.

Music theory might have zero to do with making thmusic.

[Jonah]

I don’t think Rameau was taken seriously by the professional composers of his era.

I think it would be rather like explaining the rules of grammar to someone who’s been speaking a language since early childhood given how young professional musicians started.

Anyway, most of my info is based on the scholarship of Gjerdingen, and I’m loathe to get into that again as you don’t take his ideas very seriously.

But, there are ‘licks’ in 18th century music - specific cases of which the fourth cycle is a famous one. It seems to me very likely given the speed with which music was written that composers would be working from an assembled practical knowledge of things that work well, rather than an overarching concept of chords and their functions.

Which is where I think it makes sense to talk about a division between music making and the study of music. The toolset required to compose a piece of music might be unsatisfying as a system of thought. The latter became more important post Rameau and a thing unto itself and I think the confusion between the two things is actually endemic in the jazz and pop education system...

To take a familiar example, I can construct bop lines using Barry Harris’s set of tools, and really not be aware of what note are being expressed over what chord. Someone could analyse my lines from the point of view of CST for instance, but that’s not how I put that stuff together.

Music theory might have zero to do with making thmusic.

I think that last really scrutinized theories were in Renaissance, in baroque and Venetian classic periods they were not interested much in therocizing.
Everything was extremely practical.

I recently read two books - one on the educational systen in Naples concervatories and another about Venetian ospedale ... both were top musical schools of Europw those days.

Everything was as practical as possible... somposing meant playing, playing meant composing.
The theory was on the instrument.
The most theoretic thing that was taught specifically was antic counterpoint and it was taught approxamately the same way as it was taught in late Renaissance.
It was considered out-of -date. But as Latin in grammar school it was the basis of any education and also was obligatory for composing some special genres (like lots of church music).

As for licks.
We discussed it already. I remember the book you refer to too. I also gave a link to Geminiani Art of Harmony book - which nothing but exquisitely elaborated set of 'partimenti'. (sort of harmonic labyrith)

My idea was just that when one gets invovlved much in that 'partimento' thing today there is some risk that he loses the concept of the form.

You see the differens between Barry Harris approach (I am into it now so I know what you mean I think - though not that much as you of course)... so the difference is that at the end of it all be-bop does not make complex musical forms. What Barry teaches is building a phrase right now, like an exclamation, like a momentary expression and then move on to the next momen of expression...
And this method fits jazz forms in general

It is not like that in baroque or classical music. You can learn to build up some idiomatic turnarounds with 'partimienti' in real musical texture.. but if you do not hear the form it makes no sense for that music.

The most important things are still T - S - D whether they called it that way or not, they understood the meaning of it as a part of artistic tools. Different tensions create different meanings.

You see the fact that they used a practical method to jazz does not put jazz standard on teh same level with Corelli consertos...

Yes they were professional music makers, and even entertainers.

But let's not forget whom they had to entertain... it is a different level.


You see behind the music there is something more than just construction... or how one constructed it.

There is meaning... theoretic tool for me is needed to approach to meaning.. to help to describe this way to meaning.

Not how practically they taught to compose music... but how music worked itself!

It is like saying that for amalyzing a sonet it is enough to count typical rhymes. But the real meaning wil be in relations of the stanzaz to the content and between each other... did the poets think about it? Maybe not.. but they definitely expressed themselves with it.

It would be rediculous to seriously dicuss partimenti in respect to Bach's WTK (or even to most of Handel's work).... it is just useless.

The same concerns Mozart.. we can find it there, but this is not what he composed.

but with the functional tool you can really make it a guide into the spiritual depths of this music.

Understanding of functional realtions within Don Giovanni can make one a better human being... really.

[christianm77]

I think that last really scrutinized theories were in Renaissance, in baroque and Venetian classic periods they were not interested much in therocizing.
Everything was extremely practical.

I recently read two books - one on the educational systen in Naples concervatories and another about Venetian ospedale ... both were top musical schools of Europw those days.

Everything was as practical as possible... somposing meant playing, playing meant composing.
The theory was on the instrument.
The most theoretic thing that was taught specifically was antic counterpoint and it was taught approxamately the same way as it was taught in late Renaissance.
It was considered out-of -date. But as Latin in grammar school it was the basis of any education and also was obligatory for composing some special genres (like lots of church music).

That’s how I understood it. Harmony is heavily rooted in realisation figured bass with contrapuntal strictures observed, but not true species counterpoint.

Improvisation and composition are almost the same thing.

As for licks.
We discussed it already. I remember the book you refer to too. I also gave a link to Geminiani Art of Harmony book - which nothing but exquisitely elaborated set of 'partimenti'. (sort of harmonic labyrith)

My idea was just that when one gets invovlved much in that 'partimento' thing today there is some risk that he loses the concept of the form.

You see the differens between Barry Harris approach (I am into it now so I know what you mean I think - though not that much as you of course)... so the difference is that at the end of it all be-bop does not make complex musical forms. What Barry teaches is building a phrase right now, like an exclamation, like a momentary expression and then move on to the next momen of expression...
And this method fits jazz forms in general

It is not like that in baroque or classical music. You can learn to build up some idiomatic turnarounds with 'partimienti' in real musical texture.. but if you do not hear the form it makes no sense for that music.

I think you took my comparison to be more specific than it was.

The general point is practical toolset vs higher level theory.

The most important things are still T - S - D whether they called it that way or not, they understood the meaning of it as a part of artistic tools. Different tensions create different meanings.

Can you prove this or is it more of an intuition?

You see the fact that they used a practical method to jazz does not put jazz standard on teh same level with Corelli consertos...

Jazz standards were written by and large by classically trained composers, not jazz musicians. An exception might be Gershwin....

Improvisation or composition of tunes on existing changes is a separate consideration. But of course composers from a jazz or popular idiom have always struggled with large scale forms. I couldn’t do it.

Yes they were professional music makers, and even entertainers.

But let's not forget whom they had to entertain... it is a different level.

The cultural requirements of the church and the landed elite?

Sure, that’s a specific brief though. Gotta be able to nail minuets and a mass settings.

Nowadays your brief is to write a piece that sounds like x but not enough to be actionable. It’s not thaaaat different. Most of the music of this era is pretty generic, even where we can acknowledge the mastery of the composers.

You see behind the music there is something more than just construction... or how one constructed it.

There is meaning... theoretic tool for me is needed to approach to meaning.. to help to describe this way to meaning.

Not how practically they taught to compose music... but how music worked itself!

It is like saying that for amalyzing a sonet it is enough to count typical rhymes. But the real meaning wil be in relations of the stanzaz to the content and between each other... did the poets think about it? Maybe not.. but they definitely expressed themselves with it.

It would be rediculous to seriously dicuss partimenti in respect to Bach's WTK (or even to most of Handel's work).... it is just useless.

Sure (although despite his nationality Handel is a good example of a composer with great ‘chops’ in that tradition (the Italian) - the native British composers didn’t have the chops to write that style of music and at that speed, and obviously his take on Italian opera was very successful...)

The same concerns Mozart.. we can find it there, but this is not what he composed.

but with the functional tool you can really make it a guide into the spiritual depths of this music.

Understanding of functional realtions within Don Giovanni can make one a better human being... really.

I’m willing to be open to this idea if you can show me the way lol

Mozart grew up in that courtly world but his later music - DG for instance - had no place within that tradition. I suppose that’s the reason people felt they had to understand what it was he was doing.

But yeah, really I’m talking about Pergolesi, Scarlatti, Vivaldi etc

This also doesn’t alter the fact that Bach would never have heard the term ‘subdominant function’ in his life.

[Jonah]

Jazz standards were written by and large by classically trained composers, not jazz musicians. An exception might be Gershwin...

I am not sure the education really matters...
the music speaks for itself.. take almost any Brahms, Schumann, Ives, Mahler, Mozart, Tchaikowski, Rakhmaninov song (almost any!) and compare the form with jazz standard's forms. You will see how much more flexible and complex the form of the classical songs (or lied) in comparison to jazz pop tunes which are much more connected with salon's simpler songs, romances, urban folk song etc.

Sure (although despite his nationality Handel is a good example of a composer with great ‘chops’ in that tradition (the Italian) - the native British composers didn’t have the chops to write that style of music and at that speed, and obviously his take on Italian opera was very successful...)

By the way.. Handel mostly composed everything in two voices... and his pupils filled it is and arranged.
His life in London is very exciting topic - and the war with Porpora! - who was by the way another example of this 2-voice composing master)))

Can you prove this or is it more of an intuition?

Only through analyzing music... you can choose a piece, baroque or Veniese classical... the one you are familiar with better...

Not to prove... I do not want to prove anything. Too tired for this...

I can show something maybe... to our mutual pleasure.

Choose any - we can make a thread in other styles... maybe we can discover something new through it

at a very slow pace... let it be the longest thread in the world ever ...

[Vladan]

Jazz guys usually appear to be of the consensus that the III in minor is more of a tonic and that the VI is a pre-dominant. However, more than a few times I’ve seen some classical type musicians say that the III is more of a dominant and that the VI is a tonic.

Can someone explain why I’m seeing different functions of these chords between jazz and classical guys?

I think someone went a long way to confuse you. It's all very basic and you probably already know all of it.

For clarity, let's use example of C major and A minor, 2 relative keys.

1. (b)III and iii, Dominant vs. Tonic
- Dominants are made on 5th scale degree.
In A min 5th degree is E. So, dominant should be some form of E chord. Natural minor scale will produce Emin chord. In roman numerals it would be "(small) v" Minors do not really sound like dominants. Therefore that E minor is turned into E major by rising the 3rd of the chord from G to G#. In roman numerals it is "(large) V" now.

- In C major E is third scale degree. Chord made on it is E minor, in roman numerals it is "iii"and it is one of substitutions for C major chord. If that E was Major chord, it would be "III".

So, there it is.
a. III of major is V (dominant) of relative minor.
b. iii of major is substitution for I (tonic) of that same major.
C. Additionally:
- Sometimes III(7) can substitute for iii(7). For example, iii VI ii V I can become III VI II V I.
So, with some stretching, if III is sub for iii, and iii is sub for I, then (you could say that) III is sub for I.
- Also, chord built on 3rd degree of minor is tonic in relative major. In A minor it would be C major chord. Only it would not be "III", but would be "bIII".


2.(b)VI and vi, Subdominant vs. Tonic
- 6th degree of C major is note A. Chord built on it is A minor, "vi".
Obviously, it is the tonic, "i" in A minor.
- Turn that "vi" into "VI". It is now A major. In chord progressions such as previously mentioned III VI II V I, or iii VI ii V I, you could say that "VI" is a a part of sequence that leads into, or prepares the dominant (V), therefore functioning as pre-dominant.

- 6th degree of A min scale is F. Chord built on it would be F major chord, "bVI".
In C major scale, F would be 4th degree, "IV".
"IV" is subdominant in major.

So, there it is:
a. "vi" of major is tonic in relative minor.
b. "VI" of major can serve as preparation for dominant
c. "bVI" of minor is "IV" (subdominant) in relative major.

[christianm77]

I am not sure the education really matters...
the music speaks for itself.. take almost any Brahms, Schumann, Ives, Mahler, Mozart, Tchaikowski, Rakhmaninov song (almost any!) and compare the form with jazz standard's forms. You will see how much more flexible and complex the form of the classical songs (or lied) in comparison to jazz pop tunes which are much more connected with salon's simpler songs, romances, urban folk song etc.

Sure. But the trained professional composer writes to a brief. Unless it’s Mahler or Ives and he’s really doing it for the art in which case - they’re an Amateur in the truest sense.

There’s a little sidebar to this - middle European composers who wrote late romantic style film
scores with themes later adapted to jazz standards... green dolphin street, Stella etc.

Those guys would have had no problem knocking out a string quartet, even if Richard Rogers might have never kept his chops together in that area.

But in life you end up finding a niche. Composers become known for popular songs may well have drawers full of ‘serious’ works that were overlooked. OTOH Schoenberg wrote Cabaret songs and I don’t think he hated it. Boulez had an early gig improvising film music on percussion with Maurice Jarre.... and so on....

It’s the same with jazz. There’s popular and ‘serious’ forms.

But in 17th/18th century, the niches for a working musician were fewer in number.

By the way.. Handel mostly composed everything in two voices... and his pupils filled it is and arranged.
His life in London is very exciting topic - and the war with Porpora! - who was by the way another example of this 2-voice composing master)))

Ha I did not know that. Must read up more on this stuff.

More like the Renaissance model of painting ... or John Williams and his orchestrators etc

Only through analyzing music... you can choose a piece, baroque or Veniese classical... the one you are familiar with better...

Not to prove... I do not want to prove anything. Too tired for this...

I can show something maybe... to our mutual pleasure.

Choose any - we can make a thread in other styles... maybe we can discover something new through it

at a very slow pace... let it be the longest thread in the world ever ...

Wasn’t an attempt to ‘win’ an argument, just interested to know if anything is discussed the contemporary writings.

But also interested to know your own thoughts. Let’s do it.

[Jonah]

But also interested to know your own thoughts. Let’s do it.

Great... feel free to choose one.

Or I can of course but I am afraid if you are not familiar with the piece you wont have time to get into it really..
and I believe it will be easier for me to get into the one you choose..

As I suggested.. no hurry.. no obligations... just fun.

[christianm77]

Great... feel free to choose one.

Or I can of course but I am afraid if you are not familiar with the piece you wont have time to get into it really..
and I believe it will be easier for me to get into the one you choose..

As I suggested.. no hurry.. no obligations... just fun.

I’ll have a think. It’s been a while since I looked into any Bach/Mozart etc in detail. What sort of works are you thinking of? I am most familiar with vocal music.

[Jonah]

I’ll have a think. It’s been a while since I looked into any Bach/Mozart etc in detail. What sort of works are you thinking of? I am most familiar with vocal music.

Great.. anything from cantatas or passions will work!

[Jonah]

Or maybe concertos from baroque - soemthing from Coreeli, Handel, Vivaldi.. it helps to show how differently they interpret the form

[christianm77]

Great.. anything from cantatas or passions will work!

Cool St John is my jam. Met the wife singing that:

[emanresu]

I was taught classical harmony only for 4 years. Pretty much all of this was based on those 3 famous guys in Vienna + a few more. We were hinted that the rules will get bent and sometimes broken later on, but as far as we knew back then - T S D was the holy thing and the established key was even holier. Key could be either minor or major, there may be alterations(temporary modulation) to another key for a wee bit (where the old key remained the boss still) or a hard modulation (all the T S D relations were changed to the new one). There was never a doubt where was the dominant function ... and the other way around, dominant chords were always acting as tension, wanting to solve to tonic (the main key, temporary or modulation).

Later the rules got.. well, loosened up a lot. So that's why I have issue with "some classical guys say". Because... there is this golden era of the style. Later we get all kinds of folksy stuff sneaking in. The scale for a "classical guy's piece" could be Dorian.. or Lydian? But that meant being in subdominant earlier!

Ok, about jazz. Say we've got one simple blues. A7 D7 A7 A7.... etc. This A7 - is it even a dominant as function? In classical music (the pure old Vienna kind) A7 is always dominant in the key of D (either major or minor(edit:eep, forgot the double dominant))... But as in blues - we think the key is A-... Mixolydian. So, the dominant function is not even working the same way as in classical harmony. Only the last E7 seems like a legit dominant.
Or the popular circle of V7 chords in B-parts. Each for 2 bars - we sit on them, enjoying the hell out of each of those 2 bars - but it feels also as the key is the 1st degree of the current V7, not the where this "dominant chord is supposed to go". Hence also, this doesn't feel properly dominant as function like in classical "mode"

[christianm77]

I was taught classical harmony only for 4 years. Pretty much all of this was based on those 3 famous guys in Vienna + a few more. We were hinted that the rules will get bent and sometimes broken later on, but as far as we knew back then - T S D was the holy thing and the established key was even holier. Key could be either minor or major, there may be alterations(temporary modulation) to another key for a wee bit (where the old key remained the boss still) or a hard modulation (all the T S D relations were changed to the new one). There was never a doubt where was the dominant function ... and the other way around, dominant chords were always acting as tension, wanting to solve to tonic (the main key, temporary or modulation).

Of course, that's the present day pedagogy. That said, I wouldn't be surprised to see partimenti becoming a bit of a 'thing' as these things do.

OTOH, I suppose the aim is also to place common practice harmony in a wider historical context, and relate it to future developments in music, rather than equip waifs and strays with the ability to write generic but well written music to spec at the same speed that we might copy out the parts.

Later the rules got.. well, loosened up a lot. So that's why I have issue with "some classical guys say". Because... there is this golden era of the style. Later we get all kinds of folksy stuff sneaking in. The scale for a "classical guy's piece" could be Dorian.. or Lydian? But that meant being in subdominant earlier!

Sometimes Rick Beato talks about classical music in CST terms. It's interesting. I think he had some formal composition training?

Ok, about jazz. Say we've got one simple blues. A7 D7 A7 A7.... etc. This A7 - is it even a dominant as function? In classical music (the pure old Vienna kind) A7 is always dominant in the key of D (either major or minor(edit:eep, forgot the double dominant))... But as in blues - we think the key is A-... Mixolydian. So, the dominant function is not even working the same way as in classical harmony. Only the last E7 seems like a legit dominant.


Or the popular circle of V7 chords in B-parts. Each for 2 bars - we sit on them, enjoying the hell out of each of those 2 bars - but it feels also as the key is the 1st degree of the current V7, not the where this "dominant chord is supposed to go". Hence also, this doesn't feel properly dominant as function like in classical "mode"

I think Conrad Cork put it quite well - to think a dominant seventh chord in jazz is the same as it is classical, is to mistake the German word 'mist' for the same sound in English. Same sound, profoundly different meaning.

But.... As German and English are related languages, there are obviously some similarities and links, and material and ideas from classical music can sometimes be used in jazz. I usually find it quite interesting, albeit alien to try and understand things from a classical perspective. That second answer in the quora link took me a while to get my head around, but I always feel I learn something from it....

[christianm77]

I will add that taking these basic partimento regole and getting students to make up music with them is a terrific way of getting classical musicians to start improvising. I think the popular idea that improvisation = jazz is a big problem here.

I introduced my friend who is an (!) instructor at a conservatoire, and he had some fun with this. I think most classical students are never taught that figured bass is a tool for making music, just see it as a dry question on a theory paper, let alone the idea of having rules of thumb to flesh out the harmony of musical sketches...

You know, a lot of young composition students aren't doing counterpoint any more....

OTOH improvisation - both free and more in specific historical styles like Jonah's friend - seems to becoming more common in the classical world. This is surely a Good Thing.

[Jonah]

Cool St John is my jam. Met the wife singing that:

You choose? Or I can offer? I have St. John score in my pocket now)))
The record I prefer by the way is Kuijken's...

Wasn’t an attempt to ‘win’ an argument, just interested to know if anything is discussed the contemporary writings.

You know in some sense I grew up in these things... and many of them are natural for me like native language.
Of course when I began to study early music I adjusted a lot in my approach... but still some basec things are the same.
I would not overestimate local educational tradition for music.. it is too academic, stubborn and conservative. But I was lucky to meet great personalities as a kid who were not only good taeachers but also direct inheritors of the great romantic tradition (not post-war soviet school). You know people who could remember Prokofiev and so on... for them the understanding of many such things was very natural and that made me feel that way too.. I never studied anything from harmony by the book actaully. Only from music.
To study harmony all you needed: all Klavier works by Bach, complete Mozart sonatas, complete Beethoveen sonatas. This is the school they taught. My harmony teacher played any place from these to illustrate something right on the spot from memory. I lived in it. The world od this music was more real than actual world)))
It is just to explain why sometimes it is easier for me to explain my opinion than to look for authoritive sources (by the way I always prefer the same thing in dicussion from the others. As Mandelstam said: 'I do not believe in athoritive references, I believe in conceivable way of proof or passionate appeal of conviction.'

[ragman1]

Well, now that the two lovers have had a good walk round the classical garden, let's get back to the subject. I suspect the OP has disappeared because no one knows what they're talking about and can't answer the question.

This seems to be his definitive statement.

Let me clarify for everyone. I had two basic questions or topics of conversation relating to chord function. Both of these questions are about triads built from the Aeolian, natural minor scale. No modal mixture, accidentals, or even 7ths or other extensions. Just plain natural minor, Aeolian triads, and how to look at their functions.

1) Why do some classical theorists say that the III triad in minor (bIII, as in C major in the key of A minor) can serve as a dominant type chord, but jazz guys more often than not consider it a tonic? Emphasis on the classical theory dominant thing, since I already understand perfectly why jazz guys look at it as a tonic type triad (because it has two notes in common with the A minor tonic, and it is often used as a place to modulate to, at least temporarily, since it's the relative major. I understand this perfectly). The C major triad's supposed dominant function in the key of A minor is what I'm curious about.

2) Why is the VI triad in minor (bVI, as in F major in the key of A minor) looked at as a pre-dominant in jazz, but a tonic in classical? Emphasis on the jazz theory pre-dominant thing, since I already understand why classical guys would look at it as a tonic type triad (because it simply has two common tones with the A minor tonic).

As a bonus, I read in at least two places where someone said something like "the bVI chord is a tritone away from the ii chord so it's looked at as a pre-dominant". There was even mention of a tritone substitution, I think. I'm not sure I get what they were on about.

2nd bonus: if the III (bIII) chord can be looked at as a dominant, what is it a dominant of? The tonic chord? Or the VI (bVI)? I need to read that Quora page that someone linked I guess. The first reply up top says it's a tonic, and the 2nd guy below says it's a dominant. I'll read the 2nd guy's explanation.

So:

Why do some classical theorists say that the III triad in minor (bIII, as in C major in the key of A minor) can serve as a dominant type chord

The short answer to that is: why not ask them? Who says this? It's they to whom we should be addressing the question.

Presumably, since the function of the dominant is to precede the tonic and the dominant is the v, it is not the III. So I don't understand the question.

but jazz guys more often than not consider it a tonic

In natural minor the tonic is the i chord so it evidently isn't the III chord. I have no idea why it's 'considered the tonic' when it isn't.

Why is the VI triad in minor (bVI, as in F major in the key of A minor) looked at as a pre-dominant in jazz

In natural minor the pre-dominant is the iv chord. The iv chord is not the VI chord so I don't understand the question.

I already understand why classical guys would look at it as a tonic type triad

I don't, because the tonic in natural minor is a minor chord.

I'm not sure I get what they were on about

Me neither.

Anyway, I'm glad that's out the way. I expect to be told I don't understand. Quite right, I don't :-)

[ragman1]

Incidently, I was told by Jonah that I was 'persistently flooding the thread'.

This is the league table of posts so far:

christian - 23
ragman - 13
Jonah - 11
thared33 - 9
jazzstdnt - 7
emanresu - 3
mattguitarteacher - 1
vladan - 1

So, while it's true that I'm certainly up there, the OP, christian and myself were there from the beginning. Jonah, of course, didn't arrive till #50 (out of 73).

So, all in all, he hasn't done too badly. I think what he means is that he doesn't like being disagreed with.

rant over, sorry :-)

[emanresu]

Why do some classical theorists say that the III triad in minor (bIII, as in C major in the key of A minor) can serve as a dominant type chord

The short answer to that is: why not ask them? Who says this? It's they to whom we should be addressing the question.

Gosh, from my old harmony classes, only now I remember that at few times when the functions/triads were explained, the teach mentioned that the triad built from III was closer to dominant function than to tonic. I think this was for both - in major and minor keys but not completely sure. But not a clear solid dominant... rather a "mixture".

When trying it out right now, playing G#m -> E with the note D# solving to E half step above, it does sound somewhat "dominanty".

Playing G -> Em, it feels less so, but I can feel the G wanting to go home to E.

Anyway, it seems I am unable for useful theoretical input. Just responded to Ragman. The harmony lessons were actually superbly annoying for 20-yearolds