Secondary Dominants built using the non-diatonic tones

[Question]

This is NOT a harmony or theory lesson! Just an observation.

Although I learned what secondary dominants are and how they function decades ago with my first teacher; I recently noticed a simple construction fact that I have never thought about.

I don't really know if this will be any use to anyone (including myself) but it is just one of those magical math things that so often occurs in our western 12-tone musical system.

I am sure that our resident theory-geeks/academics will weigh in and tell me that the Pope or a Monk wrote a treatise on this in the 11th century, but maybe it is new to someone here, so take it as it is or just simply ignore it.


Most everyone knows this stuff; I just found it interesting that the five chromatic notes in a major scale are needed to build the 5 main secondary dominant chords in a major key, that's it. No need to tell me that I can use this or that sub or alter the dominant etc..I know.


It is basically this:

By using each of the non-diatonic tones of a major scale individually, it allows you to build a dominant chord for five of the diatonic chords in a major key (omitting the 7th degree half-diminished, which can't very effectively be proceeded by a dominant if the half-dim was considered to be the final resolution).
Of course I am also omitting the V7, which occurs diatonically in the key

I am aware that technically the term "secondary dominant" in some systems is often reserved for strict dominant to dominant relationships, so call it whatever suits you.

[pamosmusic]

I like the dominant going to half diminished.

a la Stella by Starlight

There are all these weird diminished relationships that can make it make sense … F#7 to Bm7(b5) … C7 to Fmaj7 which is a sub for Bm7b5 … A7 to Dm6 etc. But I just think it sounds good. Weird fun voice leading.

Speaking of this diminished stuff, you’re more likely to get Barry Harris comparisons here than the monks.

[pcjazz]

I like the dominant going to half diminished.
…
Speaking of this diminished stuff, you’re more likely to get Barry Harris comparisons here than the monks.

Since the half-diminished is an inversion of the minor sixth, it can be the resolution target of a dominant, especially an altered dominant. More Monk than monks.

[Question]

Peter,

yes it is true about the half-dim in the cycle context of Stella being proceeded by a dominant, I am thinking more of landing on a more stable resolving type of chord in the classical sense.

I can't think of any tune whose main "Tonic" is a half-dim chord.

"Inner Urge" kind of starts there, but I think that you get my point.

If you wanted to use my funny concept to create a F#7 to get to the diatonic Bmin7b5 you would have to add the F#,C# and A#.

I am not trying to create "Barry Harris the sequel", I just found it a bit of a coincidence that adding each non-diatonic tone resulted in each of the 5 secondary dominants, and that four of the added tones were the leading tone to its resolution. i.e. adding C# for the A7 resolves to D etc.

[pamosmusic]

Since the half-diminished is an inversion of the minor sixth, it can be the resolution target of a dominant, especially an altered dominant. More Monk than monks.

As I was typing it I was like … there’s a pun here, but I can’t think of it right now

[pamosmusic]

Peter,

yes it is true about the half-dim in the cycle context of Stella being proceeded by a dominant, I am thinking more of landing on a more stable resolving type of chord in the classical sense.

I can't think of any tune whose main "Tonic" is a half-dim chord.

Sure but you’re talking about “secondary dominants” which would imply not necessarily stable resolving points, right?

Just thought it bore mentioning in that context

And like pc mentioned, it is the same notes as tonic minor in another context. So I never quite understood the “no temporary tonicization of the diminished” thing

[Christian Miller]

Yep, the secondary leading tone ... If you use a diminished chord instead ('the leading tone diminished'), it's the same type of thing.

People don't teach this? I'm always kind of baffled at the stuff people don't think to mention.

TBF I've met people with jazz degrees from top colleges who were never taught that Cmaj7 A7 Dm7 is kind of the same thing as Cmaj7 C#o7 Dm7, which I would have thought is quite a helpful thing to know when reading through the ole Real Book.

I mean I did learn about this stuff in a classical theory book, so maybe not.

BTW, this is what happens in many jazz bass lines. You play the lower chromatic neighbour on the beat before the next root. It's just the chordal version of that.

I do wonder if it falls under the category of "stuff that's so obvious to pianists that they never think to mention in it in theory books but might not be obvious to guitar players"?

[Christian Miller]

Sure but you’re talking about “secondary dominants” which would imply not necessarily stable resolving points, right?

Just thought it bore mentioning in that context

And like pc mentioned, it is the same notes as tonic minor in another context. So I never quite understood the “no temporary tonicization of the diminished” thing

Woody'n'You

I think I hear at as a sort of tonic. I don't play it like that though because ... I don't do half diminished chords lol.

[Tal_175]

I am not trying to create "Barry Harris the sequel", I just found it a bit of a coincidence that adding each non-diatonic tone resulted in each of the 5 secondary dominants, and that four of the added tones were the leading tone to its resolution. i.e. adding C# for the A7 resolves to D etc.

It's not that surprising if you think of each of the chromatic note as the leading note of next note (which becomes the target of the secondary dominant). So if you superimpose a major scale over a chromatic scale, you'll have alternating notes of the scale and leading notes. In some cases leading note will be in the scale (B and E in the case of major scale). The only exception, as you say, is the leading note of the 7th, (Bb). We can perhaps call that a bit of a coincidence that this to also is part of a secondary dominant but not as a leading note (but as the 7th of C7).

[Question]

Christian,

I think I possibly didn't explain myself clearly enough.

I have known this stuff inside and out for decades and also studied it in classical harmony.

This is not a theory or harmony lesson, I just found it interesting that the non-diatonic tones automatically create the main 5 secondary dominants in a major key.

There is nothing really to be learned here that pretty much everyone doesn't already know about secondary dominants,
I just never looked at it from this perspective.

[Christian Miller]

Christian,

I think I possibly didn't explain myself clearly enough.

I have known this stuff inside and out for decades and also studied it in classical harmony.

This is not a theory or harmony lesson, I just found it interesting that the non-diatonic tones automatically create the main 5 secondary dominants in a major key.

There is nothing really to be learned here that pretty much everyone doesn't already know about secondary dominants,
I just never looked at it from this perspective.

Alrighty

Mi fa est tota musica (JS Bach)

Mi and fa was used to solfege the semitone in the old system. So ‘music is all about the semitones.’

Imagine having a name that contains two semitones. No wonder Bach was an egomaniac.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[wolflen]

When I first discovered this type of stuff-The Major/Chromatic scale are related and that the omit notes of the
major scale are a pentatonic scale that can be altered dominated related chord tones i began seeing/hearing them everywhere.

The "outside" sound just one note away from inside...and using these tones as upper partials of extended altered chords
opened up new ways to improvise over basic progressions and make them feel "cool"

Then chords/scales Lydian dom/Dim and whole tone scales now had a reason to exist and were part of the team
and could find there way into being secondary doms even if they are very "crunchy" due to voicings/inversions

And yes this approach on basic standards may have a drastic effect..but may be very welcome in a Wayne Shorter point of view.

[Question]

@Wolflen,

yes I am well aware that the non-diatonic notes in C major are the "altered tones"in C (F#pentatonic)

But I am actually talking about something different and much simpler.

Adding just the C# to the diatonic Amin7 makes it a V of ii or A7
Adding just the D# to the diatonic Bmin7 makes it a V of iii or B7
Adding the.............Etc.

As I wrote, I know this stuff in and out, it just never occurred to me that each of the five secondary dominants are built by just adding one of the five non-diatonic tones to the diatonic chords.

I don't know if there is any value in knowing that fact, I just thought it was interesting and have somehow never thought about this chord construction.

In my chart I am just illustrating the chord construction, not any kind of function beyond their simple secondary dominant use.

Maybe I am the only one who finds this interesting, kind of like how sausages are made.
After eating sausages my whole life, one day I realize that they are made from pig snouts and say "that is interesting".

[Christian Miller]

I'm not sure what kind of response you want?

[Question]

Hi Christian,

actually I am not looking for any particular kind of response.

I tried to delete this thread, realizing that it has little educational value and is more about my own curiosity about this construction, but was unable to do so.

[Mick-7]

You're borrowing the notes of the leading tone major scale, B major in this case, to form dominant chords, which also provides the V7 of VII, which you omitted.

[Tal_175]

@Wolflen,

yes I am well aware that the non-diatonic notes in C major are the "altered tones"in C (F#pentatonic)

But I am actually talking about something different and much simpler.

Adding just the C# to the diatonic Amin7 makes it a V of ii or A7
Adding just the D# to the diatonic Bmin7 makes it a V of iii or B7
Adding the.............Etc.

As I wrote, I know this stuff in and out, it just never occurred to me that each of the five secondary dominants are built by just adding one of the five non-diatonic tones to the diatonic chords.

Yes, but I think what some of us are saying is, if you think of these added notes as the leading notes to targets instead of the thirds of the secondary dominants, the relationship becomes a lot less mysterious and coincidental without that extra step in thinking. For example, instead of seeing C# as the note that makes Amin7, the V of D minor, you can see it as the leading note of D minor. Then the chromatic notes become just leading notes of the next note of the scale.

[Mick-7]

Yes, but I think what some of us are saying is, if you think of these added notes as the leading notes to targets instead of the third of the secondary dominant, the relationship becomes a lot less mysterious and coincidental. For example, instead of seeing C# as the note that makes Amin7, the V of D minor, you can see it as the leading note of D minor. Then the chromatic notes become just leading notes of the next note of the scale.

Yes, as I said, the leading tone major scale provides the leading tones of all the chords in the tonic scale, e.g., B major scale for the tonic C major scale. It can be a shortcut for finding all the related dominant chords and altered chords on the fretboard.

[Question]

Thanks for the responses and explanations.

It is interesting that many people have their own way of understanding this same simple concept and how many perspectives the same end material can have.

I know this sounds absurd, but I know all of the concepts discussed and have used them for decades.

I was not thinking about what to do with this material, I just was surprised that after knowing this stuff so well that I never realized how obvious its construction was.

I tried to delete this thread because it has little educational value, but thought that if this idea never occurred to me, maybe someone else might also laugh at their own same obvious blind spot.

It was all abut the construction, not the utilization or how to conceptualize this end material, and as other posters have shown, many other concepts lead to the same end result.


Sorry for repeating myself!

[Christian Miller]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Question]

Hi Christian,

thanks for the video.

I think we are talking past one another.

I know how secondary dominants work and fully understand everything he demonstrated. This is the way that I learned it in classical harmony in college.

One day I simply realized that something that I know so well had such an obvious construction perspective that had never occurred to me. That's it!

That the 5 non-diatonic tones of a major scale are responsible for the five secondary dominants in the key.

It is so obvious I had to laugh that I never thought of it in that simple way.

I really would like to erase this thread as it seems that it was interpreted that I just discovered secondary dominants.

I appreciate your explanation and I thought the video was a very creative use of these tools.

[Christian Miller]

Hi Christian,

thanks for the video.

I think we are talking past one another.

I know how secondary dominants work and fully understand everything he demonstrated. This is the way that I learned it in classical harmony in college.

One day I simply realized that something that I know so well had such an obvious construction perspective that had never occurred to me. That's it!

That the 5 non-diatonic tones of a major scale are responsible for the five secondary dominants in the key.

It is so obvious I had to laugh that I never thought of it in that simple way.

I really would like to erase this thread as it seems that it was interpreted that I just discovered secondary dominants.

That’s not what I think you’re saying.

I think you’ve unlocked a different perspective. What I would say is that with this realisation you appear to approaching a more melodic contrapuntal understanding of harmony, which for me has been an ongoing journey for a few years and has taken me from C18 stuff back into modern jazz. And most importantly, ABBA. But you said you didn't want references to Popes and Monks, so ;-)

Because of that I would say that secondary dominants are a manifestation of secondary leading tones in voice leading, not vice versa. It's the C# that makes it A7, not the A7 that makes it C#, if that makes sense. It might seem like a simple or laughably obvious thing, but actually I think it does represent a fundamentally different way to think. (But as I say - bass players do this every day.)

In jazz this is more obvious in the music of the late 60s and through the 70s because they started writing specific bass lines more (Steve Swallow, Metheny, Jarrett etc etc) while in bop the chords were conceptualised more in root position. The 6 b5 and #4 2 chords become much more prevalent. Brazilian music too. And rock/pop musicians were hip to this stuff too - maybe more on an intuitive level. Take Blackbird, for example, as a study in this type of thing.

And ABBA has perhaps the most obvious and iconic #4 2 chord used as a secondary dominant in recent music history, and the chromatic note (#4) is in the melody, which drives the whole thing.... but what can I say, I'm a Eurovision fan.

While in the second gen bop era it was more (but not entirely) crazy paving II V’s and cut’n’paste bop vocabulary. Things tend to be at least written more in root position. So you can be a strong hard bop style player without really thinking in these terms I think, especially on guitar which is naturally suited to chromatic transposition. This is what I see in players like Wes.

It’s also the type of thing you are very much on the lookout for if you are realising unfigured basses, as opposed to reading chord symbols or figures, which I think is a great exercise for any practical harmonist, jazz or classical.

Harmony is a fairy tale told about counterpoint and all that.

I appreciate your explanation and I thought the video was a very creative use of these tools.

It’s not my video. I wish it were haha

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Question]

Hi Christian,

yes I was aware that it wasn't your video! Still very good an well explained.

Yes I also see the secondary dominants in much more of a melodic or contrapuntal and less static way.

When I started studying I quickly became aware that the music outside of the classical world that also interested me was much less root position harmony oriented and leaned towards a more voice-led approach.

Listening to the 70's English art rock bands like Genesis, Yes, and King Crimson made me see that learning all of that stuffy classical harmony had its application in the music that I was more likely to be involved in.

Then hearing people like Ralph Towner, Joni Mitchell and the jazz guys writing those non-root position tunes like Steve Swallow, Metheny, Toninho Horta, Egberto Gismonti etc., really opened my ears to other non-standard non-root position concepts.

So yes exploring these things is also a lifelong interest and tool for me, but once again the chart that I posted above is purely about construction and was not intended to indicate any possible applications.

[Christian Miller]

Hi Christian,

yes I was aware that it wasn't your video! Still very good an well explained.

Yes I also see the secondary dominants in much more of a melodic or contrapuntal and less static way.

When I started studying I quickly became aware that the music outside of the classical world that also interested me was much less root position harmony oriented and leaned towards a more voice-led approach.

Listening to the 70's English art rock bands like Genesis, Yes, and King Crimson made me see that learning all of that stuffy classical harmony had its application in the music that I was more likely to be involved in.

Then hearing people like Ralph Towner, Joni Mitchell and the jazz guys writing those non-root position tunes like Steve Swallow, Metheny etc., really opened my ears to other non-standard non-root position concepts.

So yes exploring these things is also a lifelong interest and tool for me, but once again the chart that I posted above is purely about construction and was not intended to indicate any possible applications.

Sorry I think you replied before my edit, but I think it's reasonable to say this type of thing was everywhere in the 70s.

Which reminds me of this

Faure was Nadia Boulanger's teacher, who was Quincy Jones's teacher. And inversions become such an integral part of the 80s pop sound too. I just saw a video on the 4/2 chord in 80s pop the other day on Jeff Schneider's channel.

[pamosmusic]

Congrats on ABBA’s first appearance on the forum?