Minor IV chord?

[JonnyPac]

Here's my logic why there is no true "minor IV chord" in music (aka iv, IVm, etc.)

In the key of C MAJOR there are no sharps and flats. If the progression goes to Fm in any way (C C7 F Fm C, etc), we need to look at the key signature alterations to do so.

If it were truly a IVm chord it would consist of simply lowering the A natural to Ab, right? Not quite! The B natural then sounds pretty funny. Dig this oddball scale: F G Ab B (natural!) C D E F... No good, most players and listeners don't hear it that way.

Next stop, flatten the B to Bb. Nice! F Melodic Minor: F G Ab Bb C D E. That's pretty sweet and it explains subs like Bb7+11 in it's place. For example C F Fm B7 C. Or Simply C Bb7 C. Common enough in jazz and some pop.

What about those Beatles songs that clearly have an Fm7, not an FmMAJ7?? One more flat: Eb not E natural. The result is F Dorian, the ii chord of the parallel minor key of Eb (aka Cm). Three flats in the key signature no matter how you look at it. This sounds great to most listeners who are not hip with Minor Major 7th chords.

BOOM! So 50% of the time it is a Melodic minor tonic up a 4th from the main tonal center; and the rest of the time it is the ii chord from a key up one step and a half. Listen for the 7th!

Two very nice choices of chord-scale. Easy to solo over/compose, etc.

************************************************

[Flyin' Brian]

Sleepwalk I-vi-iv-V. Yes it's sort of used as a half diminished ii but it's written iv

[bako]

Very well presented.

I like to choose note collections on the basis of similarities and differences with the preceding and following harmonies.
Sometimes the short term view is fine and other times I want to frame my actions in the context of the full song context.

The progression C C7 F Fm C is already establishing the Bb note in the C7 and so pulls towards it's continued use.

In a simpler context of C FmMa7 C I can hear B as freely as Bb

C Harmonic Major IV FGAbBCDEF

C Fm7 C can also be

C Harmonic Minor IV FGAbBCDEbF

C Fm7 Dbma7 Bbm7 C

Ab Major VI FGAbBbCDbEbF

C Fm7 Dbma7 Ebm6 Fm7 G7+ C

Db Major III FGbAbBbCDbEbF

This one was harder to get back home so I linked the Eb from Ebm6 to Fm7 G7b13 before my ear would accept the return to E.

C Harmonic Minor V GAbBCDEbFG can cover the G7b13

JonnyPac provided an explanation of the 2 most widely used choices addressing the IV minor (aka F mel min I and F Dorian)
There is considerable wisdom in leaning that which will yield the broadest application first.
What I am aiming to add here is that there isn't any one solution that will fit every situation.
Keep listening and experimenting.

[JonnyPac]

Yeah, I tend to play it safe with harmony. I usually just use "high probability" chord-scales. Meaning that they have a high probability of fitting the tune (composer's intentions) and the other preexisting/improvised parts that are present in a performance. There are countless was to build upon ideas. Thanks for sharing!

[M-ster]

Dig this oddball scale: F G Ab B (natural!) C D E F... No good, most players and listeners don't hear it that way.

That "oddball scale" is just C harmonic major from the 4th degree. Not all that odd, really.

But, I tend to go along with much of your assertion. However, I don't discard the iv minor, entirely. If the key hasn't changed (if, given your example, you're still in C) then it's just a modal interchange, and it is indeed iv, for analytical purposes (IMHO).

[JonnyPac]

I'm not a big harmonic major guy; personal preference perhaps. I really can't hear it in music easily.

Calling it a minor iv is fine enough for getting by, or a "minor plagal cadence", but I think it gets modally confusing for folks with fairly conservative ears.

BTW, what's your definition of modal interchange? It gets tossed around so much. Perhaps start a thread or add a link to one in the forum archives.

[fep]

Here's my logic why there is no true "minor IV chord" in music (aka iv, IVm, etc.)

To me you're overcomplicating things.

The IVm is so common and it's in all our ears...

Oh (C) give me a (C7) home

Where the (F) buffallo (Fm) roam

and the (C) clouds are not cloudy all (G7) day


You can call it modal interchange and talk about melodic minor etc. if you want to sound so sophisticated...

But to me it's just adding the line (C Bb A Ab G) to a I IV I, and it's extremely common. And to my ear it never leaves the key of C.

[JonnyPac]

To me you're overcomplicating things.

The IVm is so common and it's in all our ears...

Oh (C) give me a (C7) home

Where the (F) buffallo (Fm) roam

and the (C) clouds are not cloudy all (G7) day


You can call it modal interchange and talk about melodic minor etc. if you want to sound so sophisticated...

But to me it's just adding the line (C Bb A Ab G) to a I IV I, and it's extremely common. And to my ear it never leaves the key of C.

I think we're on the same page, in fact. I'm just saying to use Ab Bb and E or Eb. It's easy, just like you said.

[JonnyPac]

MODAL INTERCHANGE
Modal Interchange - Altered Chords
This really borders on my definitions of Substitution vs. Reharmonization.

[ksjazzguitar]

Here's my logic why there is no true "minor IV chord" in music ...

You build a interesting argument, but I am still not convinced. It is that those changes are relative to the key of C that make it an interesting chord to the ear. The fact that there are scale changes that need to be made too are nothing new - we do that for secondary dominants all the time. But it is the relationship to the parent key (as well as it's target) that makes it interesting. I'm not sure that we can just judge if it belongs with the key based on key signature.

Whether or not we choose to call the iv an altered chord in C or a borrowed chord from another key is just semantics. By definition, any non-diatonic chord will have alterations, as will it's associated scale to accommodate the chord and to avoid awkward intervals (sometimes with more than one option, like m7 or M7) - I'm not sure that the means that we have to define it as not "true." N6 and A6 chords also can have drastic scale changes.

Of course, there is some subjectivity. It's like the argument about where is the line between tonicization and modulation. Sometimes it is clear, sometimes it's not. But for me, the iv is such a ubiquitous chord that it can be thought of as a potential chord in the key, and not some esoteric harmonic construction.

Just my opinion. But you make an interesting argument.

Peace,
Kevin

[JonnyPac]

I hear ya Kevin, I'm just being strict with the diatonic system. I think "borrowed chords" still pull towards the tonic chord (or key) within a few measures tops, whereas a full modulation is happy to stay where it it is in the new tonic key.

The Doors song "Touch Me" I thinks it's called starts in G on the ii chord vamp, modulates to Bb, and then modulates to Db. The Chorus is in Db. Without modulating back in any way when the song hits the Am vamp again, it is not very smooth sounding. It was truly in the key of Db by the end of the form, and going back to G (a tritone away!) was not well prepared. Still a great classic rock song though.

Giant Steps modulates. Home on the Range uses related keys and chords. Just because some keys/chords are related, they should not be considered diatonic.

Diatonic as defined and as I hear it:

(1) in ancient greek music, adjective describing a tetrachord with two whole tones and one semitone. (2) name for a scale that includes five whole tones and two semitones, where the semitones are separated by two or three whole tones. (3) adjective describing a melody, chord, or passage based exclusively on a single diatonic scale.

[M-ster]

MODAL INTERCHANGE
Modal Interchange - Altered Chords
This really borders on my definitions of Substitution vs. Reharmonization.

Actually, at the bottom of the web page you reference, the author addresses your IV vs. iv chord and calls it "modal interchange," as I did (see discussion under "2) Substitutes for IV maj7").

But, I'm not so ardent a debater to want to argue the meanings to their most infinitesimal. At some point, we are overcomplicating things, as fep notes.

However, I will say that, for me, it's only a substitution or reharmonization if you're replacing the original harmony with your iv minor. If iv minor was the original harmonization, then it's neither substitution or reharm'.

[fep]

Hey M and Johnny,

I once had a teacher whose tendency was to explain things in a folksy way that I really appreciated. The good thing about it for me was the simple way helped my ear understand.

He had a wonderful way of simplifying things

He'd say you take something like this:


Uploaded with ImageShack.us

And maybe you know some fancy chords for that:


Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Then he'd say, "So how about "filling in the cracks", you don't even need to know the name of the chords to do this"



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

His folksy way of teaching made things seem pretty simple.

[timscarey]

I understand what you are saying but if you're not going to call it a "minor four" chord, what are you going to call it?

What are you going to call an Abmaj chord in the key of C if not a "Flat 6 Major"? (Blackbird).

Are you suggesting that we start saying "the one chord in F melodic minor" or "the two chord in Eb"?

I feel ya in terms of the chord/scale relationships, but I don't understand how it's any less of a "four minor" I mean, is it not the fact that the chord is located in that part of the key that suggests melodic minor in the first place?

i.e. "four minor likes the melodic minor scale"

it's not as if you couldn't play F aeolean for the duration of the chord.

[JakeAcci]

It's definitely iv minor, not borrowed ii from the key of the bIII.

If, in C, we went C, C7, F, Fm7 Bb7 Eb then it could be a bit of a pivot chord, but in the case of C C7 F Fm C I agree with those who say the iv is common enough that it's easy vocabulary to just say "four minor." It has a very specific sound that I really think should be recognized as a IV chord with a flatted third. It's not tonicized, and there is no modulation. Four! ::swing::

It's borrowed from the minor key, so I vote 'modal interchange,' but I think it's simpler (and less fancy sounding!) to just say that if we're originally in C, we're just borrowing from C minor. Same with, bVI or, in a different way, bIII.

I feel similarly about bIImaj7(#11.) We haven't modulated to the key of the bVI to get this chord - the bIImaj7#11 has a sound all its own and a place within the key.

Edited to add: the solution if you feel 7th or b7th is awkward - play it as a minor 6th! In that context, the power of the bVII7 is truly harnessed...hah...

[JonnyPac]

it's not as if you couldn't play F aeolean for the duration of the chord.

You can, but it doesn't sound "right" to most average listeners or musicians, IMHO. To each his own.

I guess the point I am always trying to make is that there is a "default" mode (or two) per chord/function. This makes a nice 1-stop chord-scale system for running through unfamiliar changes without too much over-thinking which leads to getting stumped mid-solo. Dig?

***

yuk yuk. This thread is funny. One chord and so much to say! Good times.

[JakeAcci]

Just tryin out the 'chord' feature you guys have...

[chord]

||---|---|5--|5-3|3--|---|1--|1--|3--|---|---|
||5--|8--|---|---|---|6--|1--|2--|1--|---|---|
||5--|8--|7--|6--|5--|4--|3--|3--|2--|---|---|
||3--|7--|3--|3--|3--|8--|---|---|---|---|---|
||---|---|---|---|---|---|---|3--|3--|---|---|
||5--|8--|6--|6--|5--|4--|3--|---|1--|---|---|

[/chord]

[ksjazzguitar]

...Diatonic as defined and as I hear it: ...

Yes, a minor iv is certainly non-diatonic, but I don't know that that means that it is not "true" in the sense that it is not in the key, which is how I took what you mean to say. If we are saying that "non-diatonic" and "not truly part of the key" as the same thing, then I think that we also have to eliminate secondary dominant, secondary leading tone, N6, A6, etc. chords.

But I think that it is useful to keep those two definitions separate. The definition of "non-diatonic" is obvious, but I say that something is "truly" part of a key if it has a clear harmonic function that relates to that key. I think that the minor iv fits that definition. I guess it comes down to what you mean by

... the author addresses your IV vs. iv chord and calls it "modal interchange," ...

That's as good as an explanation as any. But that simply defines it's category of non-diatonicism. I think that it can also be explained contrapuntally. But in either case, it is still harmonically functioning within the key, IMHO.

... But, I'm not so ardent a debater to want to argue the meanings to their most infinitesimal. At some point, we are overcomplicating things, as fep notes. ...

True, but those are the most fun debates.


And guys, I would be wary of using pop/rock examples. The pop/rock canon is replete with non-functional harmony. I'm not sure that that is a good place to look when trying to find examples of complex harmonic concepts. And quite frankly, it is a mine field of bad application of harmony. I'm not saying not to listen too it or even draw inspiration from it - but if you are looking at it to induce the rules of harmonic application, then I think that you are barking up the wrong tree. For every "trick" that you can find in a pop song, you can fond 100 examples of it done better in more orthodox sources, IMHO. If we trace the origins of pop music to Tin Pan Alley, then there has been a steady decline in musicianship over the last century. But that's a rant for another time.

You may love pop music (as I so from time to time) but it operates on its own set of rules. They often overlap with jazz and classical, but sometimes they clearly go their own way.

Peace,
Kevin

[JonnyPac]

I guess the word "true" got overblown in my post. I never even implied that is was not harmonically related! I think it is completely related. I just pointed out that it makes perfect sense as a melodic minor or dorian chord-scale, not some lydian IV chord mutant fish-bat koala that pops into 60's Beatles tunes too often for no reason. lol. You fellas are so serious sometimes.

[JonnyPac]

I guess I was testing the water here with the debatable topic. My mistake! I'm not equipped to deal with the challenges, perhaps. I get anxious and then depressed by it all. Here are my feelings on it...

Those who like to go round and round with me on theory: I am realizing a few things here...

1. I do in fact think of music theory in a non-jazz/non-classical-exclusive way. It's home grown, I guess. It "works" well and makes sense. Russell's theory of LCC seems to work in place of traditional models; so does mine (not that mine is all that complicated).

2. Perhaps because I have compiled a book with the materials I find immediately useful for creating spontaneous modal counterpoint in contemporary music, jazz or otherwise, it makes me a target. I could come off as threatening, I suppose. Especially since I am an unknown guitarist. I recommend that you all write books if you feel so strongly about certain topics. Perhaps you would feel less inclined to challenge my work. I have sold a modest 45 copies since I printed it on Dec 1st 2010. I have had great feedback on it so far.

3. I am a music enthusiast. Being constantly optimistic about anything takes a lot of energy and positive reinforcement. Being dog-piled by endless subjective debates does not make me feel good. If this forum was more geared towards people sharing and supporting one anthers creativity and ideas, I think I'd like it a lot more. WE (you me and the others here) jazz guitarists, are generally a under-appreciated minority compared to the current pop stars. We are each concerned with our art, not just shitting out a #1 single and getting $$$. We need to respect and admire each other for the brave efforts we make to play this style.

4. Forums are like cars. People get in their cars and act (drive) much more aggressively and self-righteously than they usually to in person. The anonymous user (nothing more than an avatar design and a blurb username) is more prone to be unfriendly then, say, your facebook friends. For the most part the users here are faceless, ageless, and always have the last option to reinvent themselves as needed. Trolls are the exrteme, not that I have spotted any here.

I think we should save the "lessons" for those who are asking for help. Some of my treads are looking for ideas and opinions, while others are just me sharing something fun. If I post something to study or play around with, please don't thrash it completely.

Sorry, I'm just getting bogged down by all of the unnecessary debates over tiny details. My 2011 resolution for this place is to enjoy this forum, or walk. Every time I get an email notification, I feel a wave anxiety because I know someone is being critical and fussy about my lat post. No fun!!!

That said, thanks to the of you who have been kind and supportive with your posts. I appreciate you. Happy 2011: have a good time... all the time.

[Reg]

Hey Johnny Pac... don't take things so personal even though I believe you take music very personal. This is simple a Jazz Guitar Forum, mainly BS... but appears to help many. I really don't think debating skills determine musical contributions... Your opinions are appreciated by many.... I for one do, and I have many different views. But I believe were putting info. on the table for many to see and learn from.
Keep posting and when someone like me jumps on your shit... who cares. I will, try and be more positive with my comments. There is tons of material covering the standard musical understanding... I appreciate your personal interpretations... keep they coming Reg

[fep]

+1 to that,

I hope you stick around Johnny. Your posts are very good and thought provoking.

[JakeAcci]

+1 to that,

I hope you stick around Johnny. Your posts are very good and thought provoking.

Yeah, so far, even if I don't agree with Johnny's interpretation of an idea, I like that the idea is presented and I agree that it's thought provoking.

[timscarey]

Quick thought, the reason the "pop/rock" examples don't work well is that this forum is generally in seventh chord land and 99% of pop music only uses triads, dom on the 5 and the occasional secondary dom or secondary major triad, these devices are much more flexible and do not rely as much on a tonal center, listen to radiohead or muse, both bands play "modally" all the time, only..... it's all triads, a big difference from you're average jazz tune.

[ksjazzguitar]

I guess the word "true" got overblown in my post. I never even implied that is was not harmonically related! I think it is completely related.

I think you did imply it with a statement like, "Here's my logic why there is no true 'minor IV chord' in music." But that's cool, you're just expressing an opinion. And maybe I misunderstood (and it is all just music theory after all.) For me to say that it is not a "true 'minor IV chord'" implies that it doesn't really relate to that key. While we are in complete agreement of what diatonic is, I guess I'm still confused what makes a chord "truly" in a key to you. To me, if it is functional harmony in that key, then it is "truly" in that key, regardless of diatonicism. And it is all just music theory after all.

I just pointed out that it makes perfect sense as a melodic minor or dorian chord-scale,

Yes, it works. Sometimes in abstract disciplines like music theory, more than one explanation works. And I'm not sure that your explanation differs too much from the traditional explanation of modal mixture. You gone through some mathematical gymnastics but ultimately ended up in the same place.

not some lydian IV chord mutant fish-bat koala that pops into 60's Beatles tunes too often for no reason.

Hmmm, I think that is an unfair characterization of the traditional explanation of the traditional explanation. I checked my theory books for "lydian IV chord mutant fish-bat koala that pops into 60's Beatles tunes too often for no reason" and could find nothing.

I hope you stick around Johnny. Your posts are very good and thought provoking.

Definitely. It made me think, and I thank you for that. I'd rather read an interesting post which challenges what I think than to just read bland posts that agree with what I think.

I just disagree that that is the "best" way to think of it. But so what. If you are going to put new ideas out there then you have to expect them to be challenged. That is how academia works, the best ideas survive. But no one hits a home run every time. Sometimes you have to stick your neck out there and give it a shot. No one ever changed the world by just agreeing with everyone. If you keep at it, and hone your thoughts, perhaps you will come up with something revolutionary. But your thoughts will not get honed if you hide them away from scrutiny in fear that people may disagree.

I took your post as "Hey, I had this idea, what do you guys think?" You seem to think that I am attacking your ideas (from this and other posts.) But I like your posts. Your name is one of the ones that I see and say, "OK, this will be interesting." I may not always agree, but I look forward to reading it. I hope you keep posting.

Peace,
Kevin