The division between classical and jazz theory...

[ksjazzguitar]

...except that 8th notes are felt differently ...

Again, I'd call that a performance issue rather than theoretical. Classical music had something similar called notes inégales (not that jazz gets it from there.) It's classified as a performance practice, not a theoretical one.

One thing that I would like to point out from both idioms (but more so in jazz) is that the idea of chord voicing is not addressed at all with the exception of what note is on bottom.

Yeah, that is another common rant of mine. It is a hold over from medieval music where the bass note was the most important now. Chords were thought of as built off the bass note, instead of off the root, as we know think. That is of course reflected in figured bass notation and held over in the preference for inversion symbols. We could just as easily argue that the predominant melody note is more important. But it's just a legacy we're stuck with. And our whole system of jazz chord notation is pretty mixed up too.

...in 2007 I did a 3 month tour of japan with a gospel/blues group.... not a single person in the group but me read music, knew any theory, or even knew what key the songs where in...

I've played a with a few Gospel guys who blew my mind. Many of them didn't know traditional theory, but had their own system, that worked pretty well for what they did. And I hope that "or even knew what key the songs where in" is hyperbole.

Peace,
Kevin

[bako]

a few examples of chords which have no symbols but are used (or I have at least encountered)... from the bottom up.

C E G# B D F#---C+Ma9#11 or Bm/C+Tr (Tr=triad) or a rootless A melodic minor scale
C Eb Gb B---CdimMa7 or B/C
C E A B------CMa6/7 or CMa13 or Amadd9
C Eb G Bb Db----Cm7b9 or Eb7/C
C E F A C# E G#-----C#m/FMa7

Hey Tim,

#2 and 3 are chords I regularly use. 2 is often played as a rootless Ab7#9 or D13b9.
#4 is a Phrygian kind of sound.
On some level we want to at least document what notes are present and accounted for if the functionality is not apparent.
Triad over bass or Triad over Triad or Triad over Triad over Bass, etc is one possible strategy, even when the triad tones are interlocking instead of consecutive.
Dave Leibman's book "A Chromatic Approcah to Jazz Harmony and Melody" addresses some related issues and also raises some interesting points about how the name can influence our musical response.

In Post Tonal language any notes can be broken down to pitch class sets and placed in prime form.
It doesn't appear to be gaining much traction as a notational tool for jazz lead sheets so far.

[timscarey]

Dave Leibman's book "A Chromatic Approcah to Jazz Harmony and Melody" addresses some related issues and also raises some interesting points about how the name can influence our musical response.

Totally, that's what I'm saying....
those pitch collections may have names, but the specific voicings don't have names specific enough (that are common anyway) to represent them. Then again, it's not as if those chords are really that common as we have named them.

check this out though Jim Knapp uses #2 as a B7 chord....

the reason he calls it a 15 (and i've posted this once before a long time ago, not that I agree with it) is that the "root" of the chord on top is accutally a suspension of the 7th, once resolved to the "A" it leads very nicely to any E chord, as well as a variety of other chords.

This idea is intended for orchestration/arranging and I am not, nor is Jim suggestion that "15" may one day become a often used extension. In fact, I only think of it that way when there is an altered 9th below the "root/15" on top of the chord.

The point is..... what musician would naturally voice the root on top of an altered dom chord?... that's not what berklee teaches, so if you write B7b9 and want the root on top.... you're pretty much out of luck with most players.

edit: I dig C#m/Fmaj7 but I have never, ever seen a piece of music that uses slash chords with more than one note implied on bottom. I hope it catches on, well, I guess it already has, with the people who use those kinds of chords. but even then , the specific "voicing" written here needs to be in this exact inversion to sound this way...... there is no chord symbol for that..... the lesson here I guess... find cats with open minds who can read. ha ha ha.

[timscarey]

And I hope that "or even knew what key the songs where in" is hyperbole.

Peace,
Kevin

I hope so too. But all I ever got from the piano player was....

Me: what key is this one is?
him: (the first chord and a look of "man, doesn't that sound great!")
Me: fumbling to find the root of the chord he is playing "yeah, so it's in F... nice"

I was literally expected to learn everything by ear and memorize as all of the other members did.... one of the best experiences ever.

Edit: I guess I should mention that I am a bass player, who loves to pretend like he plays jazz guitar.

[MarkRhodes]

I was literally expected to learn everything by ear and memorize as all of the other members did.... one of the best experiences ever.

That's the "old school" of jazz. Willie Thomas (-a trumpet player / educator) talks about learning that way. He still thinks jazz training should include a lot of imitation without sheet music. ("You play back what you hear me play--1, 2, 3, 4....bompa dom duh duh doot.") There's a lot to be said for that.

On the flip side, much contemporary jazz is less "ear friendly" than, say, swing tunes, which often chained pentatonic pairs (-the 5 and 6, the 2 and 1) to create catchy riffs. (For all the sweating novices do about soaring over "rhythm changes," no one has trouble with the head of "I Got Rhythm" or "Lester Leaps In.") That's easier to pick up by ear, than say Metheny's "Bright Size Life."

[bako]

check this out though Jim Knapp uses #2 as a B7 chord....
I dig C#m/Fmaj7 but I have never, ever seen a piece of music that uses slash chords with more than one note implied on bottom. I hope it catches on, well, I guess it already has, with the people who use those kinds of chords. but even then , the specific "voicing" written here needs to be in this exact inversion to sound this way...... there is no chord symbol for that..... the lesson here I guess... find cats with open minds who can read. ha ha ha.[/QUOTE]

Baddb9 another possibility for #2. As you say the context or how it is being used can be telegraphed somewhat by the naming choice.

I dig C#m/Fmaj7 but I have never, ever seen a piece of music that uses slash chords with more than one note implied on bottom. I hope it catches on, well, I guess it already has, with the people who use those kinds of chords. but even then , the specific "voicing" written here needs to be in this exact inversion to sound this way...... there is no chord symbol for that..... the lesson here I guess... find cats with open minds who can read. ha ha ha.

Dave Leibman makes it sound as if even 3 tiered slash chords are note that unusual in certain circles. He feels that standard naming style leads better to scale understanding and slash chords reveal some of the arpeggio content.
One example he lists:
EBGEbGbBb----EmMa9#11 or Ebm/Em Tr. or GmMa7#5/Em Tr. (no 3) or Bma7/ Em Tr.

What is Group 3.3 (Paul Hindemith)? I'm not familiar with that kind of codification.

As guitarists we regularly negotiate structures that are made up of more notes than we can play (13th chords) and edit it down to a good representation of the essential sound. In our minds there is no limit to what kind of harmonies we can be attempting to imply, in our fingers it is a puzzle to solve.

[timscarey]

I'll give you a quick rundown of Hindemith's classification system. This stuff fascinates me...

1.1 = Root position Major and minor triads
1.2 = inversions of those

2.1 = Root position "non-altered dom 7th" (Major 2nd's and minor 7ths only) no 1/2 steps
2.2 = inversions of those

3.1 = Chords with major seconds or minor 7ths but no tritone with root on bottom
3.2 = inversions of those
3.3 = no tritone, minor 2nd's or Major 7th's in the chord
3.4 = inversions of those

4.1 = with tritone (or more than one tritone) and minor 2nd's or Major 7th's in the chord as well
4.2 = inversions of those

5 = Augmented triads and 3-note fourth stacks

6 = fully diminished 7th's and diminished triads.

That is a pretty rough overview and I've only read book one of his theory, but it's pretty sweet, some of the chords he comes up with are very different. And his analysis is pretty f-ing complicated. he takes into account "combination tones" which are notes created by two notes of a higher pich sounding at the same time...... heavy.

[bako]

Thanks Tim, I'll have to give it a closer look.
Next time that I'm at a rehearsal and I miss a DS marking, I can say I'm sorry, I was listening for combination tones.

[ksjazzguitar]

And they say that I hijack threads. jk

Interesting stuff though. I'd say that one of the wholes in my knowledge is that I should read some more Hindemith. His theories seem so bizarre sometimes, but I like his music so they must be worth at least considering.

Peace,
Kevin

[bako]

Many contemporary theorists feel the older tonal theory model for analyzing composers like Bartok, Debussy, Hindemith, Ligeti and not to mention the serialists is the wrong tool. There are several schools of thinking on what details are most relevant to observe within these compositions. Composers are working with a wide array of methodologies. Jazz has also pushed into complex harmonic terrain often springing from a very individualized approach. Do you have any favorite contemporary theory systems that you find relevant to the parallel advances in jazz harmony or do you try to understand everything through the prism of tonal centers, modulations etc.?

I think this one is somewhat steering back towards the original topic.

[ksjazzguitar]

Many contemporary theorists feel the older tonal theory model for analyzing composers like Bartok, Debussy, Hindemith, Ligeti and not to mention the serialists is the wrong tool...

There certainly is some truth to that. Much 20th century stuff strains the old theory and it needs to be adjusted or revamped. But that doesn't mean that every new theory is the best "revamp." Often you get dozens of new ways to look try to analyze it and it takes time to see which one to worry about. The 20th century is only a decade old, so I think we have some times before we have to make up our minds.

Peace,
Kevin

[bako]

"The 20th century is only a decade old, so I think we have some times before we have to make up our minds."

That is a patient viewpoint that works well for a historian.

An improvisor/composer requires present moment application of their best guess conceptual thinking.
There are many different approaches out there which mostly I find exciting but also at times overwhelming.

[max chill]

The 20th century is only a decade old, so I think we have some times before we have to make up our minds.

Peace,
Kevin

? Personally, I'm living in the 21st century, why don't you join me.

[ksjazzguitar]

...An improvisor/composer requires present moment application of their best guess conceptual thinking....

True. I'm not arguing against people doing analysis. I'm just saying that it's too soon to expect scholarly convergence on a unified theory for these different techniques. They're still arguing about how to analyze some sections of Chopin. We want the answer now, but I think that that is unreasonable. But people should be analyzing and trying to find a theoretical system that best explains each of these types of music - adjusting or even replacing traditional theory as needed. I'm just saying that only time will tell which wins out, and it will probably be after we're buried.

? Personally, I'm living in the 21st century, why don't you join me.

I'm not sure if you seriously misunderstood or are just being cute.

The phrase "The 20th century is only a decade old..." should have made it clear that I am a decade after the end of the 20th century. My point is just that we lack historical perspective to objectively judge the 20th century.

Peace,
Kevin

[JonR]

Many contemporary theorists feel the older tonal theory model for analyzing composers like Bartok, Debussy, Hindemith,Ligeti and not to mention the serialists is the wrong tool.

Of course. That's because those composers were (generally) "post-tonal" - composing in the period after the old tonal key system (on which music theory is based) was regarded as exhausted.

When we "analyse" music, we tend to start from tonal concepts: chord function, etc. In the vast majority of 20thC art music, there was either no concept of chord function, or some very different concepts of chord structure and usage itself.

Of course, we can still use traditional terms to describe much 20thC art music (and some new ones such as polytonality, or polymetrics.) It's all just labels really. Understanding the music is another matter entirely...

There are several schools of thinking on what details are most relevant to observe within these compositions. Composers are working with a wide array of methodologies. Jazz has also pushed into complex harmonic terrain often springing from a very individualized approach.

Jazz went through a similar developmental process to classical music, only around 50-60 years later (and did it much faster). It was entirely functional in the first half of the 20thC, then - as with classical music towards the end of the 19thC - it got bored with keys and looked for some other organising principles. With some inspiration from Debussy et al, jazz latched on to what has become termed "modes" - although "impressionism" might be a better term.
Within less than a decade of that revolution, jazz experimented with a kind of loose atonalism ("free" jazz), but then mostly gave up on that and returned to a mix of tonality and modality combined with rhythmic and timbral influences from rock ("fusion").

All jazz that I'm aware of can be described using conventional terms from either the functional lexicon (major & minor keys, chord progressions) or the modal one (quartal harmony). And usually both together, in some form.
Of course, that doesn't describe every aspect of the music - only the harmony!

[JonR]

And they say that I hijack threads. jk

Interesting stuff though. I'd say that one of the wholes in my knowledge is that I should read some more Hindemith. His theories seem so bizarre sometimes, but I like his music so they must be worth at least considering.

Peace,
Kevin

He wrote some great text books and exercises on conventional classical harmony (counterpoint). I'm working through one now. Nothing 20thC about it at all! (Not yet anyhow...)

[ksjazzguitar]

The way I see this, is that classical and Jazz theory are like geometry and algebra. They both give correct asnwers, but by a different set of rules.

My point is that they give the same answers. Jazz theory is really just a subset of classical theory. With the exception of the blue note, no one has provided a single example of an harmonic concept of jazz that doesn't have precedent in classical.

Jazz has also pushed into complex harmonic terrain often springing from a very individualized approach. Do you have any favorite contemporary theory systems that you find relevant to the parallel advances in jazz harmony or do you try to understand everything through the prism of tonal centers, modulations etc.?

This is a common opinion of jazz players that haven't studied classical - that jazz is harmonically adventurous. Really, in terms of chord movement, jazz is very repetitive and formulaic. Jazz uses a lot of upper extensions, but not beyond what you'll find in 19th century music. Look at the development section of most sonata forms to be humbled in terms advanced harmony.

Again, can you list a single harmonic tool of jazz (other than the blue note) that has no precedent in classical?

I say this as someone that loves jazz. But after having studied Beethoven, Chopin, and Wagner, I just don't find it harmonically adventurous.

Peace,
Kevin

[timscarey]

Do you have any favorite contemporary theory systems that you find relevant to the parallel advances in jazz harmony or do you try to understand everything through the prism of tonal centers, modulations etc.?

I think this one is somewhat steering back towards the original topic.

Great question, and one I have been waiting for enough time to answer....

I use what I call (I learned this from someone) the three harmonic languages, these include.... Tonal Harmony, Modal Harmony, and Blues Harmony.

All three have slightly different rules for understanding things like harmonic resolution, chord/scales, inside/outside, etc.... Before analyzing/composing, I will decide which harmonic language to use for what I am trying to accomplish. I have definitely "tweaked" my conception of Tonal harmony to fit with my personal ear though... (don't worry Kevin, I don't teach it this way )

So, for example if I am thinking tonally, in the key of C, I will include all diatonic chords, secondary 2-5's, and Minor 4. I also include these chords....

Eb and Ab Maj7 with an altered 5 and BbMaj7 +11

That's just because I love those sounds when mixed with a mostly diatonic progression, I know they could be explained a number of ways (modal interchange/borrowed chords, etc...) but it's easier for me to just include them in the key of C, because that's how I hear them, kind of different I guess.

Whats really different from most theories is how I was taught to look at non-diatonic (modal) chord progressions not including dom chords....

I will post again and try to explain how I think about it.....

[timscarey]

So it's like this, each major and minor chord has 2 scale options....

Maj7-Ionian/Lydian
min7-Aeolean/Dorian
Maj7(b5 or #11)-Lydian/Lydian Aug
min6- Dorian/Melodic Minor

These scale choices are categorized according to these names....

Tonic - Ionian/Aeolean
Non Tonic - Lydian/Dorian
Melodic Minor - Lydian Aug/Mel Min

The scale choice per chord is up to the composer/improviser and differs in only one or two notes per chord. The ear is influenced as to the "correct" scale based on the notes in the overall harmonic field (a few bars before and after the chord in question)

upon scanning the harmonic field, the most "inside" scale (which is not always"inside") is assigned to the chord thus giving it it's harmonic role in the progression.... Tonic, Non-Tonic, or Melodic Minor.

Basically it is a way of measuring tension and resolution when there is no tonal center but major and minor chords are still the building blocks... Keep in mind that the difference between a Tonic and non-tonic chord is subtle in some cases, while MM chords definitely add some darkness to the music. Also keep in mind that this is a personal thing that I do not teach, just wanted to share it with ya cause you asked.

[ksjazzguitar]

I don't know the full ins and outs of classical theory, but I do know it sometimes gives dubious interpretations.

Well, it's the analyst that will give a dubious analysis, not the theory.

For example look at the simple phrygian cadence Am G7 F7 E(b9). Here the E chord can be interpreted in different ways....I believe the classical conception is that the E chord is a dominant chord and that Am is the tonic chord, However that depends on one's point of view. For me F7 is the dominant chord and E is the tonic, unless you actually play the Am chord again at the end of the progression.

First of all, I wouldn't call that a Phrygian cadence because of the Eb in the F7. You want to call that F7 a dominant to the E7? So do I. It is a tritone sub to a B7. Maybe I could go for Phygian-ish.

The question is what do you call the tonic. I think that most times when this chord progression is used, it resolves to the Am. Can you think of an example that doesn't? But if you somehow write it in some magical way where the E7 sounds like the tonic, like if this were some modal tune (but then my ear would want an FMaj7) then that is fine. What is important is how it sounds. It might even work as a bluesy kind of thing where E7 is the tonic, then F7 isn't so weird. But I can't think of an example of this chord progression that doesn't resolve back to Am as the tonic.

Again, that is going to depend on how it is heard. There have been many times that I have been analyzing a tricky section of a classical piece and haven't been sure what to call the tonic. So I sit down at the piano and listen. Sometimes people come to different conclusions. But sometimes that's what a composer wants, that sort of ambiguity.

Again, I really don't see anything that doesn't have a precedent in classical harmony, with the exception of the blues thing, which is really tonal harmony altered by blue notes. Yes, there might be someone

I use what I call (I learned this from someone) the three harmonic languages, these include.... Tonal Harmony, Modal Harmony, and Blues Harmony.

I would also add atonal to that list. You could build an argument that blues harmony is just a combination of modal and tonal thinking - it has elements of both. But it is probably much easier just to think of it as it's own entity, as long as we remember that there are tonal elements in there.

I have definitely "tweaked" my conception of Tonal harmony to fit with my personal ear though... (don't worry Kevin, I don't teach it this way )

No, tweak away. Mix and match. Mess it up. These are just theories and what sounds good should always be the highest priority. Almost all jazz language nowadays is a mixture of all three. Sometimes discreetly (certain groups of measure are treated tonally, modally, or bluesally) and sometimes homegeonously (modal or bluesal playing may be used over tonal harmony, or some other combination.)

Don't ever let theory tell you what you can't play. Only your ear should have that power.

in the key of C,.... I also include these chords....Eb and Ab Maj7 with an altered 5 and BbMaj7 +11

By all means. I would just call these "common non-diatonic chords." I've actually considered writing a short book on the subject of common non-diatonic chords - where they come from and how to approach them. Another thing to add to the list when I finally get this last recital done with.

Peace,
Kevin

[ksjazzguitar]

... (or even a D# double dimminished chord)...

I assume that you fully diminished - the double diminished is a very specific chord voicing that isn't really playable on the guitar.

In fact the note Eb in the F7 chord is actually an augmented 6th (D# or leading note).

Well, now you're sound like a classical guy. In jazz we would usually write that as an Eb, thinking of the F7 as a tri-tone sub. In classical of course, they would write it as D#, thinking of it as an Aug6 chord (the ultimate origin of the tri-tone sub.)

But again, that gets me back to the idea that it pretty much all comes from classical theory originally.

This cadence is used in many styles of flamenco (and also in some Spanish folkloric music). Interpreting the E chord as anything other than the tonic chord (in this particular music genre) is incorrect.

Perhaps, I don't know because I don't play flamenco or Spanish folkloric music. But: 1. We're talking about jazz and it's relation to classical, and 2. There are plenty of examples of similar things being done in classical, especially by Spanish composers, and classical theory is more than capable of handling it.

Peace,
Kevin

[ksjazzguitar]

By double dimminished I am implying a dimminished seventh chord with a dimminished third (notes D# F A C)...

Well, I think you need to brush up on your chord terminology. No diminished chords have diminished 3rds. Perhaps it was a typo and you meant diminished 7th, in which case the correct name for the chord is either simply "diminished 7th" or "fully diminished 7th" if you need to differentiate. The "double diminished" is a very specific Big Band arranging voicing. Some do mistakenly call it a "double diminished" but that is a mistake (Sorry Reg, I'll skip my "Windsor knot" analogy this time. )

Unfortunately classical theory is not perfect, otherwise why would anyone invent new theories at all?

No theory is perfect. And people invent new theories for several reasons. But new theories are being incorporated into classical theory all the time - it is a myth that classical theory is some impenetrable fortress.

It is simply inadequate to map this phrygian cadence onto a major/minor tonality. I don't personally know of any established classical theory that goes beyond the constraints of major or minor tonality.

But who said that you had too? The term "Phrygian cadence" actually comes from classical music. Are you assuming that classical music insists that all music be viewed through a major/minor lens? No, quite to the contrary. There is plenty of classical music that does not fit into major/minor tonality, and classical theory has no problem with that. Much of the composition of the 20th century does not fit a "major/minor" tonality, not to mention all of it before the 17th century. I think that you have assumed that Common Practice Period theory (what is taught in beginner theory classes, roughly the theory from the Baroque through the Romantic) represents all of classical theory. No, not even close.

I think that you have a confused idea about what theory is and what classical music is. I need to write an essay on the roll of theory. (*sigh*) Soon I'll have time.

Peace,
Kevin

[timscarey]

I would also add atonal to that list.

I wouldn't, I don't think of atonal music as having anything to do with harmony. but thats just me.

[ksjazzguitar]

I said double dimminished. Formula Root dimminished 3rd, flatenned 5th and dimminished 7th. The Hard Dimminished chord also has a dimminished third. Formula Root, dimminished 3rd, dimminished 5th and minor seventh. This is basic chord construction. I'm not here to argue about how to build chords.

First of all, anyone who says that a diminished chord has a diminished 3rd, doesn't know basic theory. It would be like insisting that "cat" is spelled with a "k". Second of all, I've never heard the term "hard diminished" and that is definitely the incorrect usage of the term "double diminished."

I had trouble finding an example on the internet, but I trust my theory teacher implicitly, and must presume that the Internet is not so up to date. I did find one example of the chord I mean in the following thread.

The "internet is not so up to date"? (I know I will be accused of being rude, but I'm trying not to be.) The reason you can't find examples is because it is incorrect. The fact that you found some random guy on the internet that also uses the term incorrectly, doesn't help your case. As I'd said, sometimes people say "double diminished" when they mean "full diminished", just like some people say "double Windsor" when they mean "full Windsor" (oops, it slipped out.) But those are usually people without a strong theory background, as the terms "half-diminished" and "fully-diminished" are such basic concepts that come up early and get reinforced so often.

With all due respect to your teacher, if he's teaching you that diminished triads have diminished 3rds, and teaching you terms like "hard diminished" and the absolutely incorrect definition of double diminished - then maybe you shouldn't trust him implicitly. (Frankly, I really don't "take for granted" anything my teachers tell me, especially if it were contradicting what everyone else was saying.) Your teacher may know how to play, but his theory is lacking. (The terms might be the result of a foreign language, but in no language does a diminished triad have a diminished 3rd.)

Sorry, but at this point, even Wikipedia would be an improvement.

Diminished triad chord - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Diminished seventh chord - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I wouldn't, I don't think of atonal music as having anything to do with harmony. but thats just me.

With tertian harmony, or tonal or modal harmony no. But not all harmony has to be functional, modal, blusal, teritan, quartal, qunital, whatever. If it is two or more notes in a vertical relationship (sounding simultaneously), then it is harmony by definition. But, I'm not saying that you have to like it. (Though I have heard some say that it isn't appropriate to talk about harmony in things like 12-tone music, they seem to be in the minority.) Can we add it to the list with an asterisk?

Peace,
Kevin

[JonR]

First of all, anyone who says that a diminished chord has a diminished 3rd, doesn't know basic theory.

But he didn't say that. He described the chord D# F A C, which does have a diminished 3rd: D#-F (inversion of augmented 6th).

Of course, in jazz we'd call that a 3rd inversion F7 (Eb in the bass).

And in the thread he quoted, a "Db7/B" was mentioned. Again (I guess) we'd normally want to call that "Db7/Cb" - 3rd inversion of Db7.

But in using diminished 3rd (or augmented 6th), classical theory is being applied, because the chord resolves to the dominant, with the dim3 resolving inwards to a unison. (As an augmented 6th resolves outwards to the octave.) That's what means the notes have to named as they are (D# instead of Eb) - because a D# goes to E, whereas an Eb would go to D.

After, all if we think of the F7 (resolving to E) as the tritone sub of B7 - and an altered B7 at that - we have no problem with a B7b5, which contains D#-F: a diminished 3rd (or its aug6 inversion).
But of course in jazz we like the ambiguity of enharmonics and don't care too much about naming them "correctly" (as a classical person would). D#, Eb, who cares? It can go up to E, or down to D, whatever we call it. We prefer not to think about aug6s and stick with dom7s, however they're used.

I also agree with czardas that an F7 could be used as a dominant function chord in E phrygian mode. Of course, it's not jazz orthodoxy to alter the notes in a mode (we'd normally go for Fmaj7 as you said), but raising the 7th of a mode to get a leading tone at a cadence was common practice in the original modal era.

(However I will disgree with czardas spelling of "dimminished" It's DIMINISHED. )