Does ii act as a subdominant and if so, why is it commonly substituted with V

[GuitarOrb]

Hey guys,

A question I am wondering about. Classical theory sometimes says you can view any chord as acting as a Tonic, Subdominant or Dominant chord and view a progression as a movement between these families.

I would have thought in this view, a ii chord would be acting as a subdominant. This is because it shares 2 notes with the IV triad and if you add the 7th, it has the whole IV triad in the chord.

With this notion the ii V I progression makes a lot of sense as it is a common Subdominant -> Dominant -> Tonic progression like IV V I that is commonly found in many styles.

What I don't understand here, is if this is the case, why are the ii and V chords commonly substituted in jazz. I would have thought when you substitute a chord it should typically play the same role as with dominant, subdominant or tonic.

So I guess my question is do you view ii as a subdominant, and if not, why not considering is shares so many notes with IV?

And, if so, why is it commonly substituted with V. Are jazz guys literally moving freely between subdominant and dominant harmony when this happens?

Thanks for any help here.

[Rob MacKillop]

It could be viewed either way.

The notes of Dm (D, F, A) could be seen as part of a G9 chord (G, B, D, F, A).

That fits very neatly. However, you might decide to use an altered scale over the G chord, and this will cause all sorts of clashes against the Dm - but that's acceptable, as any dissonance will do if resolved into the I chord.

Some ignore the V chord, and just decorate the ii chord...

[princeplanet]

Some ignore the V chord, and just decorate the ii chord...

... and then there are those that ignore the ii and treat is a V. For me the important question is : how do we view the IV chord? In the key of C the IV chord is composed of FACE, F and A are in common with the 2-5 Dominant class, and C and E are Tonic related. Me, I like to split chords into Dom and Tonic function, the Subdominant is more important in Classical analysis in my opinion, but in Jazz it can have an ambivalent quality, can swing either way.

Take "All the Things You Are", how would you handle the IV chords? Sure you could hit all the chord tones and be obvious, or you could use either Dominant or Tonic vocab and sound OK if well handled. Most other chords based on the other degrees can be heard as either Dominant or Tonic in function.

Like I say, that's my take anyway, some will disagree, and again that's where Jazz analysis is quite different than Classical analysis, it's open to way more interpretation.

[johnhall]

Yes, the ii and the IV chords are both considered members of the subdominant family. The subdominant (according to Schenkerian analysis) is usually used as dominant preparation or occurring just before the dominant harmony, as we all know and love ii (IV) - V - I.

As Princeplanet said, there are really only two important harmonies in tonal music; that being the tonic and the dominant. Quoting Allen Forte from his book Introduction to Schenkerian Analysis "The main triads within the diatonic key are the tonic and dominant. The remaining diatonic triads function in relation to them as tonic substitutes (vi and iii), dominant substitutes (the leading-tone triad, vii) or dominant preparations (ii, IV and vi) depending upon context."

Since the ii and IV are usually used as dominant preparation you can conclude that they are not essential in defining the key and can be eliminated entirely, as you mentioned is often the case in thinking about soloing through these harmonies in jazz.

As Rob said all of the notes within the ii and IV (other than the tonic tone C in this case) can be considered members of the dominant harmony. The only, and most critically important, tone missing is the leading-tone. For example in C using diatonic seventh chords:

ii = D-F-A-C and IV = F-A-C-E

Notice the leading-tone B is not included in either of these two chords. By simply moving the C down a half-step to B we now have the dominant harmony. You can think of the ii and IV as suspended V chords. This is often how we find them in practice when they are used over the dominant (G) as slash chords Dm7/G or F/G for example.

John
John Hall | Music for Guitar | Home

[TheGrandWazoo]

My view

I agree with Rob.*

The "ii" chord of a "ii V" acts as a suspension to the V chord (note: we are not necessarily talking about the ii chord of the key specifically). When you sound the notes of the Dm7 chord against a G7 (what the rest of the band plays), the result is a "dominant 9th w/sus4" [ref is chapter title "Addendum: Interpolation" of the referenced link].

Viewing it solely as IV may get you somewhere but the role of the ii in the ii-V is about movement not necessarily as a role player in the diantonic chord structure.

*And now Joh Hall but I guess the ii is part of the IV though not necisarrily "treated" like it in the use of ii Vs.

[johnhall]

My view

I agree with Rob.*

The "ii" chord of a "ii V" acts as a suspension to the V chord (note: we are not necessarily talking about the ii chord of the key specifically). When you sound the notes of the Dm7 chord against a G7 (what the rest of the band plays), the result is a "dominant 9th w/sus4" [ref is chapter title "Addendum: Interpolation" of the referenced link].

Viewing it solely as IV may get you somewhere but the role of the ii in the ii-V is about movement not necessarily as a role player in the diantonic chord structure.

*And now Joh Hall but I guess the ii is part of the IV though not necisarrily "treated" like it in the use of ii Vs.

Yes, that is an excellent way of putting it. It is about movement. Thanks.

John
John Hall | Music for Guitar | Home

[JonR]

Hey guys,

A question I am wondering about. Classical theory sometimes says you can view any chord as acting as a Tonic, Subdominant or Dominant chord and view a progression as a movement between these families.

I would have thought in this view, a ii chord would be acting as a subdominant. This is because it shares 2 notes with the IV triad and if you add the 7th, it has the whole IV triad in the chord.

With this notion the ii V I progression makes a lot of sense as it is a common Subdominant -> Dominant -> Tonic progression like IV V I that is commonly found in many styles.

What I don't understand here, is if this is the case, why are the ii and V chords commonly substituted in jazz. I would have thought when you substitute a chord it should typically play the same role as with dominant, subdominant or tonic.

So I guess my question is do you view ii as a subdominant, and if not, why not considering is shares so many notes with IV?

And, if so, why is it commonly substituted with V.

The short answer is that it isn't.

As explained above, ii is often treated as an embellishment of V (V7sus4), but is not a functional substitute for it. (Not if we're going to define our terms consistently .)
ii might well resolve straight to I, but it's not thereby a dominant sub. IV can also resolve straight to I! (plagal cadence). IOW, if you replace V with ii, you're changing the function (and changing the type of cadence, if it's moving to the tonic).
Quite often in jazz (and also in pop and rock), you get a kind of combination of authentic and plagal cadences, which is kind of what a V9sus4 (going to I) is. It's essentially a subdominant chord on top of a dominant (the dominant note, V, at least).
Classically this suspension (6/4) should really be followed by a plain V, but in popular music that's not a rule most people care about.

[docbop]

Like I say, that's my take anyway, some will disagree, and again that's where Jazz analysis is quite different than Classical analysis, it's open to way more interpretation.

+1

I feel lucky that when I first studied Harmony + Theory it was in Jazz schools and teachers. They all taught it as starting points to explore and expand from. I later studied some traditional H+T felt it was always what can you do within these rules. Maybe if I had taken more than the first year that would of changed, but I moved on. Plus online when I see drawn out H+T threads and people arguing its always traditional guys getting nasty on what term to call something.

Someday I hope to take the time and study the Schillinger System because Dick Grove who I learned Jazz theory from his background was teaching Schillinger System and I understand Lee Berk who started Berklee was another Schillinger system fan.

[GuitarOrb]

Ok, thanks guys. This is very helpful.

So if the ii7 is acting as a V9 sus 4 embellishment of V rather than a substitution, do you have to be careful if say the bass or another instrument is including the leading tone in their lines. In C maj with G7 this would put your C against their B, so you may be highlighting the 4th of G against the triad in other instruments?

[JonR]

Ok, thanks guys. This is very helpful.

So if the ii7 is acting as a V9 sus 4 embellishment of V rather than a substitution, do you have to be careful if say the bass or another instrument is including the leading tone in their lines. In C maj with G7 this would put your C against their B, so you may be highlighting the 4th of G against the triad in other instruments?

Having the B in a walking line shouldn't be a problem, but - as a sometime bass player myself - if I saw "Dm7", or "G9sus4", I would probably be avoiding B in anything I played. I would be focussing on G and D first, then A, then F or C, and using B or E merely as passing notes in scale lines, if at all. As a bassist, I'd regard the chord and lead instruments privilege to make more of the B if they wanted. I might simply play a G pedal all the way through a Dm7-G7 change anyway (to give the other players maximum freedom).

It's worth saying that Mark Levine in his Jazz Theory Book states that the 3rd can be added to a 7sus4 if it's voiced high (above the 4th). That's because he sees a 7sus as essentially a quartal chord (maybe voiced 5-1-4-b7), and a high M3 can act as an embellishment: a 10th extension, as it were.

The tension between B and C is, of course, fundamental in functional cadences. It's the only essential difference between Dm7 and G7. Replacing the B in G7 with C turns it into a G7sus (Levine notwithstanding ), which is much the same as Dm7/G; and it denies the tendency of the C to fall to B to prepare for the resolution back to C.
Of course in jazz and pop, that denial of tendency is common - the extra tension created by the suspension is popular - and we also like it if the C on G7sus4 resolves down to a B on Cmaj7, reversing classical practice.

In pop - and especially in rock - the plagal cadence is a lot more popular than the authentic anyway. (Rock finds the classical V-I cheesy. The IV-I "amen cadence" is much cooler.) IMO, that's what reflected in the liking for 7sus4s, and replacing V with ii. As well as suggesting the softer plagal cadence, the ambiguity of sus chords - especially if they don't resolve in classical fashion - contributes more of a modal feel to functional harmony.

(Sorry this is probably not answering your question... )

[bako]

Dm7/G; and it denies the tendency of the C to fall to B to prepare for the resolution back to C.

Another possible viewpoint about a suspension that doesn't resolve C>B is that it it is anticipating the arrival of C.
It isn't necessary to go anywhere if you are already at the destination.

[princeplanet]

Getting over the fact that you were taught to resolve the C to B in Dm7 to G7 is half way to the realization that it is totally OK to play E against not only Dm7 (9) and G7 (13), but obviously Cmaj. Spelling out every damn chord is boring (to me), there is a lineage from Lester Young onwards that realises that the E note against all 3 chords sounds different in the same way that the color violet seems different when surrounded by red as compared to navy blue or green...

Sure, without any form there can be no "style", that's why we like some rules. But I'm happy to live in a Jazz world where the only tensional flux in my improvisations are between Dominant class pitch collections and Tonic class. The "grey" area for me is mainly what I call "Ambi-tonic" - ie- ambivalent with respect to Dom or Tonic.

So yeah, you didn't resolve a C to B in you 2-5 ? Don't sweat it, seems like a lot of the greats didn't either. Yep, they could have, no doubt, but they seemed more intent on the, way more effective, Dom to Tonic resolution.

Happy to be proved wrong....

[JonR]

Getting over the fact that you were taught to resolve the C to B in Dm7 to G7

I was "taught" only in the sense that I heard it happening and saw how it worked when I played the chords.

is half way to the realization that it is totally OK to play E against not only Dm7 (9) and G7 (13), but obviously Cmaj.

Different issue, IMO. The E works that way regardless of whether the C goes down to B or not. (G, D and A can also be held across all 3 chords.)

Spelling out every damn chord is boring (to me), there is a lineage from Lester Young onwards that realises that the E note against all 3 chords sounds different in the same way that the color violet seems different when surrounded by red as compared to navy blue or green...

Sure.
Again, you can say the same for any note repeated across different chords. The different chords give it different "colours". As above, that was something I discovered for myself early on, just normal trial and error (before I knew much about jazz, or ever heard of Lester Young!).

Sure, without any form there can be no "style", that's why we like some rules. But I'm happy to live in a Jazz world where the only tensional flux in my improvisations are between Dominant class pitch collections and Tonic class. The "grey" area for me is mainly what I call "Ambi-tonic" - ie- ambivalent with respect to Dom or Tonic.

Agreed again. It took me a little longer to come to that simple dual tonic-dominant realisation (I think it was Rhythm changes that first made it plain).

So yeah, you didn't resolve a C to B in you 2-5 ? Don't sweat it, seems like a lot of the greats didn't either. Yep, they could have, no doubt, but they seemed more intent on the, way more effective, Dom to Tonic resolution.

Happy to be proved wrong....

I wasn't thinking about whether the "greats" did it or not, simply observing that the main point of using Dm7 and G7 as separate chords - rather than merging them into one - is the C-B distinction. Sometimes you want that, sometimes you don't.
After all, the "ii-V-I" is still regarded as a foundation stone of jazz harmony, and the C-B-C (or C-B-B) voice-leading is probably the most important part of it (after the root moves I guess). The F-F-E would come after.
Naturally, as a piece of "common practice", it doesn't imply that it can't be adapted and subverted, even in early jazz.

[princeplanet]

I was "taught" only in the sense that I heard it happening and saw how it worked when I played the chords.
Different issue, IMO. The E works that way regardless of whether the C goes down to B or not. (G, D and A can also be held across all 3 chords.)
Sure.
Again, you can say the same for any note repeated across different chords. The different chords give it different "colours". As above, that was something I discovered for myself early on, just normal trial and error (before I knew much about jazz, or ever heard of Lester Young!).
Agreed again. It took me a little longer to come to that simple dual tonic-dominant realisation (I think it was Rhythm changes that first made it plain).
I wasn't thinking about whether the "greats" did it or not, simply observing that the main point of using Dm7 and G7 as separate chords - rather than merging them into one - is the C-B distinction. Sometimes you want that, sometimes you don't.
After all, the "ii-V-I" is still regarded as a foundation stone of jazz harmony, and the C-B-C (or C-B-B) voice-leading is probably the most important part of it (after the root moves I guess). The F-F-E would come after.
Naturally, as a piece of "common practice", it doesn't imply that it can't be adapted and subverted, even in early jazz.

Can't disagree with anything you say here, and yes, it's very much a "sometimes you might, sometimes you might not" kinda thing, once you let your taste guide you. It's just a heads up to newbies that you can get too caught up in being "literal" with improv, heck if you find a way to make Ab sound good against 2-5-1 in C, go for it!

[JonR]

heck if you find a way to make Ab sound good against 2-5-1 in C, go for it!

Absolutely! Then we're into the borrowed minor key ii-V of course: Dm7b5-G7b9. (Can't see the Ab working too well over the C though... )

[bako]

(Can't see the Ab working too well over the C though... )

Cma7+

Resolving to G or A or not

[JonR]

Cma7+

Resolving to G or A or not

Well, quite . By "working" I meant as a consonance (chord tone or extension as on the previous chords). As a dissonance (suspension from the G7b9?) it would resolve very nicely either way as you say.

[Stevebol]

In a broad sense I think of classical music as having a characteristic chord change- I and V. Just two chords. Jazz has three- ii-V-I.
Sure you're not over-thinking this a bit?

[JonR]

In a broad sense I think of classical music as having a characteristic chord change- I and V. Just two chords. Jazz has three- ii-V-I.
Sure you're not over-thinking this a bit?

But that's what turns most jazz players on, isn't it? Overthinking a chord sequence?!

Why just use a boring old ii-V-I, when you could have ii-bII-iii-V/V-ii-iv-bVII-I (or something)!

[Stevebol]

^^^
Well there better be a cry-tone in there somewhere.
Sorry, tri-tone.

[pingu]

theres not really much difference between the ii and the V

I sometimes it feels like with the diatonic chords

that you can only
be home ie C , Em or Am
or away from home ie Dm , F , G7 or Bm7b5

them's your choices ,

Thats only sometimes I think like that
but it helps simplify things when the going gets tough ......

[princeplanet]

..... home ie C , Em or Am
or away from home ie Dm , F , G7 or Bm7b5

Does anyone else feel that the IV (F here) can be handled as either Dominant or Tonic class? Both, one or the other? or neither?

[woland]

Dm7 == F6
Get "Joe Pass Guitar Style" book he has few pages there on chord substitution etc.

[pingu]

Does anyone else feel that the IV (F here) can be handled as either Dominant or Tonic class? Both, one or the other? or neither?

yes , you're right prince
yup , like ATTYA bar 5
the IV chord Db sounds like decoration
of the Ab tonic (to me ... ie not going away
from the I)

all this stuff depends on context
I guess innit ?

[princeplanet]

yes , you're right prince
yup , like ATTYA bar 5
the IV chord Db sounds like decoration
of the Ab tonic (to me ... ie not going away
from the I)

all this stuff depends on context
I guess innit ?

Yeah, that's how I hear it too... When I can't decide if IV fits Dom or Tonic class, then I chicken out and stick to chord tones...