Back Cycling

[bobsguitars09]

Is there a simple explanation for what Back Cycling is?

[TH]

Or it can also refer to the convergence of dominant chords through the cycle of fourths so they meet on a tonic or target chord.

Often we'll see these referred to as secondary dominants. It's based on the fact that any chord can be preceeded by its own dominant chord a fourth (fifth counting the other way) away. G7 goes to C. D7 goes to G7 goes to C. etc...
And count back as far as you like replacing existing chords along the way for an "outside" sound. Compose with it and you get a pleasing tonal journey. Use the II-7 chord with any of those dominants and you've got the sound of jazz!

David

[bobsguitars09]

Thank you! And II-7 = minor or major?

[TH]

Thank you! And II-7 = minor or major?

That'd be a minor combined with a dominant following.
Hey try this one:

Create your cycle of 4ths. Make them all dominants. There's your basic cycling. Make one of them your target chord and everything that leads to that is a back cycled dominant.
Now if each dominant chord were preceeded by its II-7 chord, then you'd have a series of minors and dominants combining with each other along the intervals of a fourth.
You can create your own series of exercises: dominants in fourths, dominants in fourths with each dominant preceded by its minor a fourth away, etc.
Yes, mix and match them. And once you get the sound of this progression, you'll notice it popping up all over. Get it in your ear and then make it a part of your vocabulary. It's pretty heavy essential harmonic movement in jazz, especially in Bebop. So work with it a while, get it in your ear and then create melodic lines when the chords are in your ears.
I was going to list a bunch of songs that use this but let's have you create the progressions yourself and see if you recognize this in any other pieces (there'll be all over the place) and I'll leave the A-Ha! moment to you to enjoy.
This is an important idea. Glad you're discovering it.
Hope that helps.

David

[vintagelove]

^^^ That ^^^

I'll just add you can cycle to the target "diatonically", like a Bird blues approaching the IV.

Good luck!!!

[NoReply]

The important part of back cycling or the cycle is the strong root movement and that why you can mix and match the chord types. The ear hears that cycle in the roots and likes it.

[edh]

Unless I'm missing something from the above posts...the assumption I got was backcycling meant cycling in 5ths(towards the bridge) vs cycling in 4ths(towards the nut). I'm correct in assuming this?

edh

[TH]

Unless I'm missing something from the above posts...the assumption I got was backcycling meant cycling in 5ths(towards the bridge) vs cycling in 4ths(towards the nut). I'm correct in assuming this?

edh

You can move any way on the guitar. You can go up the scale by going down the neck, and down the scale going up. You can also voice chords in ways where the actual root is not necessarily the lowest voice. Check these out to make your chord knowledge much more interesting and flexible.
I know you're starting out, so sometime when you're confident with learning chord families in root position and in their inversions, find roots all around the fingerboard and try chords you normally wouldn't use. You'll see that the idea of convergence in this thread is not necessarily limited to root in the bass, or even descending. Try to find new ways to get there. What've you got to lose?
David

[matt.guitarteacher]

Unless I'm missing something from the above posts...the assumption I got was backcycling meant cycling in 5ths(towards the bridge) vs cycling in 4ths(towards the nut). I'm correct in assuming this?

edh

First, "up a fourth" is the same as "down a fifth" and vice versa, when you're talking about root movement of chords. So, it's a little hard to follow exactly what you're saying.

But it also sounds like you might be making a distinction between "cycling" and "back cycling". The former is just an abbreviation for the latter, as far as I know.

[TH]

... it also sounds like you might be making a distinction between "cycling" and "back cycling". The former is just an abbreviation for the latter, as far as I know.

If I might venture a clarification, Back cycling is a specific following of the cycle of fourths (the most common resolution of harmonic movement) and to my experience, is pretty much limited to movement in fourths, or with a tritone substitution, down half steps. This is the convention as I've seen it used by my experience.
Cycling includes, but is not limited to the cycle of fourths (fifths) as dominants but can and does include a wider base of chords, diatonic, synthetic based, chord quality sequenced, etc. and these days, is a common way for more modern players to get "outside" sounds, sounds outside the given diatonic context of a piece, and introduce tension that eventually resolves, or comes back "inside".
Back cycling was used as a compositional and improvisational fundamental from early bebop, cycling I believe came about in Coltrane's (and Shorter) era as one way to step outside the song form conventions that had informed jazz previously.

Interesting discussion. It gets to one of the roots (yup pun intended) of the question "Where are the distinctions between bebop changes jazz and more contemporary sounds?"

David

[jasaco]

I normally don't care for this term but back cycling can be well-described as using the "V of V" (or, the "V of V of V", etc. as far back as you want to take it)

[Ron Stern]

Often we'll see these referred to as secondary dominants. It's based on the fact that any chord can be preceeded by its own dominant chord a fourth (fifth counting the other way) away. G7 goes to C. D7 goes to G7 goes to C. etc...

I don't get it. In my understanding, a dominant chord doesn't "have its own" dominant chord. It is a dominant chord, the only one in a given scale. What chord is dominant as to a minor chord depends on whether the minor chord is ii, iii, or vi.

Applying the operation of "preceding dominants":

1. C, preceded by "its Dominant", i.e. a dominant chord a fifth up, to . . .
2. G7, preceded by "its Dominant" . . .
3. D7, preceded by "its Dominant"
4. A7 . . .

Yielding . . . . . . . G7, C, D7, A7

But you get . . . G7, C, D7, C -- ?

[Binyomin]

I don't get it. In my understanding, a dominant chord doesn't "have its own" dominant chord. It is a dominant chord, the only one in a given scale. What chord is dominant as to a minor chord depends on whether the minor chord is ii, iii, or vi.

Applying the operation of "preceding dominants":

1. C, preceded by "its Dominant", i.e. a dominant chord a fifth up, to . . .
2. G7, preceded by "its Dominant" . . .
3. D7, preceded by "its Dominant"
4. A7 . . .

Yielding . . . . . . . G7, C, D7, A7

But you get . . . G7, C, D7, C -- ?

Let's say you played E7 A7 D7 G7 instead of, say, two bars of nothing but G7, that would be an example. "Its own dominant" means the dominant a 5th up, the one that resolves to it. D7 is the Dominant of G7, and A7 is the dominant of D7, etc.

[christianm77]

I don't get it. In my understanding, a dominant chord doesn't "have its own" dominant chord. It is a dominant chord, the only one in a given scale. What chord is dominant as to a minor chord depends on whether the minor chord is ii, iii, or vi.

Applying the operation of "preceding dominants":

1. C, preceded by "its Dominant", i.e. a dominant chord a fifth up, to . . .
2. G7, preceded by "its Dominant" . . .
3. D7, preceded by "its Dominant"
4. A7 . . .

Yielding . . . . . . . G7, C, D7, A7

But you get . . . G7, C, D7, C -- ?

You're almost viewing it as a temporary key - so you are almost saying here is a G7 chord in C major, but we'll treat G7 as a new key and have its dominant D7 drive the harmony a bit more. It's just that instead of then going to Gmaj7 as you would in a true modulation, you go to G7.

You can do this with any chord pretty much.

[TH]

I don't get it. In my understanding, a dominant chord doesn't "have its own" dominant chord. It is a dominant chord, the only one in a given scale. What chord is dominant as to a minor chord depends on whether the minor chord is ii, iii, or vi.

Some loose interpretation of loose relationships in jazz. Or, Why is the tonic the only one to get a dominant companion?
Well I kinda see that yes, any particular key has only one dominant. If you are playing folk music and your seven chords (six mostly) are all you're allowed, then yes. You don't have any other dominants. One wife allowed to be wedded to one chord, the V defers and anticipates the I tonic. A good marriage. A happy family and a happy sound.
But jazz doesn't have this exclusivity in its DNA. Hey, why does that I get a dominant companion and we don't? Why don't the other chords get a contract rewritten (in violation with the strict laws of nature) and why don't they get their own companion by pretending to be a tonic for the sake of a nice pickup. Hmmm, so the VI can get its own mistress? Hot dang! Yeah, V7 of VI, you stand where the III used to be and just keep that VI company.
What? V7 of VI you want your own mistress? Well find a dominant chord of your own by pretending you're a tonic. Everybody gets to boogie. Everybody gets a dominant companion and ad infinitum.
The original meaning of the word Jazz was a copulatory reference. Yeah that's why it's jazz.

Sound good? If not, just don't use it. Nobody forces anybody to play secondary dominants. Modal vamps are good too. And very law abiding.

David

[christianm77]

Ain't just a jazz thing. Tonal harmony.

Popular music has become more modal in the past 50 years. As a result the basic furniture of harmony isn't so familiar.