KVR Audio

Musicologo · Post by **Musicologo** » Thu Apr 24, 2014 3:37 am

Humm, last night I was juggling around with the keyboard and came up with a simple song with this chord progression:

C-C7|Fm|
Bb-Bb7|Eb|
Ab*|G|Ab|G-G7|
Cm|G7|Cm

And then I tried to analyze it and at first I thought of it as:
(Cm)
V/iv-V7/iv|iv|
V/III-V7/III|III|
bII/V*|V|bII/V|V-V7|
i|V7|i

mainly thinking this could be explained as a bunch of dominant-tonic movements.
But then, when I REALLY think what a III function is, it makes no sense to me, because a III is really a "tonic" function, so either the second line is a modulation to the relative, an in that case
(Cm)
V/iv-V7/iv|iv|
(Eb)
V-V7|I|
(Cm)
bII/V|V|bII/V|V-V7|
i|V7|i

Or either, I can see a chain of dominants...
because Bb is the dominant of Eb, which is the dominant of Ab, which can be seen as a Neapolitan for the Dominant (thus, a sub-dominant), which is the dominant of C.

So, does this makes any sense?

(Cm)
V/iv-V7/iv|iv|
[(V/V)/bII]/V-[(V7/V)/bII]/V|(V/bII)/V|
bII/V|V|bII/V|V-V7|
i|V7|i

*I also considered the hypothesis of the bII being a tritonic substitution of the dominant of the dominant... I'm always kind of confused around the "bII" function.
My trick is: if it goes bII-I then it's a dominant, and a tritonic substitution, if it goes bII/V-V7-I, then it is a neapolitan, and thus a subdominant. But in the context of a chain, what prevents a bII/V-V-I of being a tritonic substitution of the dominant of the dominant?...

jancivil · Post by **jancivil** » Thu Apr 24, 2014 4:37 am

Musicologo wrote:I'm always kind of confused around the "bII" function.
My trick is: if it goes bII-I then it's a dominant, and a tritonic substitution, if it goes bII-V7-I, then it is a neapolitan, and thus a subdominant. But in the context of a chain, what prevents a bII-V-I of being a tritonic substitution of the dominant of the dominant?...

"Neapolitan" is just a term taken out of 'Neapolitan sixth' and works as subdominant function thusly [tonic = C]: F to Db is the sixth, root being Db, so it is figured bII6. F is bass, ie., *subdominant*. A typical treatment from here is: keep F in bass, Ab/Db to G/C and C a 4-3 to B, resolve to E G C.
*Neapolitan sixth* is specific; 'bII' is not necessarily 'Neapolitan'. The convention is that, rather than 'it goes bII-V7'; I mean you could do that but 'Neapolitan' is that particular thing, that voice-leading (Ab and Db are not likely to move elsewhere/V7 approached through *subdominant* bass function).
"Db major to G major" through another mechanism; I don't know what that is until I see it. But we know that move.

No reason bII can't be a dominant to 'bV'. Dominant of the dominant is 'II7'. Tritone sub* for that will be bVI7. I can't get there from here. bII is 'tritone substitute' for V; tritone sub for V/V is bVI.

It seems to conflate 'classical' chromaticism with that bebop b5 notion (* Note well, though that that substitution hinges on there being a b5 in the chord. It's actually 'b5 substitution', eg., Db F Abb Cb for G B Db F, founded in Db as b5 of G).
I see the word 'dominant' four times in a row and it's like, where are we. Me brain hurts. If you like tortured thought, read some Schoenberg sometime...

Musicologo · Post by **Musicologo** » Thu Apr 24, 2014 3:42 pm

I'm really sorry for the confusion jancivil. Seeing the original progression I noticed that in my text I forgot the "/V" part, and now edited the original post accordingly.
I was not referring to bII-V-i, but instead bII/V-V-i. (or the bVI-V).
For me "bVI7", II7, and "III" are "non-existent" functions as I tend to adhere to the concept of
I - tonic; ii7 or IV - subdominant; V7 or vii0 - dominant. Therefore, in popular cadential music, every III or bVI7 or any other "strange" degree can be "explained" or "notated" as one of the previous, in another key.

Having that in mind - II7 doesn't exist because it presupposes a #4 which is not natural in the scale. If you have a #4, probably you modulated to the dominant, and therefore, what exists is V7/V.

Hence, bVI also "doesn't exist", instead bII/V-V.

The same way a VI7|II7|V7|i would not make sense to me, and I would prefer to see it as a (V7/V)/V|V7/V|V7|i because it really is a chain of secondary dominants, function-wise...

PS- Still your post was useful because of the Neapolitan. I mean, then bII is only called neapolitan IF the bass is the 4th degree. When the bass is the bII or the bVI or the bI (or vii), then it is a tritonic substitution?...

Following that line reasoning that is why I reached the idea of dominant of dominant of dominant of dominant...

jancivil · Post by **jancivil** » Thu Apr 24, 2014 5:04 pm

Yeah, I figured as much. I got tired tracking dominants backwards, I'm getting old.

"II7 doesn't exist because it presupposes a #4 which is not natural"
Well, I use capitals for major and lower case for minor. It's not unheard of to say 'II' for 'V of V', it was pretty common in my experience.

"bVI doesn't exist..." That particular reasoning seems restrictive; it serves your impetus towards 'chain of dominants' but going pretty far back (eg., Schubert) minor is borrowed from, or another key is borrowed from more freely. bVI is the default on vi in minor, for instance. It isn't through itself bII of V.
I recommend Schoenberg "Structural Functions of Harmony" actually, as food for thought.

I agree in general that the real "functions" in functional harmony are tonic, subdominant, dominant.

jancivil · Post by **jancivil** » Thu Apr 24, 2014 5:22 pm

Cf:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/187 ... ne1987.pdf

"Why doesn't Schoenberg point out that the chord in question is a passing chord, a formation with no essential harmonic function?
The answer is very clear to the reader of the Harmonieliehre: Schoenberg insists that no chords are 'non-harmonic' [...]
Hence it is vital for Schoenberg the theorist to find a definite harmonic meaning for his chord."

MadBrain · Post by **MadBrain** » Thu Apr 24, 2014 10:57 pm

I think your analysis makes sense. You could probably come up with some case where analyzing "bVI" as "bII of V" might not work so well (something like "bVI, bVII, Im" perhaps) but it doesn't matter anyways.

The same way a VI7|II7|V7|i would not make sense to me, and I would prefer to see it as a (V7/V)/V|V7/V|V7|i because it really is a chain of secondary dominants, function-wise...

True, "VI7|II7|V7|i" is just a more superficial spelling for "V7 of V7 of V7 of Im". I'd still personally notate it as "VI7, II7, V7, Im", but that's simply because I already use slashes to notate chord inversions (ex: "Im, bVIIadd9/II, Im/bIII, I9/III, bII7/IV, V7#11, V7#11/VII, Im6").

Musicologo · Post by **Musicologo** » Fri Apr 25, 2014 12:07 am

Well, my reasoning is all based that you can reduce ANY chord to one of the functional basics - tonic, subdominant and dominant.
For me the bVII is clearly a dominant - it is leading to the tonic, it shares notes in common with v7, and also with vii07. They are all "extensions" from each other.

So for me the bVI|bVII|i, movement is something like bII/v|v7|i.
It is just a "weaker" dominant than V7, because it misses the half step on the leading tone...

jobromedia · Post by **jobromedia** » Wed May 28, 2014 2:18 pm

V/iv-V7/iv|iv|
V/III-V7/III|III|

Elaborate please.

jancivil · Post by **jancivil** » Wed May 28, 2014 2:45 pm

Musicologo wrote:Well, my reasoning is all based that you can reduce ANY chord to one of the functional basics - tonic, subdominant and dominant.
For me the bVII is clearly a dominant - it is leading to the tonic, it shares notes in common with v7, and also with vii07. They are all "extensions" from each other.

I consider bVII in many cases IV of IV, actually.

Musicologo · Post by **Musicologo** » Wed May 28, 2014 6:33 pm

Jancivil,
for a bVII to be a IV/IV what is the context? I can easily see that happening in Bb|C7|F|G7|C for instance
(IV/IV|V7/IV|IV|V7|I). Can you give me other not-so-evident examples?...

Jobromedia,
I don't know what you want me to elaborate. If you read that post carefully I already elaborate on my reasoning - a bunch of dominant-tonic movements, and then the "non existing III function" to further elaborate...

jancivil · Post by **jancivil** » Wed May 28, 2014 10:27 pm

Musicologo wrote:Jancivil,
for a bVII to be a IV/IV what is the context?

While I wouldn't want to be absolute about all contextual meaning for someone else, objectively Bb is IV of F which is IV of C for instance.
I think we can get into things like: per C mixolydian, 'Bb is the dominant', in modal terms; but in terms of functional harmony paradigm I wouldn't place it in the dominant slot as you did. That, along with your assessment of bVI as really a secondary dominant per se begins to suggest that you're *forcing things to fit your first principle. The flat five substitution principle out of bebop is defined by seventh chords, not mere triads, in the first place. So, Ab7b5 is equal to (literally the same notes as) D7b5, V of G. I don't accept that Ab is V of G just through being a flat fifth from D. *bII is not V simply through flat five relationship.

Your reasoning '[bVII] shares notes with v {minor}', well that is not a dominant to me just through being built on the five. It lies outside that harmonic paradigm, actually. If it works in your actual musical thought, who am I to say, but that's a sort of unusual approach that many won't agree with. I've noticed it's a double plagal move typically as well as literally being IV/IV.

Now, I don't think making definitions through language is more useful than what does it do for your thinking. I think some of this is unnecessarily restrictive in that sense.

Dominant of dominant of dominant of dominant...