Pop Harmony II7-IV, is it functional?

Chords, scales, harmony, melody, etc.
Post Reply New Topic
RELATED
PRODUCTS

Post

So we know the jazz and/or classical cornerstone of II7-V, V7/V-V, respectively. D7-G in the key of C. It has a very clear function. In pop, seemingly coming from gospel, II7 doesn't always go to V though. Sometimes, it goes to IV. D7-F. And it seems perfectly logical.

So my question is, is this apparent naturalness because of how deeply ingrained pop harmony is to modern listeners' ears, which doesn't have to be functional all the time? Or can the II7 chord be contextualized as something functional? It's easy to explain by looking at voice leading, for example a Neo-Reimannian analysis would say it's only 2 transformations to get from D major to F major. But does it have to rely on that?

As an example, here's a recent blissed-out, "Beach Boys meets soul" pop song that relies on this progression. Not exactly challenging. In fact it relies on it to sound lazy and ambling: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOspC5B69L4

Post

One key point I'll make is, afaict that's just II as a triad going to IV. I listened for a minute and a half, the tritone tension of the Major/Minor 7th harmony doesn't appear to me.

So, we'd have to define 'functional'. In the Common Practice Paradigm of that, I would venture to say not so much.

Maybe the sharp 4 per 'I' relaxing to natural 4 is, well, relaxing. "2 transformations to" get there, that's overthinking it. I personally have no need for that whole game.

My main partner-in-crime musically was a serious harmonic cat (I was the melody chief). He had a saying that stuck with me: IV is the 'come' chord. Arrival at this, ah, crucial plateau.

It's also, you seem to have noted this, very prevalent in gospel. Here... think on the term 'plagal' some. In both that CPP sense and black church or soul sense, it is a point of repose in itself typically.

Post

I hear the minor 3rd root movement basically. Same as I-bIII but on that second level.

BUT, unlike that thing in the Charlie Parker thread where ii-V7 of I went to bIII. Jazz of that type is functional per se, because the chief goal is to make a strong thrust to any strong beat harmony as though it's a temporary 'I', it's more chromatic to make a non-I a new key area.
IE: suddenly bIII (for whatever 'reason') did not change the fact of all the ii-V-I (eg., in the turnaround where that "I" is ii of the 'real' I, which is so typical).

Post

My analysis (using pop chord notation): IIm, IIm7, IIm7b5, II, II7, II7b9, #IVdim7, IV, IVm, bII/IV, VI VI7 VImaj7 in minor keys (bVI bVI7 bVImaj7 in major), etc are all predominants, and you can easily chain multiple predominants together.

The chord progression ends on a predominant (IV) going back to I... that acts as a plagal cadence, which can sound a little weaker or incomplete (it's not a resolution that's as strong as dominant->I, but it's still a resolution)... I think that in that song, it's on purpose to propel the song forwards.

Post

II7 btw would be DF#AC, but that would be quite chromatic and I don't think that's what you mean! Of course in the Lydian mode you would have a II7, but a IV would then be a chromatic alteration or a borrowed chord. So I think you must mean ii7.

In 12-tone equal temperament ( and in quarter-comma meantone, which is where our tonal functional harmony originated), when you go from ii7 to IV, you introduce no new pitches, you just drop the fundamental pitch and the percieved root goes up a minor third, as Jan Civil pointed out.

I think functional analysis must always take into consideration: where is it going? If it's followed by a V, then IMO the functional analysis should lump the whole ii7-IV as a giant stretched ii7. If it's followed by I, then it's a plagal or "Amen" cadence and the ii7 could be analized as setting up expectation of a V, but instead just morphing into a plagal dominant of IV, so, a combination of smoothness and surprise, which I think might be a good description of "jazz" harmonic function in general.

Post

Whoa, I'm feeling old. At any rate I wasn't listening closely at all, rather thinking about the words in the OP, so I heard basically (evidently only) the root movement and went with what I read, (D) major.

I don't think so. ANYWAY, it's VII, i, III in natural minor.

Listen to it, the second chord is the tonic. So looking at what I said, I sensed I-III didn't I.

I'm a burnout. :?

Post

VII-i-III certainly seems functional, bet I could even find it in some classical example somewhere in Kostka and Payne. III in aeolian being the I of the relative major, it would probably appear prior to some overall modulation to the relative major I would think.

Post

Yeah I realized after I posted it that the version of the song in my head was not how it actually was... oops. Anyway, I'm sure for a fact I've heard the progression in pop music before, even if I can't think of an example off the top. I think the song from the movie School of Rock might even use it :hihi:.

Also, even though it's irrelevant now, I completely disagree that the second chord in "Real Love Baby" is the tonic. The melody always resolves to the root of the first chord, so as per Jan's first post I can only hear it as I-ii-IV, or the most plagal thing possible.

EDIT: a better example of the progression in the OP would be You Can't Always Get What You Want by the stones. The "if you try sometime" part at the end of the refrain.
Last edited by nineofkings on Mon Feb 27, 2017 10:15 am, edited 1 time in total.

Post

'The melody always resolves to the root of the first chord'. What 'resolve'? What tension needed resolution? So the tune always ended up on the root of that chord? That in itself does not make that chord I. That argument cannot make any chord I, come on.

I'm feeling lame for not recognizing it instantly; I'm on medication! It fecking _is_ VII i III, I've heard it a million times. The feeling of home is what makes it home. VII has a necessity for i here. It always goes directly there, as to a magnet.

Post

The melody starts and ends on the root of the first chord, and lingers on the third degree. I don't think that's insignificant. Inasmuch as a plagal cadence is a cadence, most phrases end on a "perfect plagal cadence" for lack of a term. The harmonic rhythm also extends the third chord, in my analysis the IV, to go back to what I'm calling the I. Why would a III chord in a cyclic chord progression deserve that emphasis?

Above all, the first chord to me just *sounds* like I, and with just straight triads for the whole song it's hard to make a more intellectual argument beyond that. Maybe my ears have been infected by "alternative rock"' where the ii is given undue emphasis as a plagal chord in a major key, in a context where plagal cadences are already given undue emphasis.

Post Reply

Return to “Music Theory”