Quick question:
The chord progressions I-iv and i-IV are really cool. Would you classify those as a special kind of chromatic harmony (chromatic Subdominants) or just call them borrowed IVs?
Chromatic Subdominants?
-
- KVRAF
- 3404 posts since 15 Sep, 2002
I don't know what it should be called. Rooksby calls substitutions of major for minor and minor for major "polarity" substitutions. A neat, but non-standard term.
-
- KVRAF
- 5175 posts since 29 Apr, 2006
YES, these are indeed borrowed chords from their respective parallel modes (minor, major.) I personally have never once heard the term "chromatic subdominant."Toxikator wrote:Quick question:
The chord progressions I-iv and i-IV are really cool. Would you classify those as a special kind of chromatic harmony (chromatic Subdominants) or just call them borrowed IVs?
-
- KVRist
- 33 posts since 3 May, 2006 from Slovenia
"Chromatically altered subdominant" would be a more mainstream term, I think. But it's clear what you mean.
I'm not a fan of the whole concept of chords being "borrowed" from other modes, because it places too much on quantity (the chord abstracted) and not enough on quality (the chord in use). In other words, what makes a mode is the way the materials are used. For example all the "white-key" Church modes have the same material (the white keys
) and it's only the use of the materials on the time axis that differentiates them.
The function of chord changes when it is "borrowed", so it seems to me that in functional harmony, it's no longer the same chord! Therefore "altered" is better than "borrowed", in my opinion.
In pop and jazz, the chords themselves are pretty autonomous sound objects, so functional terminology isn't very appropriate.
-Cameron Bobro
I'm not a fan of the whole concept of chords being "borrowed" from other modes, because it places too much on quantity (the chord abstracted) and not enough on quality (the chord in use). In other words, what makes a mode is the way the materials are used. For example all the "white-key" Church modes have the same material (the white keys
) and it's only the use of the materials on the time axis that differentiates them. The function of chord changes when it is "borrowed", so it seems to me that in functional harmony, it's no longer the same chord! Therefore "altered" is better than "borrowed", in my opinion.
In pop and jazz, the chords themselves are pretty autonomous sound objects, so functional terminology isn't very appropriate.
-Cameron Bobro
"You really can't make a good robot without chanting the scriptures".
-
- KVRAF
- 4634 posts since 25 Mar, 2006 from The city by the bay
So following this approach the I-IV-v chord progression in "Louie, Louie" would not be considered to contain a borrowed chord from, say, the Mixolydian mode (or just be in that mode) but rather just contain an altered dominant, right?
In cases like this one where the melody is not modal I think the idea that a songwriter is basically changing a progression by substituting an altered chord makes sense.
In cases like this one where the melody is not modal I think the idea that a songwriter is basically changing a progression by substituting an altered chord makes sense.
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 1975 posts since 4 Feb, 2005
Indeed. Well it requires some thinking about because it works for so many chords; it works on IIs, IVs, V, and potentially VIIs. Then on IIIs you also have a whole other set of systems...
-
- KVRist
- 149 posts since 27 Jan, 2007 from Eyeth
Borrowed chords / modal interchange. They are chromatic chords and how we'll call them is a matter of theoristic approach, but I think it would be better if one makes difference between modal interchange chords and altered chords, although when we borrow chords we alter the degrees. In the first case, the chords could be found diatonic to the parallel modes. In the second case, they cannot and could be called "really altered chords". When we are in minor key, chords from the melodic and harmonic minor are not considered borrowed chords (and aesthetically, the cross-relations due to switching between natural, harmonic and melodic minor are not considered errors).
The said about jazz harmony is half truth - it could be analysed, too, but often requires more in-depth look and of course knowledge in jazz harmony.
By the way, the usage of natural minor for the dominant chord sometimes could be observed in some pieces of our folk music (Bulgarian).
The said about jazz harmony is half truth - it could be analysed, too, but often requires more in-depth look and of course knowledge in jazz harmony.
By the way, the usage of natural minor for the dominant chord sometimes could be observed in some pieces of our folk music (Bulgarian).
-
JumpingJackFlash JumpingJackFlash https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=44005
- KVRian
- 1227 posts since 10 Oct, 2004
Personally, I would simply call I-iv a Minor Subdominant, and i-IV a Major Subdominant, and yes, I would say it is a kind of chromatic harmony.Toxikator wrote:Quick question:
The chord progressions I-iv and i-IV are really cool. Would you classify those as a special kind of chromatic harmony (chromatic Subdominants) or just call them borrowed IVs?
(using your method of nomenclature to avoid another argument)
Minor Subdominants, I would think, are more common, which are usually used in approaching a cadence (e.g.. iv-V-I).
-
- KVRAF
- 2356 posts since 30 Sep, 2003 from Sunny Staffordshire
I think that is up to the individual. But I like to view them simply as borrowed chords. They do sound great, admittedly!Toxikator wrote:Quick question:
The chord progressions I-iv and i-IV are really cool. Would you classify those as a special kind of chromatic harmony (chromatic Subdominants) or just call them borrowed IVs?
Another one I like is (I - v).
TB