I've seen these rules in several different places for chord leading for major keys:
I - All
ii - IV, V, viidim
iii - ii, vi
IV - I, V, viidim
V - I
vi - ii, IV
viidim - iii
However, they don't seem to work for minor keys. Is there a similar set of rules for minor keys?
Where do these rules come from anyway?
Chord Leading - Minor Chords
-
- KVRAF
- 26033 posts since 20 Oct, 2007 from gonesville
these kinds of concepts, are derived from after-the-fact analysis of the practice of composers in the practice period generally nowadays thought of as 'classical'. I didn't know them as rules, but maybe to get that kind of progression going, and going smoothly, they could be a sort of guideline
things like vi to ii, are because of strong root movement... you got 'ice cream changes', I vi ii V I out of, *vi is smooth after I, then two rising fourths moves*. (In this sort of practice you get a first inversion ii chord with a seventh often enough, in pop you just got a IV chord there simplifying it. The bass in the 'classic' way goes C A F G C. Three SMOOVE thirds in the line and the strong 'cadence'. )
things like the vii to iii, vii to I is obvious, and iii is a substitute? (aka a 'deceptive resolution'). vii isn't really different than V with a minor seventh, the 'dominant 7th', eliding the root. B D F has tensions which resolve obviously to C E. If it went to something where C clashed, but you want that sort of effect, you look at whatever chord resembles the more obvious 'resolution'. It isn't a 'rule'. Or, it could be the person was simply describing circle of fifths in some of this. I don't recognize what you have listed, as anything particularly meaningful in itself; I am trained in that school of harmony.
If you're trying to write old timey 19th century or whatever music, I guess you need to understand what was generally done. No one back then got out their rule book I don't think to know what to do. Some of these may have been, statistically speaking, somewhat prevalent and preferred moves in certain cases.
Lacking an understanding of how the *voices lead* in these changes (aka part-writing), it's not a good idea to take this information as if it's anything more than somebody's survey about some things which happened.
things like vi to ii, are because of strong root movement... you got 'ice cream changes', I vi ii V I out of, *vi is smooth after I, then two rising fourths moves*. (In this sort of practice you get a first inversion ii chord with a seventh often enough, in pop you just got a IV chord there simplifying it. The bass in the 'classic' way goes C A F G C. Three SMOOVE thirds in the line and the strong 'cadence'. )
things like the vii to iii, vii to I is obvious, and iii is a substitute? (aka a 'deceptive resolution'). vii isn't really different than V with a minor seventh, the 'dominant 7th', eliding the root. B D F has tensions which resolve obviously to C E. If it went to something where C clashed, but you want that sort of effect, you look at whatever chord resembles the more obvious 'resolution'. It isn't a 'rule'. Or, it could be the person was simply describing circle of fifths in some of this. I don't recognize what you have listed, as anything particularly meaningful in itself; I am trained in that school of harmony.
If you're trying to write old timey 19th century or whatever music, I guess you need to understand what was generally done. No one back then got out their rule book I don't think to know what to do. Some of these may have been, statistically speaking, somewhat prevalent and preferred moves in certain cases.
Lacking an understanding of how the *voices lead* in these changes (aka part-writing), it's not a good idea to take this information as if it's anything more than somebody's survey about some things which happened.
-
- KVRist
- 179 posts since 11 Feb, 2008
I'll take the last part first (always wanted to say that - sounds like a presidential debate!):danika wrote:I've seen these rules in several different places for chord leading for major keys:
I - All
ii - IV, V, viidim
iii - ii, vi
IV - I, V, viidim
V - I
vi - ii, IV
viidim - iii
However, they don't seem to work for minor keys. Is there a similar set of rules for minor keys?
Where do these rules come from anyway?
The rules come from the observation of what "most commonly" happens in what we call "common practice period" (CPP) tonal music - "classical" music.
In other words, theorists looked at thousands of pieces and discovered that almost always, V goes to I, but hardly ever to iii.
However, caveat here: What they are describing is "functional" progressions. There are certainly instances where chords do not follow these "rules" but in general, CPP music is about "functional chord progression" so when they do not follow these, they call the progressions "non-functional" or say they're "retogressing" or things like that.
Your chart is close, but not quite correct.
Major:
I - anything (also, anything can go to it as well so not mentioned again below)
ii - V, viio. Actually, IV goes to ii, but not the reverse.
iii - IV (common) and vi.
IV - ii, V and viio
V - I and vi (deceptive cadence!)
vi - ii, IV and V (vi is substituting for I when going "back" to V)
viio - I and in sequences, iii.
Just so you know, chords "progress" 3 ways: Authentically, Deceptively, and Mediantly (my words). These were called "ascending progressions".
Authentically is up a 4th (IV to viio)
Deceptively is up a 2nd (IV to V)
Mediantly is down a 3rd (IV to ii)
All the chords do this except when the Leading tone is involved, or a strong resolution to the tonic is expected, which is why not all of them have all three possible resolutions. For example, V resolves authentically (to I) and deceptrively (to vi) but not "mediantly" (to iii) because of the desire to resolve the leading tone to the tonic note, which is not in the iii chord.
Progressions in minor read basically the same. Exceptions come in when you use chords with #6 and b7.
Whereas ii resolves to iii rarely in Major, in minor iio goes to III commonly (though it sounds like viio-I in the relative major, and many treat it that way).
IV (major IV) moves to V or viio (no longer iio when major IV)
bVII moves to III (usually in a sequence) or to V (not too common), but rarely to I as it has lost its "leading" function (some people call this a "non-dominant VII chord".
v (minor v) is sometimes encountered - it is generally used as a non-dominant dominant chord (did you get that) and it's purpose is to move to VI (and even III), not typically I as usual.
#vio - more common in the Baroque period (Bach's chorales are littered with them) is designed to move to V (usually V6) or viio (in root position!).
So minor is "basically" the same, with a few additions because of the various chords produced by the variable 6 and 7 degrees.
HTH,
Steve
-
- KVRAF
- 26033 posts since 20 Oct, 2007 from gonesville
WHY did they commonly happen? Very thorough compilation of information, but what does it mean to someone trying to write music?
'#vi diminished' to 'V'. In the Baroque Period.
[Por que? Voice leading. You endeavored to get a smooth affect in all the voices, when you got 'harmonic' action.
It isn't going to be too 'classical' if you don't.]
in e minor:
C# - B
E - D#
G - F#
Bb - A
in the context of JS Bach, it's a contrapuntal type of writing. You get a little later, it's not as obviously that kind of texture, but the ideas are the same. There are things in your 'harmonic progression' which sounded better to you in this practice cause they go down smooth, they are not jarring to the ear.
ii doesn't go to IV, you say. But does go the other way round. (Manuel]Que?[/Manuel]
Is it, too weak? Does it impede the momentum of the 'progression'?
Both kinda like to go to V. Both are kinda sorta the same in this regard. But, you get More Smoove Factor in it if you go from IV to ii (to V to I). that is to say. A, F#m, B7, E. A concept of smoothness in lines, which is counterpoint-derived.
And, how is a minor chord a 'dominant' function at all. v minor to a bVI, V, I. that first chord didn't predominate at all, it led. According to a line in the design. It wasn't that compelling a tension, to dominate anything, it, according to voice-leading, has certain places it's attracted to. The V7 chord, rather more demanding as it contained tensions which implicated a rising fourth move, next. All, voice leading concepts.
These harmonic progressions didn't exist for their own sake, they provided ways to propel you towards home, and decorate your journey, give you some color and distraction along the way. (It's a melodic music, and these melodies were given handsome clothes, luxurious settings according to the style of things in the aristocracy.)
I don't think much if at all was done with, I'm gonna go with these awesome 'chord progressions' for my next hit tune for Kingy Baby. But the other way round.
'#vi diminished' to 'V'. In the Baroque Period.
[Por que? Voice leading. You endeavored to get a smooth affect in all the voices, when you got 'harmonic' action.
It isn't going to be too 'classical' if you don't.]
in e minor:
C# - B
E - D#
G - F#
Bb - A
in the context of JS Bach, it's a contrapuntal type of writing. You get a little later, it's not as obviously that kind of texture, but the ideas are the same. There are things in your 'harmonic progression' which sounded better to you in this practice cause they go down smooth, they are not jarring to the ear.
ii doesn't go to IV, you say. But does go the other way round. (Manuel]Que?[/Manuel]
Is it, too weak? Does it impede the momentum of the 'progression'?
Both kinda like to go to V. Both are kinda sorta the same in this regard. But, you get More Smoove Factor in it if you go from IV to ii (to V to I). that is to say. A, F#m, B7, E. A concept of smoothness in lines, which is counterpoint-derived.
And, how is a minor chord a 'dominant' function at all. v minor to a bVI, V, I. that first chord didn't predominate at all, it led. According to a line in the design. It wasn't that compelling a tension, to dominate anything, it, according to voice-leading, has certain places it's attracted to. The V7 chord, rather more demanding as it contained tensions which implicated a rising fourth move, next. All, voice leading concepts.
These harmonic progressions didn't exist for their own sake, they provided ways to propel you towards home, and decorate your journey, give you some color and distraction along the way. (It's a melodic music, and these melodies were given handsome clothes, luxurious settings according to the style of things in the aristocracy.)
I don't think much if at all was done with, I'm gonna go with these awesome 'chord progressions' for my next hit tune for Kingy Baby. But the other way round.