Is the V chord always Dominant?

[Musicologo]

I supose I could pose the opposite question:

Is it possible to have a V in a certain progression and it NOT have the function of dominant?

Because "Dominant" is a function right?

If I get ii-V-ii-V-ii-V-vi-vii-iii I never resolve, therefore the V is not dominant. On the other hand if I don't have a resolution, then probably the analysis is all wrong and then I don't have a ii-V-ii-V, etc, and that V is not really a V...

So I guess this is a catch 22, basically. In order to call some chord "V" I am assuming that that chord IS the dominant, and that it is because of the relation it will have with the "I/i" that I call it "V"...

So I'd say whenever I have a V it's a dominant. If it's not, then it's not a V all along.

[jancivil]

chances are good (in some contexts anyway) that repeating ii/V a lot of times in a row is going to be perceived as i/IV, even if the latter chord is a 'dominant 7th' construction, until that second chord moves up a perfect fourth/down a fifth. then it's a dominant because it functioned as one.

context is everything in music. abstracting things, reducing to a formula doesn't necessarily say anything.

I've heard jazzers say The Carlos Santana Secret Chord Progression is ii-V, ii-V ad infin. It isn't, it never goes anywhere, it's i-IV, it's a vamp for dorian mode jamming.

[cryophonik]

I supose I could pose the opposite question:

Is it possible to have a V in a certain progression and it NOT have the function of dominant?

Because "Dominant" is a function right?

I'd say that the I-V-iii-IV progression is a good example of a V chord that does not function as a typical dominant. The V doesn't "resolve" in the traditional sense (e.g., to I or vi). Rather, the iii-chord acts more as a substitute chord that replaces the dominant before resolving upward to the subdominant (often ultimately resolving back to the tonic). When the dominant doesn't resolve to the I, it's sometimes referred to as a surprise or deceptive cadence, but that's typically reserved for V7 > vi (or VI in minor). And, as jancivil so rightly pointed out, context is everything.

[Ogg Vorbis]

I supose I could pose the opposite question:

Is it possible to have a V in a certain progression and it NOT have the function of dominant?

Because "Dominant" is a function right?

Yes...as others have pointed out, "context dictates function."

I always roll my eyes when I see this stuff...

1st of the scale = Tonic I
2nd of the scale = Supertonic II
3rd of the scale = Mediant III
4th of the scale = Subdominant IV
5th of the scale = Dominant V
6th of the scale = Submediant VI
7th of the scale = Leading Note VII

While true in an assumed traditional tonal context, this kind of view tends to "flatten" music theory as just being static harmonic "bricks" that you put together and arrange your wall of music.

It's a little like trying to study bird migration so you shoot a thousand birds and mount them up on wooden plaques with their latin names. Looking at these plaques gives you no insight into their flight. They are dead things.

But I suppose you can memorize bird names...could be handy somehow...

[JumpingJackFlash]

While true in an assumed traditional tonal context, this kind of view tends to "flatten" music theory as just being static harmonic "bricks" that you put together and arrange your wall of music.

It might not be your cup of tea, but proper vocabulary is important. Otherwise, when someone tells you to "sharpen the leading note" what do you do?

Also, the dominant and the fifth aren't (necessarily) the same thing.
Dominant, subdominant etc. always refer to the notes or chords of the key you're in,
whereas fifths, thirds, sevenths etc. refer to the notes of the chord at that point (which will change with every chord).

You need a foundation to build from. This kind of stuff isn't exactly hard; it pays to understand it and will save time in the long run. Likewise with knowing how a major seventh differs from a dominant seventh etc.

[Ogg Vorbis]

It might not be your cup of tea, but proper vocabulary is important. Otherwise, when someone tells you to "sharpen the leading note" what do you do?

No, you're right JJF. Such approaches DO give you a nice conventional common language. And yes, a baseline set of conventions is a good starting point. I think it has negative unintended consequences when TEACHING the language outside of tonal context however...

Fair points one and all.

[wrench45us]

While true in an assumed traditional tonal context, this kind of view tends to "flatten" music theory as just being static harmonic "bricks" that you put together and arrange your wall of music.

I was just reading last night that we seem to have an innate ability to learn/absorb a melody or a lyric, but for most of us it takes a some work to do the same thing with chord progressions. Chord progressions seem to be collections taken one-at-a-time. We don't do that with lyrics or melodies and there are real advantages to learning to understand chord progressions as phrases -- picking up new songs 'by ear', transposing to new keys, ready 'catalog' of chord substitutions. Years of playing a large repertoire of songs that use functional harmony and most working musicians pick up this ability, but it's not generally taught or recognized directly.

[jancivil]

While true in an assumed traditional tonal context, this kind of view tends to "flatten" music theory as just being static harmonic "bricks" that you put together and arrange your wall of music.

It might not be your cup of tea, but proper vocabulary is important. Otherwise, when someone tells you to "sharpen the leading note" what do you do?

The leading tone is sharpened HOW? A Bb in key of C isn't any leading tone. I never heard of a leading 'note' in Western Music, if you want to get into establishing vocabulary. If you want that as de facto, show another example of it in context. IE: if you make F into F#, a 'secondary' leading tone, what did the F natural lead to?

Ogg was about the Captain Obvious redundancy of eg., "7/leading tone = VII/leading".
vii tends to have a FUNCTION in a harmony, that of a "dominant" (leading tone is not a harmonic function, it is a melodic one. The harmonic function follows that, not vice versa). To observe that doesn't show any preference for a blend of tea but made a point as per lack of context turning theory into a dead parrot, which I agree with.

[softska]

While true in an assumed traditional tonal context, this kind of view tends to "flatten" music theory as just being static harmonic "bricks" that you put together and arrange your wall of music.

It might not be your cup of tea, but proper vocabulary is important. Otherwise, when someone tells you to "sharpen the leading note" what do you do?

The leading tone is sharpened HOW? A Bb in key of C isn't any leading tone. I never heard of a leading 'note' in Western Music, if you want to get into establishing vocabulary. If you want that as de facto, show another example of it in context. IE: if you make F into F#, a 'secondary' leading tone, what did the F natural lead to?

Ogg was about the Captain Obvious redundancy of eg., "7/leading tone = VII/leading".
vii tends to have a FUNCTION in a harmony, that of a "dominant (leading tone is not a harmonic function, it is a melodic one). To observe that doesn't show any preference for a blend of tea but made a point as per lack of context flattening theory into a dead parrot, which I agree with.

IIRC, leading tone are indeed slightly sharp sometimes for the proper major 3rd. Can't happen in equal temperament of course but you do it with instruments that can be tuned that way (strings or choral mainly)... Though I'm fuzzy memory of this, maybe I'm little off.

And leading tone IS a harmonic function, you don't call it as such if there's nothing to resolve to in relation to the harmonies.

[jancivil]

sure, and Indian music has a number of variants (which I almost went into but figured 'Off Topic'). I'm as familiar as anybody. that isn't the context of the statement I addressed, is it.

And a dominant funtion is not a drive to a chord but a drive to a tonic or temporary goal, which is a note. IE: you have a drive to the tonic, this could be major, or minor (or a substitute for these); but the functional goal is to a particular tone. Otherwise minor v is the same dominant function as a major V. That should be perfectly clear. In musical practice, harmonic progression followed voice leading principles, which were people singing lines, not the other way around. You harmonized a tune, never melodicized a chord progression.

You change the harmony's function by the way the voice leads, in a line, and not vice versa.
EG: if you change the Bb of the v occurring in C natural minor to a B natural, because you want a stronger drive to THE TONIC, you'll change the harmony. The harmony follows the drive to the goal, which is expressed precisely by a given tone, The Tonic, and only imprecisely by a chord that thickens or colors that goal Note. That should be perfectly clear.

[jancivil]

And leading tone IS a harmonic function, you don't call it as such if there's nothing to resolve to in relation to the harmonies.

In other words you don't call it as such since there is no meaning in the statement. You have a self-refuting sentence there, capitalizing 'is' doesn't help it.

You are resolving to a tonic (or a temporary tonic), a tone, not a harmony. The harmony could be deceptive, but the goal isn't changed by that. Melody following harmony is ass-backwards, "relating to the harmonies".

EG: you could resolve V7 to bVI, but you only have the possibility of bVI as satisfactory resolution at all owing to the tone in common, which is your goal, the tonic note.

[softska]

And leading tone IS a harmonic function, you don't call it as such if there's nothing to resolve to in relation to the harmonies.

In other words you don't call it as such since there is no meaning in the statement. You have a self-refuting sentence there, capitalizing 'is' doesn't help it.

You are resolving to a tonic (or a temporary tonic), a tone, not a harmony. The harmony could be deceptive, but the goal isn't changed by that. Melody following harmony is ass-backwards, "relating to the harmonies".

EG: you could resolve V7 to bVI, but you only have the possibility of bVI as satisfactory resolution at all owing to the tone in common, which is your goal, the tonic note.

Yep you're right. I shall eat my words, it's tonality not harmonies that makes leading tone. But dear god simplify your explanations for public good, it took me good couple reads to even understand what your examples are trying to explain.

[Sascha Franck]

I think I'm getting the hang of this now. I'm doing a simple I-IV-V chord progression. Am I right that the V chord is always/usually dominant?

Usually = yes.
But then, as usual (errm...) it depends.
For instance, if you think more like in "modal schemes", the V chord could as well be a plain minor7 chord.

An example: Very often, if you want some sort of V chord in, say, A natural minor, you might be reaching for an E7. As a result, the scale is changed to A harmonic minor (or some other dominant scale suitable for whatever E7 dominant chord you'd be using) at least for the duration of the E7 chord.
But then, you may as well think a little more "modally strict" or so. And when you look at the V chord of the natural minor scale, you'll notice that it's a min7 chord, rather than a dom7 one. The same goes for, say, dorian. If you think of dorian as your "tonic mode", the V chord will as well be a minor chord.
And well, the same even goes for mixolydian. In case you want your tonic chord to be mixolydian, the V chord will again be minor.

In a (rather subjective and personal) nutshell: Using a dom7 for the V chord *might* make your music sound a little more "plausible" in whatever traditional sense, but whenever you want to "establish a mode", you'd rather stick to what the mode "dictates".
Especially in "not-too-classical-and-not-too-jazzy" music, you will find lots of tunes where the V chord is no dominant 7.

- Sascha

[fmr]

Actually, I think this subject has more perspectives. First of all, I tend to see modes here treated as scales, which they aren't. Modes, and the name implies, are "ways of being", like personalities. They evolved in the Middle Ages, and there were four of them. I mode (what some call now Dorian) is from D to D, but has a kind of secondary partner that goes from A to A. This was the most important mode, and the modern minor mode originated from this. Then there are II mode (what's been called Phrygian) which is from E to E, and also has a secondary (plagal mode) from B to B; III mode (what's been called Lydian) from F to F, with the plagal from C to C; and finally the IV mode, from G to G, with the plagal from D to D (and no, this isn't the same as the I mode, because the Finalis - kind of tonic - and the Repercusa - kind of dominant - aren't the same). Again, these are "modes", not scales, so, they should be treated differently.

On important thing is that these are not "harmonic", but melodic, although they started to be "harmonized" through polyphony. It was the alterations made in some voices in the polyphonic pieces to "atract" the most important notes that slowly made appear the functions of harmony, like the dominant (v). The vii degree started to be raised, but only when approached from above, and this led to the modern minor harmonic mode in the I mode, as an evolution of the I mode.

I was also taught about the natural minor, harmonic minor and melodic minor, but I think this is not a good appraoch. I now think of it as only a minor mode. The "harmonic" is there to restore the dominant function, which needs the semitone from the vii degree to the i degree, and therefore needs an alteration. The "melodic" was created by Bach because in the baroque period people avoid melodic jumps of augmented second, therefore, a melodic progression ascending from the v to the i needs the alteration of the vi degree, to accomodate also the alteration of the vii degree. When descending, there's no longer the need for the sensible in the vii, therefore, also no need for the alteration of the vi. So, there aren't three minor scales, but just a minor mode, with three "variations".

When using modes (the old modes), I tend to think of music just melodically, and filling it with plain chords, like pedal notes. I think functional harmony and modes do not fit well. But I know jazzy people work with modes as kind of subscales for the major and minor, and I am almost competely ignorant of that, so, I humbly accept enlightment on that.

Regarding the progression, I second those who said that context is everything. In the end of the romantic period, there was an understanding of tonality as a progression of harmonies, therefore, the v and i were always changing. Chromaticism means that any v could turn into something else, depending on the evolution (context). Bach also did that centuries before. When harmonizing the chorales (which are, sometimes, kind of modal melodies) he several times twisted the harmony to lead it to new territories, using what I understand as secondary dominants, which conducted the harmony to other tonics. Sometimes, it's as easy as changing a note of the chord chromatically, and a v turns suddenly in something completely different (yet the chord remains almost the same).

Forgive me the long post, but this subjects is rather complex, IMO.

[JumpingJackFlash]

While true in an assumed traditional tonal context, this kind of view tends to "flatten" music theory as just being static harmonic "bricks" that you put together and arrange your wall of music.

It might not be your cup of tea, but proper vocabulary is important. Otherwise, when someone tells you to "sharpen the leading note" what do you do?

The leading tone is sharpened HOW? A Bb in key of C isn't any leading tone.

That was just an example of the sort of thing that you might see in a music textbook, or hear from another musician. I was (rather obviously I thought) referring to minor scales, but it was still just an example. My point was you need to know what they are talking about.

I never heard of a leading 'note' in Western Music,

I suspect this is a US/UK thing. We call them "leading notes" all the time.

vii tends to have a FUNCTION in a harmony, that of a "dominant" (leading tone is not a harmonic function, it is a melodic one. The harmonic function follows that, not vice versa).

My post was concerned with nomenclature, not function. Some people seem to think these are the same thing; they arn't.

A triad built on the leading note may function as a dominant, but it is still "a triad built on the leading note".
Similarly, back to the original question, chord V is always "the dominant triad", even if it doesn't function as such.

To observe that doesn't show any preference for a blend of tea

See here.

BTW: Great post fmr!