Tonic and dominant

[JumpingJackFlash]

Dominant seventh chords contain the interval of a minor seventh.
In other words, adding a minor seventh to a major triad produces a dominant seventh.
(And adding a minor seventh to a minor triad produces a minor seventh chord).
There is no such thing as the interval of a dominant seventh.

[fmr]

Saying the C-E-G Bb is a dominant seventh is not enough - is "dominant" of what? Dominant is a FUNCTION. Assumoing that chord is a dominant seventh would imply you to assume we were in the key of F. However, yuo stated we are in the key of C. How is C the dominant of itself?
IMHO, you are just using regular triads with altered notes, used as colouring notes - nothing against, as long as we understand what's happening.
And you passed over the F-A-C-Eb, a chord belonging to the already distant tonality of Bb. You just told all the sevenths are dominant sevenths (I understood that as we had to use minor sevenths, because you clearly werent referring to the function). I asked you why, and you didn't answer. So, I ask again - why?

[tapper mike]

You are hopeless. Your devotion to dogma has blindsided you to the reality of performance because you assume everything must fit into your preconceived and rather rudimentary knowledge of music theory.

[Hooj]

....But people keep talking about this, and even calling modes scales, etc.

WHAT??? Ok, I'm confused now. Isn't Ionian mode the same as the major scale, & Aeolian mode the same as the minor scale?

I know this can't be said for all modes/scales (eg: Dorian is SIMILAR to the Minor scale w/the exception of a maj 6th), right?

Isn't a "mode" is defined by it's intervals (between notes)?


I'm still learning theory, so please forgive my ignorance. I just want to make sure I'm understanding this right and your last comment seems partially contadictory to what I've learned.


.

[fmr]

You are hopeless. Your devotion to dogma has blindsided you to the reality of performance because you assume everything must fit into your preconceived and rather rudimentary knowledge of music theory.

I am not dogmatic. And in what way is my knowledge "rudimentary"? You keep not answering my questions, and now you come talk about "performance". What has "performance" to do with music theory? I think it's you that are being dogmatic, and confusing a "rather small" style with the whole. And what is that preconceived knowledge thing?

I ask again: Why do you have to use minor sevenths in seventh chords in blues? Why are the major sevenths resting? Why do you call C-D-G-Bb "dominant" if you state you are in the key of C, which would imply C was the dominant of itself? How do you fit the chord you called F dominant 7 (which would then belong to the key of Bb) in the key of C?

I was being polite, and genuinely interested in learning about something I assumed I don't know (blues and jazz). I even congratulated you regarding your first post. However, it seems you also don't know the "whys", just that it's done like that (according to what you wrote). So you are the dogmatic. And it's your kowledge that seems rather rudimentary to me. And remember that the subject of this thread is about tonic and dominant.

When I was in college, I remember some fellows talking about the "blues scale", and how blues has some "tonal ambiguity". Frankly, I was more interested in other subjects, so I never studied that. I thought I could now go a little deeper about the blues subject, but it seems you will not be able to help me.

[fmr]

....But people keep talking about this, and even calling modes scales, etc.

WHAT??? Ok, I'm confused now. Isn't Ionian mode the same as the major scale, & Aeolian mode the same as the minor scale?

No. because those modes never existed except in the pages of a couple of theory books. The major mode is the major mode, nohing else. The same about that Aeolian mode. It also never existed outside of a couple of theory books, therefore, could never be the minor mode.

As I said before, the minor mode comes from the Mode of D (Protus, also called Dorian), derived from the alteration of the B (and later from the adding of the raised seventh degree).

Major mode comes from the Mode of F (Tritus, also called Lydian), again derived fronm the alteration of the B.

Isn't a "mode" is defined by it's intervals (between notes)?

Yes, but not only. You also have to take into account the polar notes of the mode (the "finalis" and, above all, the "repercusa"). And since modes were used melodically, they also had some melodic formulas, which helped characterizing them. The name itself is self explanatory - Mode means "way of being", or mood, if you prefer. And modal composition were usually built around hexachords, so the mode was never played from D to D or F to F, for example.
Also, modes were not harmonized, because that concept was nonexixtant in the modal period. Harmony is a concept that slowly evolved from the used of polyphony (several independent melodies - voices - that played at the same time, and therefore generated harmonic intervals). Slowly, composers became awared of those intervals, and started composing with that in mind. Only around the XVII century did the concepts of tonal harmony became more os less firmly established, which, OTOH, leaded to the disappearing of the modes.

[JumpingJackFlash]

Isn't Ionian mode the same as the major scale, & Aeolian mode the same as the minor scale?

Is a piano the same as an organ?
Is a harpsichord the same as an electric keyboard?

No. They share the same notes, but they are very different things.

[ryemann79]

With regards to the blues, its important to understand that the music came first, evolving out of a tradition of folk music. Noone just decided one day to play a song in 12-bars using C7 F7 and G7 and call it Blues, it evolved into that by real musicians, some of whom probably didn't know the note names of the 6 strings of the guitar they were playing it on. Traditional blues is much more about an overall feeling to the music. To answer the question of why its played with dominant 7th chords, the answer, truthfully, is "it's the blues..."

Blues harmony defies the traditional music theory notions in a number of ways.
It's not in a "major" or "minor" key, in the tradional Western classical theory context of key. As is clear, the notes contained in C7, F7 and G7 chords do not fit into any one major or minor scale (key).

So to call a C7 chord (C E G Bb) a dominant chord in Blues is just a label. C7 is no longer the dominant of F (or any key), its just a C7 chord. But since we don't have any other established name for the chord that contains C-E-G-Bb) other than a dominant chord, we still use that label.

Now blues has evolved and was adopted by jazz, buts that is another long post. I'll just say that jazz blues has a similar but different (sometimes more complex) harmonic structure than traditional (popular) blues. If Stevie Ray Vaughan had showed up to a jam with Miles Davis and someone called out "Blue is C", the two men would have very different expectations of what chords, notes, and overall groove would be played. If that doesn't make sense to you, please listen to some music from both of those cats.

[ryemann79]

I hate talking about modes in a theory context because there are (at least) two schools of thought when it comes to modes.

First, there is the historical context of modes in the middle ages, also known as "church modes". This can be read in a textbook or in a Early Music college course. It is also still played in early music ensemble. The rules and traditions have been studied, treatises have been written, and so on. I am not denying this context of modes and modal music.

Fast forward to the Twentieth century and the word "mode" has taken on new meaning. For many musicians, especially around jazz, a mode is simply the collection of pitches, without the context of "modal music". For instance, you will hear a jazz musician talk about playing dorian over a minor 7th chord. This not to say he will be playing a Dorian-style melody, but rather playing the notes of the D dorian mode (d e f g a b c) while the harmony of the jazz tune is a D minor seventh chord. The next measure, when the harmony might be a G dominant seventh, he would probably say he is playing G mixolydian. Without getting into the heated political debate over the merits of chord-scale theory (believe me, its heated), this has become a valid context of the word "mode" for the past half century in both academic settings and on the bandstand.

Both of the schools of thought are valid and should be allowed to coexist without offending anyone.

[fmr]

Thaks for this post. Nokind of stand what my fellosw which were involved in jzz said specialwhen you wote:

Blues harmony defies the traditional music theory notions in a number of ways.
It's not in a "major" or "minor" key, in the tradional Western classical theory context of key. As is clear, the notes contained in C7, F7 and G7 chords do not fit into any one major or minor scale (key).

It's the same with several folk traditions. Many times they have some kind of structure that defies any rationalization and "educated" analysis, yet they work. Are there transcriptions of classics that show well this "idiosyncracy" of the blues you would recommend? Maybe analysing them will allow me to draw some conclusions.

[fmr]

I hate talking about modes in a theory context because there are (at least) two schools of thought when it comes to modes.
Both of the schools of thought are valid and should be allowed to coexist without offending anyone.

Completely agree with you. However, things are not so simple. When people know both, they know what the context is, and put the meaning into that context. Problem is the vast majority only know one meaning (usually the second) and tend to consider it the absolute meaning - and this is where the problem arises. And modes used as what they really are do not exist only in "historical" perspective - they are as valid today as they were then, and they are used and may be used today as they were used in the past.
People (in which I include myself) that studied the modes (what you called the church modes, and other modes too, because it's a vast universe) and use them in modern compositions (I am thinking of examples of the likes of Debussy, Messiaen, Stravinsky, Carl Orff and others), in a more modern and personal context, even with harmonies, but harmonies that are carefully chosen to respect and show the modal way, are uncomfortable with this generalization of what is, after all, a "corruption" (and I don't mean it in a censorship way) of what a mode really is.
I think it was the same when those that really knew latin in the middle-ages, felt when hearing so many people talking what they called latin, but wasn't latin anymore (and would then become french, italian, spanish, portuguese, etc.)
But I Ma interested in music, above all, and I am always trying to be humble., and learn with everybody, as well as also sharing the little bit I happen to know.

[codec_spurt]

Tonic and Dominant is a load of bullshit.


I got chords. The chords are pretty obvious what the 'Tonic' or 'Dominant' note is. And they are not the lowest note on the fretboard. That convention is done for consistency. It is done for ease of learning.

Many, many times I am playing a B chord with it's root in E (as you do) and when I look up what chord it is, well it doesn't say, oh that is a B chord - it tells me it is an E. By the progression of chords and the notes being sung, I know IT IS A B CHORD. (Even though E is not part of B Major, which I am talking about).

And what's more. The note that they claim is an inversion, is actually included in the rest of the chord, just not at that octave.


I go by the sound of the whole chord - the ear can tell what is what.
Root notes are great for learning scales and for technical stuff.
But real every day practice over rides this.


Perhaps that is why my guitar playing is so crap!

In my humble opinion, one judges the root note or dominant of the chord by how it sounds in relation to other chords. Chords taken in isolation - yes you can run wild over their namings - but in relation - which is what music theory is really about - that is what matters.

[JumpingJackFlash]

Tonic and Dominant is a load of bullshit.

I got chords. The chords are pretty obvious what the 'Tonic' or 'Dominant' note is. And they are not the lowest note on the fretboard. That convention is done for consistency. It is done for ease of learning.

Many, many times I am playing a B chord with it's root in E (as you do) and when I look up what chord it is, well it doesn't say, oh that is a B chord - it tells me it is an E. By the progression of chords and the notes being sung, I know IT IS A B CHORD. (Even though E is not part of B Major, which I am talking about).

And what's more. The note that they claim is an inversion, is actually included in the rest of the chord, just not at that octave.

I go by the sound of the whole chord - the ear can tell what is what.
Root notes are great for learning scales and for technical stuff.
But real every day practice over rides this.

Perhaps that is why my guitar playing is so crap!

In my humble opinion, one judges the root note or dominant of the chord by how it sounds in relation to other chords. Chords taken in isolation - yes you can run wild over their namings - but in relation - which is what music theory is really about - that is what matters.

Why are you posting on a music theory board when you clearly haven't got the first clue about it?

I'm afraid you can't just redefine established terms to mean whatever you want them to.

[Plasuma!!!]

Why not just write out a melody with a pleasing contour and figure out chords for it later or as you go? Better yet, write in two parts, that'll make it super easy to find alternative harmonies.

Functions give you hints of where chords might lead, but they need to be in context of something else first. Without that context, you'll get all wrapped up in the theory and wonder why any of it matters.

You know those bone-dry examples in theory textbooks with stacked donuts and examples of different resolutions? Yeah, you probably shouldn't compose with chords like that all the time, they're only like that for example. The texture can be cool sometimes, but seriously, there are a hundred other ways to work with chords that don't involve blocky vertical structures, and avoiding use of that pile of techniques makes for some pretty boring music.

[renatovms]

I'm studying theory 'cause I want to make EDM songs. So, I ask you. Do all of those musical theory rules apply to the electronic dance music?
Are there any extra rules to be considered?
Sometimes, I'm kinda confused.