My theory of harmonic functions

[excuse me please]

PS lol now I understand; I had not cancelled my blabla comment; it was not meant for posting. You caught me red-handed. But I think it's still funny. I tried to censor myself, but something went wrong, apparently.

[jancivil]

here’s my assessment: you think the guy on youtube is more of an expert because he’s on youtube. Possibly based in # of subscribers. Like the time you relied on this one kid in a video telling us about The Beatles use of modes in Yesterday, when in fact all that happens is ii-V of vi to vi. In F: F, Em-A7, Dm.

Yesterday (F major):

| F | Em7 A7 | Dm |

The Lydian mode is just a suggestion, the second chord (Em7) heavily leans towards F Lydian. Although the song actually modulates from F major to D minor.

It's explained in this interesting video (at 5:47):

Wherein a guy (who looks 15) with relatively little knowledge makes a lot of laughably incompetent statements, eg., this one he has to revisit and edit as the information became available. But he has 100k views or something, so he’s a go-to Authority, isn’t it.

Like all serious Dunning-Kruger Effect proofs, your ability to recognize expertise is exactly that of your ability to recognize your own mistakes. There, you’re just able to parrot the words “modulates from F major to D minor.” with nary a clue that the statement is mutually exclusive as regards the use of modes.
This has literally nothing to do with Lydian mode. A ‘B’ in a chord appears in key of F, and a person takes this little factoid about the #4 and confidently posts a youtube to tell the world of their discovery. Lacking the first clue about the subject of modes or their use. Your go-to, to parrot something here.


Or: Em sus4 #5, I won’t soon forget it. Filed under You Can’t Make This Shit Up.

[excuse me please]

@jancivil

I once read a comment at yt and I was like.. what kind of person could even write such inane crap anyway? Just did not seem to make any sense in any way. Then I noticed it was one of my own comments. .

[jancivil]

”Double dominant” is probably a term from some School, but you have one dominant at a time (unless this is supposed to describe bitonality).

“just a flavor of the tonic”? Tonic function, dominant function, two things. I may become V/IV but then it’s the new function.

i think double dominant is referring to "dominant of the dominant" or V/V, which is technically on the II degree (supertonic).

I think what might be referred to are dominant seventh chords within a progression that are not based on the fifth degree and do not tonicize the chord that comes after them in the same sense that a secondary dominant would.

II7 ii7

And possibly also something like VI7 -> V7 in major. Of course, this shouldn't include augmented sixth chords since they're analyzed as subdominants anyway.

vs:
[...] dominant seventh chord that is a fifth below the chord you'd substitute.

The interest here, as “V of __” seems well understood, is the elided <V of __> in the guise of II, but going to ii.
This, particularly w. the 7ths, is done in jazz all the time. I never saw this named anything.
Is it a dominant function? Only elided. Why ii?
What’s the principle? Not immediately clear, is it. I would just use my words.
OTOH, Secondary Dominant is simply what it is.

I don’t remember whether Aug sixth was considered subdominant function by anyone or no. It doesn’t much matter (except that subdominant-to-tonic root mvmnt is also a thing, Plagal Cadence and that.) It is built from iv, iv6, but the construction is: root is the ‘sixth‘ of iv.
edit: I became confused.
So a Neapolitan Sixth (in Cm: F Ab Db.) can be made an Italian sixth in one feel swoop.

‘bVI’ as dominant function to V is nearly identical to Aug 6th, w. b5 substitute principle the same exact move, as I show above. German Aug sixth basically sounds like bVI dom. 7 (to V7).

[Z1202]

Some clarifications:

- the idea is to split the opaque block of a "harmonic chord" into factors which can be played around with individually. The main factors in the proposed approach are the bass note and the tonic/subdominant (natural or raised/lowered)/dominant(diatonic or raised or maybe lowered) feel, the latter being defined by the presence of the 6th and/or 7th degree. In most situations these factors are of primary importance (IMHO).

- double dominant is used by some schools to denote V of V
- big roman numerals denote major diatonic chords, lowercase numerals - minor diatonic chords. At least generally. Sometimes the argument applies to both major and minor, and e.g. IV can stand for iv as well.

[fmr]

- double dominant is used by some schools to denote V of V

Never saw that. Care to post some links? V of V is secondary dominant, or dominant of the dominant. IMO a much more clear way of denominating it

[Viktor [TUC]]

Never saw that. Care to post some links? V of V is secondary dominant, or dominant of the dominant. IMO a much more clear way of denominating it

Oh yeah that's very common here in Germany, for example. That was the term used in my musicology classes at uni.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppeldominante

Edit: Also, "secondary dominant" and "dominant of the dominant" are not the same thing. A secondary dominant doesn't refer back to the tonic but is any chord that is not the tonic or its dominant, but that acts as a dominant for the key into which it modulates. Whereas a dominant of the dominant is one specific chord that leads back to the original dominant.
Granted, some details I can't properly remember, exceptions might be possible here and there.

Viktor

[fmr]

Edit: Also, "secondary dominant" and "dominant of the dominant" are not the same thing. A secondary dominant doesn't refer back to the tonic but is any chord that is not the tonic or its dominant, but that acts as a dominant for the key into which it modulates. Whereas a dominant of the dominant is one specific chord that leads back to the original dominant.

True, secondary dominant is a broader concept, but it doesn't necessarily leads to modulation, it may simply be be a tonicization. Dominant of the dominant is stricter, but also fits into the broader concept of the first. And since we were talking about the V of V, both apply, IMO. Dominant of the dominant is even more precise.

What I wasn't aware was about the Double Dominant designation. Thanks for the link, BTW. Living and learning

[Viktor [TUC]]

True, secondary dominant is a broader concept, but it doesn't necessarily leads to modulation, it may simply be be a tonicization. Dominant of the dominant is stricter, but also fits into the broader concept of the first. [...]
Living and learning

You're right, same here!

Viktor

[jancivil]

Some clarifications:

- double dominant is used by some schools to denote V of V

TY, clarified. “Double” is weird English. V OF V is as easy to say.

- big roman numerals denote major diatonic chords, lowercase numerals - minor diatonic chords. At least generally. Sometimes the argument applies to both major and minor, and e.g. IV can stand for iv as well.

Well, your OP has them all in caps, hence a question.
Sometimes, well it should be immediately clear. There are schools which use all caps, I’m not a fan.

[jancivil]

Some clarifications:

- the idea is to split the opaque block of a "harmonic chord" into factors which can be played around with individually.

Yeah, part-writing. Needs no explanation.

The main factors in the proposed approach are the bass note and the tonic/subdominant (natural or raised/lowered)/dominant(diatonic or raised or maybe lowered) feel, the latter being defined by the presence of the 6th and/or 7th degree.

Got this the first time, as well.
It strikes me as noting attributes of typical voice-leading in typical chord progressions. Great, but reads like a diary...

but at least you’re working it

[Z1202]

- big roman numerals denote major diatonic chords, lowercase numerals - minor diatonic chords. At least generally. Sometimes the argument applies to both major and minor, and e.g. IV can stand for iv as well.

Well, your OP has them all in caps, hence a question.
Sometimes, well it should be immediately clear. There are schools which use all caps, I’m not a fan.

I probably have to correct myself a bit, the OP was a while back and also I don't have a preferred notation that I automatically stick to (not writing much about this stuff). I guess it would be correct to say that capital Roman numerals may refer to any chord (that is it would either explicitly indicate major, or denote a scale-agnostic diatonic chord), while lowercase specifically denotes minor. The problem with latter notation, is that diminished chords are denoted by a small circle which is a bit awkward to typeset in ascii Again, apologies for the caused confusion.

Some clarifications:

- the idea is to split the opaque block of a "harmonic chord" into factors which can be played around with individually.

Yeah, part-writing. Needs no explanation.

For me this is somewhere between "thinking in chords" and true part-writing. I'm not sure if there is any part-writing textbook which makes a reference (let alone putting a stress) of the 6th/7th degree being the key factor of the harmony (not that it has to, but I felt it's quite important from one angle, that's why I wanted to share it). It's as if something is missing between thinking of the chord as a whole and thinking about all individual notes making a chord.

[fmr]

For me this is somewhere between "thinking in chords" and true part-writing. I'm not sure if there is any part-writing textbook which makes a reference (let alone putting a stress) of the 6th/7th degree being the key factor of the harmony (not that it has to, but I felt it's quite important from one angle, that's why I wanted to share it). It's as if something is missing between thinking of the chord as a whole and thinking about all individual notes making a chord.

I don't think there is, because part writing doesn't fit very well to "thinking in chords", as most of the time you have notes that don't belong to chords, and are there just because of... part-writing needs.

Regarding the vi and vii degrees as "key factors of the harmony", I don't agree much. The vii degree has not much use as it is a weaker chord and is contained in the dominant 7th. In four-part chorals or part-writing in general it may sometimes be used, when we seek for a weak cadence. But "weak" is the key word here.

Regarding the vi, it is a modal degree (as is the iii), and although it is more used than the iii, it is used most of the time as a replacement chord for the I. If we are in minor mode, the III degree is more important, as it is the root (I) of the relative Major. When we seek for a twist in the harmony, we may use a chord progression from V to vi (VI in minor mode). The cadence V-vi or V-VI is called "deceptive cadence", or "interrupted cadence". I think it gives you a clue about what's the feeling of moving from the V to the vi or VI, instead of the I. Of course, being a neighbor key (closely related key), and in a different mode, it is a good candidate for tonal change/modulation (with the added advantage of also changing mode from Major to minor or vice-versa), but that's another subject.

In minor mode, the seventh built over the raised vii degree creates a diminished seventh chord. This chor is a symmetrical one (all intervals are minor thirds) which makes it the ideal pivot for quickly modulating to distant tonalities (any note of the chord can be considered as the leading tone of the new tonality). Therefore, it has more use and more importance then the seventh built over the vii degree in Major mode (leading tone seventh).

[Z1202]

For me this is somewhere between "thinking in chords" and true part-writing. I'm not sure if there is any part-writing textbook which makes a reference (let alone putting a stress) of the 6th/7th degree being the key factor of the harmony (not that it has to, but I felt it's quite important from one angle, that's why I wanted to share it). It's as if something is missing between thinking of the chord as a whole and thinking about all individual notes making a chord.

I don't think there is, because part writing doesn't fit very well to "thinking in chords", as most of the time you have notes that don't belong to chords, and are there just because of... part-writing needs.

Nevertheless, part-writing tries to identify harmonic functions arising out of part movement and does this in terms of triads (or bigger chords). Probably what I'm focusing on is harmonic "feel" rather than the function.

Regarding the vi and vii degrees as "key factors of the harmony", I don't agree much. The vii degree has not much use as it is a weaker chord and is contained in the dominant 7th. In four-part chorals or part-writing in general it may sometimes be used, when we seek for a weak cadence. But "weak" is the key word here.

First, I'm under an impression here that we are talking of different things here. I was referring to the 6th and 7th degrees of the scale (the notes, hence the arabic numerals) while you seem to be referring to the chords built on this degree. Given that, I assume that our arguments are disconnected here (or, if I'm wrong, please correct me). I would still like to give a few comments to your thoughts.

To me personally, root-position vii has a way stronger dominant feel than V, at least as long as we talk about triads. Probably it's also stronger than V7, unless V7 is in the first inversion, but then root position vii7 is even stronger. YMMV

Regarding the vi, it is a modal degree (as is the iii), and although it is more used than the iii, it is used most of the time as a replacement chord for the I. If we are in minor mode, the III degree is more important, as it is the root (I) of the relative Major. When we seek for a twist in the harmony, we may use a chord progression from V to vi (VI in minor mode). The cadence V-vi or V-VI is called "deceptive cadence", or "interrupted cadence". I think it gives you a clue about what's the feeling of moving from the V to the vi or VI, instead of the I. Of course, being a neighbor key (closely related key), and in a different mode, it is a good candidate for tonal change/modulation (with the added advantage of also changing mode from Major to minor or vice-versa), but that's another subject.

First, I'd like to point out that in minor mode VI has a definite subdominant feel to me, but you seem to be primarily referring to the major mode. In major mode I agree, the subdominant feel of vi is strongly overridden by its function as the tonic of the relative minor (because the relative minor is so prominent). However IMHO this feel is still there, and becomes more prominent in the deceptive cadence you mentioned or in the downwards root movement by thirds: 1-6-4-2. Notably, to me minor mode progressions V-VI and V-iv sound very similar, and there is a similar, although weaker similarity ( ) between major mode progressions V-vi and V-IV. The things get different in harmonic major, though Similar argument applies to what you said about III (esp. if the 7th is raised ).

In minor mode, the seventh built over the raised vii degree creates a diminished seventh chord. This chor is a symmetrical one (all intervals are minor thirds) which makes it the ideal pivot for quickly modulating to distant tonalities (any note of the chord can be considered as the leading tone of the new tonality). Therefore, it has more use and more importance then the seventh built over the vii degree in Major mode (leading tone seventh).

Maybe, but this is a bit disconnected from what I have been talking about (the dominant or subdominant feel). Personally to me the diminished seventh chord on the raised 7th is probably the one with the strongest dominant feel of all chords. Again, YMMV.

PS. Just noticed that, while in minor the dominant feel is made more prominent (or becomes present at all, depending on how you see it) by raising the 7th degree, in major the subdominant feel is made stronger by lowering the 6th degree.

[IncarnateX]

It is always interesting to work within a musical paradim and expand or reinterpret its theoretical ideas and ambiguities. Though personally my interests in pretonal music, e.g. modal polyphony, takes me somewhere else as far as chord functions concern. To me, the V-I and all that follow is but a historical convention about "the best way to return to tonic", not a perceptual law unless you aquire it by culture by which it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. I tend more to understand music in terms of voiceleading, counterpoint, intervals and parallel, similar, contrary or obligue motion of notes. As far as the sense of root note concerns, which transforms into sense of tonic in the tonal paradigm as "basic chord/triad", I stick to the old principle of Gregorian chants, namely that the root note is that, which you establish in a way so every other note wants to go there, no matter which. The beginning and the end. While this holds for every church mode to me, it also applies to chord progressions: Every chord can serve as "dominant" in a perceptual sense; as main lead to tonic, depending on the context of the rest of the music. Thus applying a modal way of thinking to tonal systems and not vice versa, makes the functions of chords rather infinite and relative depending on musical context. Actually, this open-endedness seems intimidating to me, so that will be another reason for me not to try to understand too much about music in chord-functions alone. I am not that good at it either. Rather Jan's and Fmr's domain, but here was my 2 cents on it.