How do you know/find the Dominant chord in a progression?

[llatham]

An interval in the context of a certain tonality is "active" (i.e. has a tendency to want to resolve) by virtue of its dissonance. An augmented 4th will (of course depending on context) resolve well to a major or minor 6th because it is unstable. Instability and dissonance are aspects of the same thing.

Yes, but maybe needs to be qualified a bit:

Intervals have a tendency to resolve based on our learned preferences. In a tonal context, we could say that the ultimate resolution of all intervals it to the unison. But obviously, musicians have settled on less and less stable intervals (and chords) as "stable" as preferences have changed.

But, for tonal music, yes, instability and dissonance are closely related. But it's still not quite the same thing as tendency. For example, In C Major, the dyad B/G is not dissonant, but still has a tendency to move to C/G (or C/E). So it's not the dissonance that drives the interval to resolve, but the tendency of one of the tones contained therein. Obviously though, to make it clear, tendency tones are often included with dissonances to push even harder, making the resolution that much sweeter. So B/F - two tendency tones, and a dissonance, resolve to C/E nicely.

However, I remind you again that the interval by itself has no inherent tendency. It could resolve to C/E, or A#/F# (as B/E#). And that's only in a learned tonal context where such resolutions are expected.

Whether or not an interval is occurring simultaneously or serially is not important to its function.

Actually, it is. A B in the key of C major will sound like the Leading Tone. But its function can be altered by including it as the 5th of a iii chord, which undermines the LT function and can descend to A just as easily (in effect turning a 7 into a 2 basically)

Remember, an arpeggiated harmony "works" the same way as simultaneous harmony.

yes, but you were talking about two simultaneous harmonies (the remembered tonic, and the actual dominant, not an arpeggio of one or the other).

If not by dissonance, then by what OTHER means to active intervals become active? Can someone explain the dominant function in terms OTHER than the resolution of dissonance?

Well, I can, but I don't know if you're willing to accept it (many are not). It's conditioning. It's learned. Intervals become active by our understanding the context in which they're presented. Again, a tritone in a classical context has a tendency to resolve. But in blues and jazz, it often doesn't. In post 19th century harmony, it may not have any tendency at all.

What gives the tendency to the tones in CPP Tonality is our having heard the same resolutions thousands of times, and thus our expecting to have the resolve as we have been conditioned to expect. It's the reason why a deceptive cadence works.

People have a hard time believing this because somewhere along the line they've been told, or read, that "the Major-minor system is the height of human creativity" that they begin to believe it is, and thus start seeking scientific or mathematical ways to prove why it is - when really, it hasn't been established that it is the height yet.

Music is an art form, not a science.

As to the criticism that new ideas are just "made up theory," what then IS theory that is not made up? Isn't all theory simply a lens through which we look at things? Don't all nomenclatures, symbols and explanations become adopted by convention than by "naturalistic" properties?

Yes, but there is an already well-defined and well-disseminated system of music analysis in place. One should really understand that before making up "new theories" - they may have already been postulated before, or are simply a new twist on something else. What you suggested initially is nothing new - I've been seeing people come up with that idea (independently interestingly) for decades now. I'm sure it's been going on forever.

If you have something new, you need to put it out there and see if people start taking it to heart.

I think that's why it's called "theory.

Well, that's an unfortunate misnomer. I communicated with a guy for years on another forum who initially came in thinking that since it was called "theory" he could use "rules" to create music (he was a math and science guy) - he obviously found out it's a little harder to create music than just following some rules

Music "theory" is really Music Fact. It's a fact that we call C to E a Major third. It's a fact that virtually all music from a certain 200 year period follows the same basic procedures such as establishing a tonic, and then cadencing on that tonic eventually. It's a fact that dissonant 7ths (of chords, not the chord itself) always resolve downward.

The theoretical part is not our analysis of pieces to describe the elements of a particular style, but the reasons as to why composers arrived at those decisions.

Best,
Steve

[Ogg Vorbis]

Steve,

I really appreciate this discussion and your willingness to inspect and respond to the various points. It's truly a rare pleasure posting back and forth on a forum like this with you.

I don't have quite enough time to take each point and respond though, sorry to say. But I piqued at this last comment of your's...

Music "theory" is really Music Fact. It's a fact that we call C to E a Major third. It's a fact that virtually all music from a certain 200 year period follows the same basic procedures such as establishing a tonic, and then cadencing on that tonic eventually. It's a fact that dissonant 7ths (of chords, not the chord itself) always resolve downward.

The theoretical part is not our analysis of pieces to describe the elements of a particular style, but the reasons as to why composers arrived at those decisions.

It seems then, that there would be an objective property at work to describe the tendencies of pitches, other than to say, as you did earlier, that they are culturally conditioned. If there is music fact, then there is factual modeling to describe function, such as dominant function and why it resolves the way it does.

(Actually, there IS a physical explanation of consonance vs. dissonance revealed in the ratios of their frequencies.)

I tend to think that context IS a huge determiner. Ending on a 7th chord in a blues context sets up different expectations about resolution and stability, etc. So I am totally with you there.

And finally, just to try to set the record straighter, you mentioned that I should learn the tried and true, accepted way of looking at music theory rather than striking out on my own with original thoughts. In fact, I have a degree in music theory. However, I don't think that my familiarity with the mainstream thinking has ever resolved ALL the dissonances of my questions. Even in my side reading of Schenker, Scoenberg, Piston et al. has still left lingering concerns and doubts here and there.

I'm not sure if the study of music's language is EVER done and final.

...which blows my mind because there are only 12 freaking notes!

[A.M. Gold]

Remember, an arpeggiated harmony "works" the same way as simultaneous harmony.

Here you lost me a little. I can't say I totally agree, but I'm not sure what you mean by "works the same way".

Think of a triad with alternating 5th and sharp 5th (the famous arpeggiated "space chord", as I call it, that seems to be used in 2/3 of all science fiction movie themes).

If you play those two chords in succession with simultaneous harmony, it really doesn't have the same effect.

[Ogg Vorbis]

If you play those two chords in succession with simultaneous harmony, it really doesn't have the same effect.

Oh, what I was referring to was strictly harmonic FUNCTION. So if you play ii ii0 V# i on the organ as block harmonies (all harmonies played simultaneously) or on the clarinet as arppegiated, the functions of the harmonies will be exactly the same.

In the past, someone has said, "Well, no! The arpeggiated harmonies IMPLY the harmonic function but they are not really chords."



Yeah, I know. Pretty weak. But the point is, that the leading tones still act like leading tones, the roots of the tonic harmonies still act like tonic roots...whether you play them all at once or break them out into arpeggios.

Not to dereail this thread, but I've wondered what the useful definition of harmony is. You can't really define it using the word "simultaneous" can you?'

I'm still confused over that one.

[A.M. Gold]

True. I think of harmony as being anything interval related, so in a sense melody is also harmony, but melody is linear whereas chords played all at once are not. An arpeggiated chord can also be thought of as a melodic fragment, in fact many melodies have been made mostly out of arpeggios.

[llatham]

However, I don't think that my familiarity with the mainstream thinking has ever resolved ALL the dissonances of my questions. Even in my side reading of Schenker, Scoenberg, Piston et al. has still left lingering concerns and doubts here and there.

You might try checking out James Tenney's A History of Consonance and Dissonance it can be found online (for free).

WRT the "fact" of dissonance - I'm reminded of something in Fux's Gradus ad Parnassum: Basically he asks why dissonances resolve downward and he gets the answer basically because "that's what the masters did". There's also an "analogy" that it is like gravity.

What I meant would be, it's a fact that dissonances of certain types resolve certain ways in CPP Tonality, but it's not a fact that intervals that are dissonances are even always dissonances - it's stylistically, and contextually dependent.

Best,
Steve

[llatham]

Remember, an arpeggiated harmony "works" the same way as simultaneous harmony.

Here you lost me a little. I can't say I totally agree, but I'm not sure what you mean by "works the same way".

Think of a triad with alternating 5th and sharp 5th (the famous arpeggiated "space chord", as I call it, that seems to be used in 2/3 of all science fiction movie themes).

If you play those two chords in succession with simultaneous harmony, it really doesn't have the same effect.

But that's not two chords. It's one chord with an upper chromatic neighbor.

Side note: funny you say this, but I used to call it the same thing - it was on some prominent sci-fi movie once. I've actually found it in Brahms.

I think what A.M. means is that we analyze it as the same chord, whether it's block, broken, arpeggiated, etc.

Steve

[A.M. Gold]

Ha ha, exactly! the "Brahms chord".

Not sure as I haven't listened to it in a while but I think it may be prominent in the 1st movement of the 4th symphony.

Brahms wasn't above using "gimmicks", but he used them very well, IMO.

[xtp]

I always assumed it was [and assuming were talking about the V chord] named the dominant as such because it actually sounds dominant in a tune [well to my ears it does, which is someone who has no formal music education but has learned to play by listening]

When I used to play other peoples music I would sit down and work it out by ear, bar by bar, I usually found that once I established the Tonic, the next chord that always stood out was the dominant if it was present.

Listening to a simple I, IV, V7 song. Try hooking onto youtube and listening to something like Woody Guthries 'This land is your land'. The chord changes are very strong, pronounced and simple. It has strong I-IV, IV-I & V7-I movement.

A bit of an unorthodox reply but it may give you an additional perspective to all the other cool theory replies.

[A.M. Gold]

It's worth noting that the dominant and subdominant relative to a given tonic also represent very closely related keys. The keys built off those notes (using them as tonic) only have one note difference from the original key, since they fall one degree away on the circle of fifths/fourths.

[llatham]

I always assumed it was [and assuming were talking about the V chord] named the dominant as such because it actually sounds dominant in a tune [well to my ears it does, which is someone who has no formal music education but has learned to play by listening]

No, not really. It comes from a long time ago in Chant, where there was a "Reciting Tone" in the melody, which was the next most important note after the Final. This tone did tend to "dominate" the melody by being the most sung note in a chant. However, the reciting tone was different for each mode - not always the 5th. Over time though, the 5th step (the most common reciting tone) came to be called the "dominant", and ultimately, the chords became known as dominant chords. Now, we also use the term to refer to chords that have the structure that would normally appear on the dominant, even of they're on other notes - so we'll still say F7 is a "dominant 7" even if the key is Eb Major.

When I used to play other peoples music I would sit down and work it out by ear, bar by bar, I usually found that once I established the Tonic, the next chord that always stood out was the dominant if it was present.

Well, they are sort of the "pillars" of tonal music. But the Tonic chord definitely "dominates" tonal music and the Dominant is actually kind of subsidiary to it.

Best,
Steve

[phidelity]

A harmony built on Ab C and Eb is dissonant within the context of the key of Db major. Why? Because when you do a good job of establishing the key of Db, then it establishes the "tonal memory" within the listener's mind. Ab C Eb is consonant within ITSELF, but ultimately it is DISSONANT because the listener compares it with the established tonality of Db.

No. You're mixing up two terms; Dissonant and Chromatic. In the above context, you mean chromatic, meaning foreign to the key. The two things are not the same; something can be chromatic and still be consonant (like an F# chord relative to C major), and something can be dissonant and be perfectly diatonic (like the notes B and C sounded simultaneously in the key of C major).

but AbM is the V of Db major so how could that be chromatic? its a diatonic chord in db major. sorry im late posting here and ill reread the full contents to see if i missed something but this just through me off .

[JumpingJackFlash]

Remember, an arpeggiated harmony "works" the same way as simultaneous harmony.

I believe harmony is based on chords which, be definition, are simultaneous. If it's not simultaneous, we might talk about implied harmony instead. A single monophonic line does not (and cannot) have 'harmony' in the strictest sense. The effect though, as you said, is usually the same.

Basically he asks why dissonances resolve downward and he gets the answer basically because "that's what the masters did". There's also an "analogy" that it is like gravity.

It's interesting to note that not all dissonances always resolve downwards. An augmented interval (above a bass) tends to resolve upwards (outwards); as with the mediant chord of the harmonic minor in root position, the dominant chord with the fifth sharpened, or with Augmented Sixth (Italian/French/German) chords.

I usually found that once I established the Tonic, the next chord that always stood out was the dominant if it was present.

With tonal harmony, it is usually true that the tonic and dominant are the most prominent notes and chords. Together, they define the key. The subdominant is next in importance (and frequency) - these three chords are the Primary Triads.

It is also interesting to note that the subdominant was originally regarded as the 'lower dominant' - a fifth lower than the tonic rather than a fifth higher. A similar thing exists with the mediant and submediant.

but AbM is the V of Db major so how could that be chromatic? its a diatonic chord in db major.

You're right. The chord of Ab (major) is diatonic to the key of Db.

[Ogg Vorbis]

Remember, an arpeggiated harmony "works" the same way as simultaneous harmony.

I believe harmony is based on chords which, be definition, are simultaneous. If it's not simultaneous, we might talk about implied harmony instead. A single monophonic line does not (and cannot) have 'harmony' in the strictest sense. The effect though, as you said, is usually the same.

Implied, eh? So the following sequence has NO chords in it - just "implied harmonies?"



What if you take a legitimate chord and roll it slightly? Does it suddenly become implied?

[JumpingJackFlash]

Implied, eh? So the following sequence has NO chords in it - just "implied harmonies?"

It has not chords in it no. Chords have to be more than one note sounding at the same time. If there is only ever one note played at any given time, it cannot - by definition - contain chords.

Of course, if played on the piano and the sustain pedal is pressed, then the result may produce chords as there will be more than one note sounded at a time.