Strange cadence

[Musicologo]

Can anyone explain me this strange cadence? I hear it as a simple V7-I from the 1st to 2nd measure, however I see B7 to Db... How can a #VI7-I sound exactly as a V7-I???

[llatham]

Can anyone explain me this strange cadence? I hear it as a simple V7-I from the 1st to 2nd measure, however I see B7 to Db... How can a #VI7-I sound exactly as a V7-I???

I think the amount of accidentals might be throwing you. Let's work backwards:

Piece is in Ab.

Final Chord (Chord 7), Ab = I

Chord 6 is an Eb7 = V7 as you'd expect. This is actually the strange cadence because it's got a C in the bass! But:

Chord 5 is an Eb7 with a 4-3 suspension. You expect to hear this V7sus4 to resolve to V7 - and it does - we hear the C in the bass as an arpeggiation of the I chord, not really a "bass note" per se (or rather it's a non-chord tone).

Chord 4 is Db minor = iv That's minor iv, an example of mode mixture. iv-V7-I like this is common, especially in the later Romantic period.

Chord 3 is one of your trouble chords. You thought Db but it's not. It's actually an enharmonically spelled A Major chord (or Bbb Major if you like) in first inversion, thus A/C# (Bbb/Db) and is the Neapolitan in this key = N6.

Chord 2 is another one of your problem chords. You thought B7 but it's actually an enharmonically spelled E7 (Fb7 if you like) in second inversion. It seems like it should be "bVI" in this key (or VI in Ab minor) but in this instance it's acting like the Dominant of the next chord, which is why you're hearing a V7-I cadence - it is - E7 to A. But in this context, this chord is resolving to "bII" which is the Neapolitan, so it's V4/3 of N.

Chord 1 could be Bo7, Do7, Fo7 or Abo7. This appears to be the beginning of the piece since the meter signature is here, but if there are chords before this (like if this is an excerpt) then the context could be different. Without a previous chord, I would say that this is acting like viio7/bVI.

This means that this progression could actually be in Ab MINOR, with a Picardy Cadence. However, if it truly is Ab Major (other chords preceding these assumed in that case) the analysis would be similar.

Note, I'm using the Upper Case/Lower Case convention. The entire progression is:

In Ab minor:
viio7/VI - V4/3 of N - N6 - iv - V7 - I

In Ab Major:
viio7/bVI - V4/3 of N - N6 - iv - V7 - I

Note: Some people may think the "bVI7" Fb-Ab-B-D is a German +6 with it's common misspelling. But typically, the reason for that spelling is so the Ger +6 can move to I6/4 first, which it doesn't do here, and the resolution to the Neapolitan is so strong it's acting like its V7 rather than a "VI" or Ger+6.

What is this? Brahms?

HTH,
Steve

[Musicologo]

Llatham, thank you very, very much for your astonishing explanation. I really could understand and make sense out of it. Those 2 enarmony spellings mislead me.

No it isn't brahms. It's an excerpt just like you saw it, from a manuscript of harmony exercises that I tried to solve to improve my skills. I just got "caught" by this one, and transcribed it to finale and post it here. I don't know if there really is a context to it, or where it comes from - from a "real piece" or invented by the person who made the harmony exercices table. The time signature was put there by me to make easy the transcription to finalle, in the original they are just blank chords.

I guess enarmony is still the tricky part in all this harmony exercises stuff. Just one more question, related to that part: Can one see the Tristan chord, for instance - G#-B-D#-F, as an E+7(b9) (dominant without fundamental) that is going to solve to an A (The key of the piece)? I haven't found yet this interpretation on the various possibilities that wikipedia discuss. I think is the most simple one... a V9-I.

[jancivil]

the 'tristan' chord is a "french sixth".

In minor: an augmented sixth chord is going to be built on the subdominant root (which, naturally in minor is a minor chord).

it's a SIXTH chord, which means only that it is a first inversion chord.

so, in A minor, let's start with a D minor chord:
1st inversion, so: F is in the bass.
augmented sixth = D#.

the 'Italian' 6th has only 'A' in addition to this.

it has the same sonority as a dom. 7th with no 5th.

the 'German' sixth will fill that in with a 'C'.

the 'French' sixth will act as though we have a flat fifth, 'B'.

F, A, B, D#.

now, just part-write that to your A minor.

[llatham]

Just one more question, related to that part: Can one see the Tristan chord, for instance - G#-B-D#-F, as an E+7(b9) (dominant without fundamental) that is going to solve to an A (The key of the piece)? I haven't found yet this interpretation on the various possibilities that wikipedia discuss. I think is the most simple one... a V9-I.

To be honest, I've always heard the G# in T&I as an appoggiatura (or retardation). I don't think we need to view this chord in a relationship to the key of the entire piece (if there is one) either. I think it can exist in a local relationship with the following chord, and not necessarily play a global role - in much the same way as Beethoven's 1st can begin on a chord that's not in the key either.

It is F A B D# - a French Augmented 6th. It resolves a little funky in that the A would typically go to G# and the B would remain on B, but there's nothing wrong with what's going on. That's counterpoint for you.

I think one could also view this chord as a V7b5 - B D# F A which would resolve to E too, so no real problem. Just traditionally, the 7th A would go down to G# but this is music on the very fringes of tradition.

But the inversion (F in the bass) gives it more the feel of a bVI to V, or +6 family to V progression so I prefer the Fr+6 interpretation.

Now, G#-B-D#-F is just a minor 6 - G#m6 would be G#-B-D#-E# - which is also a minor 7b5 - F-Ab-Cb-Eb (E#-G#-B-D#). We tend to hear m7b5 as a "II" type chord, or as a "VII" type chord. For example, F-Ab-Cb-Eb is IIm7b5 in Eb, and is vii%7 (half diminished 7 or m7b5) in Gb Major.

It depends on the context.

This chord is often understood or conceptualized as a "rootless" V7b9:

[Db]-F-Ab-Cb-Eb - notice that Db is V in Gb major, so the Fm7b5 is the upper part of Db7b9 - one is vii%7 and the other V7b9 - both chords that lead to Gb.

So you basically have V7b9 to I as Db7b9 - Gb or a "rootless" V7b9 to I as Fm7b5 to Gb.

If you take the ordering you have above: G#-B-D#-F - the D#-F produces a diminished 3rd (+6 inverted) which might be a good analysis in certain contexts, but it's not a common +6 chord type (it is with the G# appoggiatura to A in T&I though).

If you want to "de-enharmonize" it, G#-B-D#-E#, or Ab-Cb-Eb-F makes a minor 6. But I don't think people tend to hear this as a "rootless" sonority in the same way that a m7b5 (one of its inversions) can be thought of though. Most people hear the m6 voicing as more stable and even as a Tonic chord in some cases.

HTH,
Steve

[jancivil]

Just one more question, related to that part: Can one see the Tristan chord, for instance - G#-B-D#-F, as an E+7(b9) (dominant without fundamental) that is going to solve to an A (The key of the piece)? I haven't found yet this interpretation on the various possibilities that wikipedia discuss. I think is the most simple one... a V9-I.

To be honest, I've always heard the G# in T&I as an appoggiatura (or retardation). I don't think we need to view this chord in a relationship to the key of the entire piece (if there is one) either. I think it can exist in a local relationship with the following chord, and not necessarily play a global role...

It is F A B D# - a French Augmented 6th. It resolves a little funky in that the A would typically go to G# and the B would remain on B, but there's nothing wrong with what's going on. That's counterpoint for you.

I think one could also view this chord as a V7b5 - B D# F A which would resolve to E too, so no real problem. Just traditionally, the 7th A would go down to G# but this is music on the very fringes of tradition.

But the inversion (F in the bass) gives it more the feel of a bVI to V, or +6 family to V progression so I prefer the Fr+6 interpretation.

I forget actually where it goes. Does the A move up to A#, a +11 over E7? Then to an appoggiatura B over an A minor? That's where my ear goes by memory. It's been a lot of years.

It is like a secondary 7b5. Also note: if it's a B7b5, it's also an F7b5. The whole basis of the flat 5 in 'bebop', which is rooted in progressions like this in high romantic practice. To open up full chromatic progression, the 'b5' substitutes stuck on (the dom. 7th turnaround in) progressions from popular tunes, to facilitate improvisation according to that concept.

[llatham]

I forget actually where it goes. Does the A move up to A#, a +11 over E7? Then to an appoggiatura B over an A minor? That's where my ear goes by memory. It's been a lot of years.

The soprano line is G# - A - A# - B.

The A and B are chord tones and the G# and A# appoggiature (at least that's the way many others and I hear them). So the progression is simply Fr+6 - V7, with the G# being decorative on the Fr+6 and the A# being decorative on the V7.

Steve

[jancivil]

I forget actually where it goes. Does the A move up to A#, a +11 over E7? Then to an appoggiatura B over an A minor? That's where my ear goes by memory. It's been a lot of years.

The soprano line is G# - A - A# - B.

The A and B are chord tones and the G# and A# appoggiature (at least that's the way many others and I hear them). So the progression is simply Fr+6 - V7, with the G# being decorative on the Fr+6 and the A# being decorative on the V7.

Steve

I always loved that bit.

I don't hear A# over an E7 as decorative, not at all. (of course I lived more in jazz than in that other world)
It's the 11th partial of E. That's *harmonic*, is it not?

that chord I call la petite morte.

(a delicate euphemism)

[llatham]

I don't hear A# over an E7 as decorative, not at all. (of course I lived more in jazz than in that other world)

Yes I think that's typical of people with Jazz backgrounds - they tend to hear everything in a chordal context. Actually, I think that's a bit unfortunate as much music is based on linear flow and in some sense relegating everything to a vertical structure really limits how one perceives music - you end up missing out on some important aspects.

It's the 11th partial of E. That's *harmonic*, is it not?

It could be - but it depends on the context.

that chord I call la petite morte.

(a delicate euphemism)

I am familiar with that particular euphemism. I feel the same about the chromatic motion over the chords inmvmt 2 of Beethovens 7th symphony.

Steve

[jancivil]

What I was indicating about it not being decorative (even though it parallels the G# over the french sixth, and has about the same quality of pungency and then 'resolves' into the next) is that when the "E7#11" comes around, it is an ARRIVAL point - it's rather a feminine level of arousal, that doesn't have to have the B to have attained climax. Sure the B is even more there, but we were already there with the A#.
[By your argument, maybe it's all decorative until "I". Do you follow me?]

And there was no more delicate way to put that.

And, as far as the context, we have:
The Fundamental.
The major third; Fifth Partial.
A whole series, because of the orchestration, emanating from that...*
Seventh partial.
*We really have (third &) Ninth Partial, in the air vibrating as a result.
Eleventh partial, is a natch.
(Melting into the twelfth.) There is nothing whatever non-harmonic about that sonority.

The G# sounds like (I'm not dealing with the counterpoint here) a sharp 9 over a 7 flat five; in sonorous terms, that's a harder argument to make, given the major seventh AND the tritone contained in it; I might have to concede that it is a tone to find 'completion' in the next step.
Given the context of the rest, which has caused our ear to have certain expectations.

The Foxy Lady chord - F# > A# > E > A - is blatantly non-harmonic to that ear, but its context hasn't that expectation, so it's the basic chord and can just sit there.

I think in this level of this harmony, the "E7#11" chord can stay a while.

I'm not from any background like you suggest, though I come from rock.

I don't think the strength of this passage is contrapuntal, I mean based in line, I can tell you that; I think it's in its sonorousness. IE: The line is more a means to that end than vice versa.

This kind of thing is what Debussy loved from Wagner, and kinda sorta where he started with a lot of what he did with sonority.

[A.M. Gold]

This is like the musical version of an astrophysics lecture.

[jancivil]

Yes I think that's typical of people with Jazz backgrounds - they tend to hear everything in a chordal context. Actually, I think that's a bit unfortunate as much music is based on linear flow and in some sense relegating everything to a vertical structure really limits how one perceives music - you end up missing out on some important aspects.

Actually, I'm the opposite of that. What I'm into as an improviser is over a very static backing, where nothing much happens. Modal. Line is everything. (and as I pointed to, I was never so convinced with Richard W as in this one passage, because he got a line to speak to me, through it's gorgeosity of sound. Actually most of his stuff leaves me in the dark. I don't buy that he has much linearly going on. And I don't think he deals with what I will call 'weight' well, very often.)

Chords, such as this case, vertical vs horizontal... I don't have a dichotomy such as you mention. I understand that some might lean one way like that. Jazz does have a connotation of people thinking about what's in a chord before they decide what's in a line. THAT IS unfortunate. There were assertions in a thread here to do with that. I don't buy it. You make a thing fit by ear, at the same time as your mind parses the available info. It might not fit any theory of what is supposed to go there...

This's where I'm interested in that Greek guy's language: Holophony...

[A.M. Gold]

I see chord progression as chordal melody. So it's anyone's game since how can strength in melody be defined? I want to hear a lot of consonant structure around which shades of dissonance revolve, but some want just the opposite and don't want to hang everything on the scale degree hierarchy of western classical harmony.

I don't know if I agree that jazz musicians mostly hear vertically, I just think they have a sense of chordal melody that is not the same as people who hear more in terms of classical or pop chordal flow, it is more open ended and they can hear an "unresolved" melody line and feel good about it whereas others might be wanting that more resolved sounding cadence or it doesn't sit right.

Wagner loses me with Tristan and Isolde but for others it is a supreme triumph where the sense of tension and resolution is essentially redefined. Beethoven seemed to be playing around with this kind of "breakthrough" as well but for me it is unnecessary. I would rather develop the way melody is exalted and lifted up by key progression while not losing the inherent sense of firm linearity and cadence.

[herodotus]

This is like the musical version of an astrophysics lecture.

Except that the astrophysics lecture would be rather less....hypothetical.

[jancivil]

The harmonic series isn't a hypothesis.

per Examples Given: Making a distinction between this or that context, I haven't guessed at that, I have employed something from experience. A purely modal context leads one's ear, in experience, towards certain expectation that functional harmony, in a chromatic texture, does not, in fact gives altogether nother expectations.

Calling the 'V chord' a 'V chord' is a naming game, yes. In functional harmony, it does have a certain function, which to you may be down to making a guess, it's hard to say, I don't know you.

If you don't know what I'm talking about, you are free to have a closer look into the material, and the language of describing the material.