ii-V-i confusion

[SteveCS]

Something small, yes, but not insignificant; the 5 chord in your ii V I is dominant*, ergo: ii V7 I.
(* the V7 seventh chord has a major 3rd and a minor 7th in it's construction, the only diatonic 7th chord that does.)

But in the minor key there are 3 '7' chords with that construction : IV7, V7 and VII7 and all of them diatonic.

 

[Wasnex]

Is it a typo?

...it's just plain wrong .

Should have been written

This requires raising the 6th scale degree to F#, which is from melodic minor
ii = BDF# = B minor
ii7 = BDF#A = B minor 7

Guess my dyslexia was acting up again .

Thanks for calling this out and sorry for any resulting confusion .

 

[charliethomas]

Regardless of the variety of scales that can be correlated to the use of the raised 7th in a minor key within a cadence leading back to the i chord (though those are well established ways of thinking about it and using it historically), the easiest way for me to imagine it is thinking about voice leading.

In traditional western music theory, the natural 7 (aka leading tone) just BEGS to be resolved a half step up to the root. So a V-i is much stronger cadence than v-i, which has the b7 resolve to the root a whole step away - there's not as a strong pull there.

The fact that the major V is "out of the key" in a way (though not really, as SteveCS pointed out, and almost any classical or jazz melody in a minor key will attest) adds tension and makes the resolution to the i chord that much sweeter.

You could use the same reasoning for why a #5 on the V chord in a minor key works so well, or extending that, why a ii° is often used before the V. I would go so far as to say any use of alt chords or upper extensions is (in addition to serving tension and release) probably in service of voice leading - "how smoothly do the notes in this chord move to the next chord" (with no movement or half step movement being more smooth than whole steps). It's way easier to see on a piano, but be warned that root position close voicings often obfuscate the voice leading, and make it weaker.

Here's an example with V-i in Cm:

G G
B C
D Eb

Notice how the G stays the same, and the other two notes move a half step away. Smooth!

Edit: I'll point out that the dominant seventh in a minor key doesn't follow using this exact logic. For instance, a V7-i in Cm has a F resolving down a whole step to Eb. 7th chords throw a wrench in things because it's typical for them to resolve a whole step away! There's not really hard and fast rules in music theory, just different ways of analyzing how people make music, and some ways might make more sense to you than other ways.

 

[Maxi Funkl]

Thanks All this was great information.

 

[OldNARDGuy]

There's not really hard and fast rules in music theory, just different ways of analyzing how people make music, and some ways might make more sense to you than other ways.

I come from an engineering background, and have a very linear left-brain mind set, so this has been one of the hardest things to internalize in my brief music theory experience. My basic inclination is to insist on understanding the "rules" for what I'm seeing, and while I "know" the above is true, my instinct still trips me up. I took art classes a few years back, they helped a great deal getting me out of that rigidity. The 2 1/2 years I've spent so far learning the bass have been doing the same thing, and that's one of the big reasons I took it up. Well, that and the wife and cat sometimes get annoyed by my drums.

 

[Goat of Ball St]

All the responses so far are very informative and I apologized if I miss this but another way I always think about it is that harmonic is in the name, ie where we derive harmony from in a minor scale. This is a grossly oversimplification but I found that helps people first approaching this, the function is often in the name.

 

[HolmeBass]

In the minor key, all of three minor scales (natural, harmonic and melodic) are considered diatonic, that is to say they all belong equally to, and together constitute, the minor key. You don't play in the key of melodic or harmonic minor, just minor. As a consequence, there all 13 of the possible harmonised triads and all 16 of the possible 7th chords are equally diatonic. It is well known that the raised 7th of the harmonic minor changes v to V. See also how the raised 6th of melodic minor scale can be deployed to change the 2 chord from diminished (ii°) to minor (ii) - and it is still just minor: View attachment 5104699

Except in this case, although annotated with accidentals, these notes are NOT "out-of-key" - they are all diatonic within the minor key.

This is very informative, very interesting.

So I am going to extrapolate what this means to me, and see where I heck it up. Given these statements, it seems the following should be true:

In a minor key:

• Five chord can be major or minor and both are considered diatonic
• The four chord can be major or minor and both are considered diatonic

Which is huge right there if true.

 

[SteveCS]

...
In a minor key:

• Five chord can be major or minor and both are considered diatonic
• The four chord can be major or minor and both are considered diatonic

Which is huge right there if true.

Yes. In fact I've just noticed an error in my table - the triad on the major 6th should be F#°, not minor, and the 7th chord on the major 6th should be F#m7b5. Apologies to all - I'll get an update out tomorrow.

 

[SteveCS]

In fact I've just noticed an error in my table - the triad on the major 6th should be F#°, not minor, and the 7th chord on the major 6th should be F#m7b5. Apologies to all - I'll get an update out tomorrow.

It really couldn't wait:

 

[anightintunisia]

Typically the V is not major, it’s dominant. A major V chord would be odd, in a minor or major key.

 

[charliethomas]

Typically the V is not major, it’s dominant. A major V chord would be odd, in a minor or major key.

Sounds like you're thinking of the quality of the 7 in the dominant chord rather than the quality of the V chord itself. A dominant chord is a chord built on the 5 of the key, usually with a major triad as the basis.

Dominant (music) - Wikipedia

In jazz though, you'd absolutely use the term dominant to talk about the dominant 7th chord (major triad with a minor 7th), and that may be where some confusion lies. The origin of the term is from the functional V7 chord in major/minor harmony

 

[anightintunisia]

Sounds like you're thinking of the quality of the 7 in the dominant chord rather than the quality of the V chord itself.

A dominant chord has only a single quality of the 7th. A major chord only has a singular quality of the 7th. Besides the fact they both share a major 3rd, the 7th is what determines if the chord is major or dominant. For every western type of music.

 

[SteveCS]

Typically the V is not major, it’s dominant. A major V chord would be odd, in a minor or major key.

Of all the things in musical notation and terminology, chord nomenclature is probably the least complete and consistent.

Historically it is called Dominant because it is built on the Dominant (typically the 5th) degree of the scale. It makes no difference if you include or exclude the 7th - it is the chord of the dominant, and in the major key it is major. This is dictated by the quality of the 3rd. In more recent times the word Dominant has beome 'overloaded' to refer to the quality of any chord that had the intervals (from the root) of M3, P5 and m7, irrespective of the scale degree upon which it is built. It is also used to describe function, which in turn means a chord can have dominant function without having this structure, for example vii° (although of course this is just the top 3 notes of the V7).

...
A dominant chord has only a single quality of the 7th.
...

The 7th in and of itself is not important. The primary quality or characteristic of the chord you are describing is the tritone between 3rd and 7th and pull of inward resolution onto the tonic chord (3rd up to Root and 7th down to 3rd). The major 3rd and minor 7th are equal partners in this mechanism.

 

[Richard Lindsey]

A dominant chord has only a single quality of the 7th. A major chord only has a singular quality of the 7th. Besides the fact they both share a major 3rd, the 7th is what determines if the chord is major or dominant. For every western type of music.

No, not really. Steve CS explains it above, but just to stick my oar in, you're conflating two different things: construction and harmonic function. Strictly speaking, "dominant" is not a flavor of chord, the way major and minor and augmented and diminished are--though as Steve notes it's sometimes used that way, often to distinguish it from a maj7--it's a description of what the chord is doing harmonically. "Major" strictly refers to the way a given chord, regardless of context, is constructed. So a major chord is a major chord regardless of whether it's the tonic, the subdominant, or the dominant at any particular point in the harmony. Thus, a G7 in the key of C (or C minor, for that matter) is a major chord with an added minor 7 that serves a dominant function. And it would have that dominant function even if it didn't have the added F and were a simple G triad.

 

[Richard Lindsey]

In jazz though, you'd absolutely use the term dominant to talk about the dominant 7th chord (major triad with a minor 7th), and that may be where some confusion lies. The origin of the term is from the functional V7 chord in major/minor harmony

There's also the factor of the common use of secondary dominants, whereby, as you know, a chord built as 1-3-5-b7, though not constructed on the V of the overall key, serves as the temporary dominant for another chord--V7/V7, V7/ii, that kind of thing. So one might get used to assuming that that kind of chord is always or nearly always going to be acting as a dominant in relation to *something* even if that something is not the tonic, and that might be part of the origin of this usage.

It's true that chord nomenclature isn't as clear and exact as we might wish it to be. Still, my personal feeling is that on the whole, it's probably best to reserve "dominant" for descriptions of function, not construction. Otherwise, we can find ourselves in some funny places--for example, when we talk about blues. If we say that the tonic of a blues is a "dominant" 7th, that sounds kind of nonsensical from a functional point of view. It's part of the very definition of a dominant function that it is NOT a tonic function. It's almost as if you're saying that a fishing boat is a school bus.

Somewhere I once encountered a proposed chord naming system in which you were supposed to refer to a 1-3-5-b7 chord as a "major minor 7," a 1-3-5-7 chord as a "major major 7," a 1-b3-5-b7 chord as a "minor minor 7," and so on. This is logical and consistent, but also a bit clumsy and wordy. It's never caught on as far as I know, at least among working popular musicians. Maybe advanced theory mavens use it somewhere....

 

[SteveCS]

Somewhere I once encountered a proposed chord naming system in which you were supposed to refer to a 1-3-5-b7 chord as a "major minor 7," a 1-3-5-7 chord as a "major major 7," a 1-b3-5-b7 chord as a "minor minor 7," and so on. This is logical and consistent, but also a bit clumsy and wordy. It's never caught on as far as I know, at least among working popular musicians. Maybe advanced theory mavens use it somewhere....

Yes it would be more complete to encode the qualities of the 3rd and 7ths, but as you say it is rather clumsy. The one possible combination you didn't mention is the one that is commonly used, which is the "tonic minor major 7" in the minor key, which most of our ears will identify as "The James Bond chord".

 

[Richard Lindsey]

The one possible combination you didn't mention is the one that is commonly used, which is the "tonic minor major 7" in the minor key, which most of our ears will identify as "The James Bond chord".

I love that chord. I play a lot of classic Brazilian music these days, and you see the minor-maj7 fairly often in that music.

 

[charliethomas]

There's also the factor of the common use of secondary dominants, whereby, as you know, a chord built as 1-3-5-b7, though not constructed on the V of the overall key, serves as the temporary dominant for another chord--V7/V7, V7/ii, that kind of thing. So one might get used to assuming that that kind of chord is always or nearly always going to be acting as a dominant in relation to *something* even if that something is not the tonic, and that might be part of the origin of this usage.

Then there's the case of chords that have "dominant function" and lead back to the root chord without any obvious connection to the V at all. Not to mention in something like walking bass lines, where you have dominant approach notes that direct toward a target tone but are completely outside the idea of a dominant chord in functional harmony. Well, not completely, because it's still a 5-1 shape, but the 1 is relative. Gotta love how much mileage musicians get out of one term.

Somewhere I once encountered a proposed chord naming system in which you were supposed to refer to a 1-3-5-b7 chord as a "major minor 7," a 1-3-5-7 chord as a "major major 7," a 1-b3-5-b7 chord as a "minor minor 7," and so on. This is logical and consistent, but also a bit clumsy and wordy. It's never caught on as far as I know, at least among working popular musicians. Maybe advanced theory mavens use it somewhere....

Personally I love this idea and it's exactly how I think about them, but I agree that it's clumsy to say or write. There's a number of things in music theory that could be renamed to be more logical, but tradition and familiarity take precedence, I suppose...

 

[OldNARDGuy]

I am loving this, sitting here trying to soak it up like a sponge.

I must say, though, these recent comments remind me of Major Major Major Major in Catch-22.

Also, it's easy to understand why physics professors say "Hey, it ain't music theory."

 

[Richard Lindsey]

Personally I love this idea and it's exactly how I think about them, but I agree that it's clumsy to say or write. There's a number of things in music theory that could be renamed to be more logical, but tradition and familiarity take precedence, I suppose...

I can't recall offhand how this proposed system referred to dim7 and m7b5 chords, but I suppose that logically it would have had to be something like "diminished diminished 7" and "diminished minor 7," respectively. There's something to be said for tradition and familiarity, for sure.