Cadences and Dominants

[Ron Ofir]

Hello everybody,
I have a few questions regarding theory:
1) According to Wikipedia, the IV to I is the Amen Candence, while I thought V to I is the Amen Candence (also the perfect one).
2) I understand that a secondary dominant is a dominant of a degree other than the tonic, but why is the dominant always major? Shouldn't the dominant of a minor be minor as well?
3) Are all melodies in classical music based on chord progression? How important are they? After all, it all comes down to II V I, no? Where can I find more about this? Is this the topic called "Harmony"?

Thanks in advance,
Ron Ofir.

P.S: I can't seem to get the HTML right. How should I do it?

[stevel]

Originally Posted by Ron Ofir

Hello everybody,
I have a few questions regarding theory:
1) According to Wikipedia, the IV to I is the Amen Candence, while I thought V to I is the Amen Candence (also the perfect one).

IV-I is called a Plagal Cadence, also colloquially known as the "Amen" cadence.

V-I (and viio-I) is an Authentic Cadence.
People further classify Authentic Cadences by what they do:
V-I, both chords in root position, with the Tonic note in the Soprano of the I chord is called a "Perfect Authentic Cadence".

Any other type of Authentic cadence is "imperfect". If either or both chords are inverted, it's an "inverted authentic cadence", if both chords are in root position, but scale degree 3 or 5 is in the Soprano on the I chord, then it's a "root position authentic cadence". If the penultimate chord is a viio rather than V, it's called a "leading tone imperfect authentic cadence".

I've noticed some people here use the word "perfect" for "authentic". I don't know if that's a European thing or not, but I'm giving you the standard teminology in University Level Textbooks. I've also heard (especially in older textbooks) words like "Full Close" for a V-I cadence. I think these terms are mostly obsolete.

Steve

[Ron Ofir]

Thank you for your quick answer!

[stevel]

Originally Posted by Ron Ofir

Hello everybody,
I have a few questions regarding theory:

2) I understand that a secondary dominant is a dominant of a degree other than the tonic, but why is the dominant always major? Shouldn't the dominant of a minor be minor as well?

No. In Common Practice Period (CPP hereafter) music, which is roughly the Baroque, Classical, and Romantic periods, composers used chords that contain the Leading Tone to act as a dominant function. This means that in BOTH major and minor keys, the Dominant function chords, V and viio, are Major and dimnished respectively. The V chord in C is G, the V chord in cm is still G.

A v - a minor chord built on scale degree 5 - is not considered to have a dominant function. Now, bit of confusion here: the word dominant is used in a lot of ways. Dominant refers to the 5th scale degree and harmonies built on the 5th scale degree. But CPP theorists also use the word dominant when they mean "dominant function". In order for a chord to have a dominant function, it must contain scale degree 7 in a leading tone function. V and viio in major fit this bill. In minor, the v and VII are adjusted so the 7th scale degree, which is a half step lower in minor than in major, is raised. The raised 7th produces the same two chords in minor that exist in Major: V and viio.

So, in CPP theory (for which this terminology was developed), the "dominant" of any key is always a Major triad (or dominant 7th, 9th, etc.).

The "normal" Dominant in d minor is therefor an A major triad. Thus when we want the secondary dominant of ii (dm) in C for example, then the chord is still an A major chord.

Sometimes, but RARELY, v (minor v) is used in either Major keys or minor keys, and as secondary chords. People call these "minor dominant" or "modal dominant" chords. However, they're not really common in CPP music at all, and we only start to see them in the later 1800s, early 1900s.

Steve

[stevel]

Originally Posted by Ron Ofir

Hello everybody,
I have a few questions regarding theory:

3) Are all melodies in classical music based on chord progression? How important are they? After all, it all comes down to II V I, no? Where can I find more about this? Is this the topic called "Harmony"?

This is a sticky one Ron. Western European music started out as melodies only (Gregorian Chant). Later, more melodies were added to creat multiple lines. We know this as counterpoint. Now obviously, when you add two parts together, and notes sound together, we get harmony. Initially, composers were concerned with how the notes went together (let's call that vertical) in addition to the lines they created (horizontal). But initially, they were far more concerned with the horizontal aspects. As time went on, they started becoming concerned about how the lines interacted with the bass part. Then still later, they were concerned about how they all interacted with each other. This puts us at the end of the Renaissance where the idea of "chord" is starting to form. In the eraly Baroque, there's a stylistic shift from counterpoint (which is largely horizontal, wit some vertical considerations) to a more "chordal" approach. This is evident with the birth of Opera around 1607 - if you listen to early Opera you hear more of these "chords on harpsichord" accompanying a singer singing a line. So it's like there's one horizontal element (melody) and the three or so "lines" that used to be counterpoint have started moving at the same pace to create "chords". This continues through the Baroque period but because of Bach's interest in counterpoint there's a revitalization of horizontal forms (contrapuntal forms like Fugues, etc.).

It's not until the Classical period that people start to think in terms of a "chord". Rameau's Treatise on Harmony of ~1725 talks about a "chord" that can be inverted. Thus EGC IS a CEG chord, only inverted. Prior to this, composers didn't really think abour them being the same thing. CEG was a "fifth chord on C" and EGC was a "sixth chord on E".

So in a sense, horizontal lines begat vertical "chords". Compoers in the Classical period continued this more vertical approach so a lot of the music comes across as "melody with accompaniment". But it is our understanding that composers like Mozart would have conceived of the Melody and harmony simultanously. Bach would have been thinking more in terms of melody, or multiple melodies (though we know they were thinking about chord forms in the Baroque, they just didn't name them like we do).

It's not until the Romantic Period and later that people start to place more emphasis on Harmony, to where we've gotten another shift in thinking. Most Songwriters today come up with a chord progression first, then come up with a melody to "fit". This is especially true in Jazz where an entire chord progression (like the Rhythm Changes) is used and supplied with a new tune.

I was mentioning CPP harmony before. We call this the "Tonal Era". During this time (roughly Baroque, Classical and Romantic), music basically did the same thing (which is why we call it "common practice"). Basically, the point was to 1: Establish Tonality, 2: Provide forward motion and a sense of destination, 3: Confirm Tonality.

Tonality is established by presenting the I chord. Most CPP pieces begin on I (though there are other possibilties).

Forward motion and sense of destination are provided by movement away from the tonic, to the pre-dominant function chords, II and IV, and then to the more "forward" moving dominant function chords, V or viio.

Tonality is confirmed by the arrival at the Tonic at the end (and ALL CPP pieces cadence on I (i) - anything else is meant to preface something else).

So really, most theorists describe the basic motion in Tonal music as:
T-PD-D-T (tonic to pre-dominant to dominant to tonic).

Since the initial tonic is assumed, this is often shortened to:
PD-D-T

And of course there are pieces without PD function chords at all, so the "real" basic structure is simply:
D-T.

Now these are "functions", not chords. Therefore the PD function could be carried out by a ii chord or a IV chord. Likewise, D function could be carried out by V or viio. Most commonly in Classical music though, it's ii-V-I.

Yes, this is what is called "Harmony". But I want to reinforce something here: A lot of people think CPP harmony is about building chords and voice leading and chord progression. But it is also about CONCEPT. The underlying pattern of function - a hierarchy of chords. Tonality is about how the chords all relate to each other and to the Tonic.

So on one level, we can say the basic structure of a piece is an elaboration of the PD-D-T pattern. But the devil is in the details and there are many planes on which harmony operates. For example, many multi-movement pieces exhibit a T-X-D-T key relationship. Mvmt 1 in C, 2 in am, 3 in G, and 4 in C. Any one of those movements might also exhibit a similar relationship within the sections - A section, T, B section D, A section T, etc. Then the phrase could be I-ii-V-I, but with elaborations within that. I think one of the problems is, we tend to (or are taught to) look too microscopically at music when we need to be able to understand the big picture as well.

So chord progressions are VERY important on many levels. Melodies themselves tend to generate harmony, however, it's also understood that there's a basic flow to the harmonic progression, and most melodies are conceived with that in mind, or at the same time as the harmony. It would be unusual for a Classical composer to think of a harmonic progression first, and then write a melody to it, but the thought process shifts as time goes on, so by the time you get to Liszt for instance, we start to see melodies being "subservient" to harmonies sometimes.

Best,
Steve

[Bassoonery]

I've noticed some people here use the word "perfect" for "authentic". I don't know if that's a European thing or not, but I'm giving you the standard teminology in University Level Textbooks. I've also heard (especially in older textbooks) words like "Full Close" for a V-I cadence. I think these terms are mostly obsolete.

In English (and probably European...?) theory Perfect is always the word used to describe a V-I cadence. (Plagal for IV-I; Imperfect for [i]-V; Interrupted for V-[VI])

As far as I know the term "Authentic" is only used in American theory. I've also never heard of the term "Full Close".

[Thorolf]

Originally Posted by Bassoonery

As far as I know the term "Authentic" is only used in American theory.

In some ways, yes… It’s also used here in Norway, pulling yet another proof that Norway is US state n° 51…



Regards

[Ron Ofir]

Weee! Even more theory! Thank all of you for your replies! You have been given cookies!

But I still have some questions:
1) What are the properties a functional dominant must have, other than having the 7th degree as a leading tone? Because if that's the only property, iii is also a functional dominant, no? EDIT: Actually, isn't Imaj7 a functional dominant as well then? It does feel somewhat like viio if played before I.
2) In T-X-D-T, X is any chord? And in order to lead to that chord, is it common to use the dominant of that chord?

[ttw]

Originally Posted by Ron Ofir

Weee! Even more theory! Thank all of you for your replies! You have been given cookies!

But I still have some questions:
1) What are the properties a functional dominant must have, other than having the 7th degree as a leading tone? Because if that's the only property, iii is also a functional dominant, no? EDIT: Actually, isn't Imaj7 a functional dominant as well then? It does feel somewhat like viio if played before I.
2) In T-X-D-T, X is any chord? And in order to lead to that chord, is it common to use the dominant of that chord?

In any passage where there is voice leading that mimics the V7-I (or V-I or V7-i or V-i or vii0-I or viio-i, etc) progression, there is a local (or applied or secondary, various names are used) dominant.

For example, in the song "San Antonio Rose) the chord progression is Bb, Eb, C7, F7, Bb. This can be seen as a I, IV, V7/V, V7, I progression. It acts a bit differently than the more jazzy sounding I, IV, ii, V7, I progression that is a bit more common in popular usic.

Sometimes a chain of secondary dominants occurs ("Five Foot Two") C, E7, A7, D7, G7.... (I, V7/VI, V7/II, V7/V, V7, I.)

Of course, in some notation styles, these are written as I, IV, II7, V7, I and I, III7, VI7, II7, V7, respectively. For sightreading, the second method is easy but structuraly, it's useful to indicate the secondary dominants.

[stevel]

Originally Posted by Bassoonery

In English (and probably European...?) theory Perfect is always the word used to describe a V-I cadence. (Plagal for IV-I; Imperfect for [i]-V; Interrupted for V-[VI])

As far as I know the term "Authentic" is only used in American theory. I've also never heard of the term "Full Close".

Can I ask you (and all of you) something? Are you sure?

Most musicians in America are not academically trained and even those that are struggled through theory classes. Most of the pro classical musicians I know have forgotten most of their theory. So even in America, most people might think that any V-I is a "perfect" cadence if you say that word, just because it strikes their memory.

Are any of you taking University level theory (or teaching it) and using a Univeristy standard text (i.e. like one that over 50% of the universities in England use for example)?

I know about the discrepancies (American first):
Authentic = ?
Plagal = Plagal
Deceptive = Interrupted
Half = Half (or other?).

The words Authentic and Plagal come from the Ecclesiastical modes and their 4 "hypo" modes (plain are authentic, and "transposed" hypo modes are Plagal). SInce a Tonal IV-I cadence is reminiscent of those cadences used in Hypo modes, they use the word Plagal for this type of cadence. Likewise, Authentic is used for V-I.

We further categorize Authentic cadences into Perfect and Imperfect types. Do you not do the same thing? (someone open a text and see, don't rely on "what you've always been taught").

Thanks,
Steve