Jump to content
HAPPY NEW YEAR, TO ALL OUR HARMONY CENTRAL FORUMITES AND GUESTS!! ×

cadences in western music (major and minor)


djmojo

Recommended Posts

  • Members
Posted

Ive been playing around with chord progressions and seeing which songs I think sound good and how many of them use the same chord progressions, just using different melodies and phrasing of strums and whatnot.

 

and it seems most songs in the major scale are using the same cadences, namely V - I.

 

then I started playing around with them and noticed major songs just dont sound finished unless you do this or the VII-I cadence... I'm wondering why this works, and how it can be applied to other modes, because using this has really helped me being able to improv random major songs with ease, since I just need to make sure somewhere near the end I do one of these two cadences.

 

Also I noticed that if Im playing the minor scale, comepletely different cadences work... V-I in minor does not sound finished at all, but III-I does, or II-I or VII-I (not the chords from the major scale, but the I through VII chords of the minor scale)

 

so now I'm trying to find out which cadences characterize the modes and if there is a way to figure these out without trial and error?

  • Members
Posted

VII-I in major is essentially V-I; the 'VII' in a major key doesn't functionally exist--it is heard as a rootless V.

 

For example, in C major, the 'VII' is Bdim or Bm7b5 (B D F or B D F A, respectively). The V is G (usually G7), spelled G B D F, or, if it's a G9, G B D F A. Notice the common tones (B D F and B D F A).

 

VII-I and V-I are functionally the same thing; the most important tones are present in both (the B, which rises a half step, and F, which falls a half step). Because of this, the VII in major is generally considered a Dominant chord, even though the dominant note is omitted...the VII doesn't have its own name in functional harmony.

 

In a minor key, you need to use the melodic or harmonic forms of the scale (and their respective harmonies) to cadence to the i. For example, in A minor, the V should be E major, thus yielding V-i or V7-i (E-Am or E7-Am). When the 3rd of E is major (G#), yo uget the leading tone of A, which is why it resolves so strongly. However, if you don't raise that note, you won't have any such cadence; v-i is ambiguous (and is typical of the Aeolian mode).

 

G-Am, VII-i in A natural minor (Aeolian) is really a deceptive cadence, since that VII is also the V of the relative major ©. iidim-i is likewise a deceptive cadence, as it wants to resolve to C (which is the cadence I mentioned in the beginning of this post). C-Am (III-i) is not a cadence at all!

 

You asked which cadences characterize the modes...well, they don't. Other than major and minor (which are the two modes of tonal music), you won't find such cadences. Modes are characterized by the LACK of them, which is why using the natural minor (and its harmonies) is NOT a 'minor key', but instead is the Aeolian mode.

  • Members
Posted

why do me does it sound so resolved when I do a III-i change in a progression? is it because of the chords Im using before that? say if I went from IV-III-i (skipping the iidim), and this resolution can be attributed to something like "tonal gravity" or whatever it's called?

 

I'm trying better to understand why certain progressions work in modes to resolve to their tonal center and some just don't sound good at all, regardless of their notes in common or if all the notes are moving in the same direction, I'm not sure if Im explaining what my question is properly...

  • Members
Posted

 

Originally posted by djmojo

why do me does it sound so resolved when I do a III-i change in a progression? is it because of the chords Im using before that? say if I went from IV-III-i (skipping the iidim), and this resolution can be attributed to something like "tonal gravity" or whatever it's called?


I'm trying better to understand why certain progressions work in modes to resolve to their tonal center and some just don't sound good at all, regardless of their notes in common or if all the notes are moving in the same direction, I'm not sure if Im explaining what my question is properly...

 

 

III-i (C-Am) is a progression of a descending third. Both chords have 2 pitches in common, which makes for simple (practically automatic) voice leading. The root of III is demoted to the third of i, while the third of III is promoted to the fifth of i. Even though the pitches are the same, they assume different amounts of harmonic (overtone) importance. However, progressions that ascend a third are very weak.

 

Perhaps its strength as a progression is causing you to think of it as a cadence? While III-i (or, more commonly, I-vi) is a good progression, it does not resolve---it fails to tonicize anything! C-Am could be C major...A minor...G major...E minor...F major, etc. It is ambiguous, not cadential. iv-III-i (Dm-C-Am) eliminates the possibility of G major or E minor, but it still fails to tonicize Am. In other words, it doesn't resolve. It's not exactly a point of great harmonic tension, but it's not at rest either.

  • Members
Posted

The fact is Mr.Doggie tends to think of things in terms of traditional harmony.......out here in the real world, most people use an accept modal cadences. It may be a stretch to his feeble stodgy mind, but Jazz or modern harmony accounts for the breadth of actual usage, as opposed to traditional rules. The way to derive a cadence within any given mode, or to point to a mode as a tonal center is the use of a chord, that uses the scales charachteristic pitch as a root, 3rd, 5th, or 7th and is NOT based on a dim triad or -7b5 has a cadential function. Locrian is too unstable to be considered as a tonic system.

 

Each mode has a major or minor quality. Closer examination reveals a "charachteristic pitch" that distinguishes each mode. With Ionian and Aeolian as the templates, deliniation from these modes gives a pitch that only it's scale possesses. For instance given that for ionian the pitch is 4, mixo is the only to contain b7, and lydian #4. Given within all minors contain b6, aeolian is b6, dorian is the only with 6, and phrygian with b2.

 

So using this template, take Phrygian with it's charachteristc b2 as a root, 3rd, 5th, or, 7th, within a triadic or harmonized 7th phrygian chordal system, you get bII, bVII-,bIIMAJ7,bVII-7,or bIII7 to I- as potential phrygian cadences. Without modal music where would Jazz or modern music be?

  • Members
Posted

Originally posted by Cackalacky

The fact is Mr.Doggie tends to think of things in terms of traditional harmony.......out here in the real world, most people use an accept modal cadences.


Ahhh...an uninformed wannabe jazz snob AND a Masshole.
:rolleyes:

It may be a stretch to his feeble stodgy mind,


I could take you to school and back without straining a single brain cell, so I'd suggest you knock it off with your little grudge against me (that you've had and brazenly displayed ever since your arrival here). Your petty insults (which you've been using since day one) which have been aimed SOLELY at me indicate that you're using an alias and were probably banned at some point in the past. Conan and Ax/Jazzrules, is that you?


but Jazz or modern harmony accounts for the breadth of actual usage, as opposed to traditional rules. The way to derive a cadence within any given mode, or to point to a mode as a tonal center is the use of a chord, that uses the scales charachteristic pitch as a root, 3rd, 5th, or 7th and is NOT based on a dim triad or -7b5 has a cadential function. Locrian is too unstable to be considered as a tonic system.


Look up 'cadence' in some reputable sources. You know, ACTUAL harmony books, not whatever you picked up in "Jazz Guitar Hepcat Wannabe Monthly".


http://www.dolmetsch.com/musictheory22.htm


http://cnx.rice.edu/content/m12402/latest/


http://www-student.furman.edu/users/r/rkelley/cadencetypes.htm


http://www.musictheory.net/lessons/html/id55_en.html




So using this template, take Phrygian with it's charachteristc b2 as a root, 3rd, 5th, or, 7th, within a triadic or harmonized 7th phrygian chordal system, you get bII, bVII-,bIIMAJ7,bVII-7,or bIII7 to I- as potential phrygian cadences.

 

There is a such thing as a Phrygian cadence, and your post makes it clear that you have no idea what it is.

 

But I should know to expect that from someone who attempts to reduce the whole of music into a series of chords...and then who tries to redefine 'cadence' simply to disagree with me.

  • Members
Posted

It's just a concept that your not familar with. :D Don't feel too bad if you never learned it. :( And I only jab at you because during our previous innuendo, like this one, you seem to feel that your tradtional approach is somehow right and absolute, and deny the existence and validity of concepts widely used.

  • Members
Posted

Originally posted by Cackalacky

It's just a concept that your not familar with.
:D
Don't fell too bad if you never learned it.
:(
And I only jab at you because during our previous innuendo, like this one, you seem to feel that your tradtional approach is somehow right and absolute, and deny the existence and validity of concepts widely used.

 

My 'traditional' approach to harmony goes all the way back to the earliest counterpoint (organum, etc), proceeds through fully developed 4-part writing, Rameau's codification, the expansion thereof through the 19th century, serialism, neoclassicism, and yes, even jazz. This includes university courses, a very large and comprehensive theory/musicology library, and about 25 years of experience playing and studying music of all sorts (and on three families of instruments).

 

I understand how 'harmony' came into existence, and unlike you, I always take into account the contrapuntal origins and implications of voiceleading and melodic tendency in harmony, as well as structural functions and significance.

 

Through all of those things, the meaning of the word 'cadence' in music from ~1600 to the present was constant. (The SOLE exception to that meaning was reference to cadences as used by drum lines in marching bands.) The word 'cadence' designates a specific musical function, and the number of examples is very limited. You, however, would like to apply that word to anything of your personal choosing, and call it 'modern', while taking shots at me because I do not. You seem to have inferred (erroneously, mind you) that by my pointing out that III-i (et al) is not a cadence, that I was somehow making a (less than favorable) value judgment about a III-i progression. I did no such thing; I merely pointed out, CORRECTLY, that III-i is not a cadence, no matter how badly you wish it was.

  • Members
Posted

Well you are correct that there is no III to -i cadence.

 

Beyond that, it is evedent that you do have a developed grasp of traditional harmony. Congrats. But you continue from a myopic viewpoint. The humor is that you keep trying to forceibly justify the "non existence" of something that you simply don't wan't to recognize. Unfortunately regardless of what you have studied, you have yet to be exposed to these standard concepts, and yet you persevere to proclaim the invalidity of these widely accepted ideas. There is nothing wrong with not knowing something, but proclaiming that it doesn't exist because you've never studied it, is the problem here, and why I find the neccessity to flame you. My introduction to this particular concept was introduced to me in the Harmony 4 class at Berklee, where I received my Bachelor's Degree in music.

  • Members
Posted

Originally posted by Cackalacky

Well you are correct that there is no III to -i cadence.


I know that.


Beyond that, it is evedent that you do have a developed grasp of traditional harmony. Congrats. But you continue from a myopic viewpoint. The humor is that you keep trying to forceibly justify the "non existence" of something that you simply don't wan't to recognize. Unfortunately regardless of what you have studied, you have yet to be exposed to these standard concepts, and yet you persevere to proclaim the invalidity of these widely accepted ideas. There is nothing wrong with not knowing something, but proclaiming that it doesn't exist because you've never studied it, is the problem here, and why I find the neccessity to flame you. My introduction to this particular concept was introduced to me in the Harmony 4 class at Berklee, where I received my Bachelor's Degree in music.

 

Something that is introduced in Harmony 4 at Berklee (and apparently nowhere else) is hardly 'standard' or 'accepted'. If it was, it would be taught in all the bigger music schools (Juilliard, Eastman, Duquesne, Indiana, etc) and would be included in the standard harmony texts upon which the entire study is based.

 

But, such is not the case. Modal music and harmonic cadences DO NOT MIX, no matter how much you or Mr. Ulanowsky want them to. That he chose to bastardize the word 'cadence' in his text is a shame; but then again, anyone who spends so many pages coming up with lists of 'characteristic' and 'avoid' chords for 'modal' music (which existed for CENTURIES before 'chords' even existed, and was rendered all but extinct because of them) is obviously trying to legitimize his mistake. That he went so far to come up with 'avoid chords' is laughable!!!!

 

All the more humorous is that he has no problems saying 'Aeolian cadence' and 'Mixolydian cadence'...but was careful to avoid saying 'Phrygian cadence'. Hmmm...wonder why that is? Because a 'Phrygian cadence' is something easily verifiable in any number of legit harmony texts written by qualified people, and either he knew that he couldn't justify his wording in light of that, or he didn't know what a Phrygian cadence was but knew such a thing existed. Either way, he was the wrong guy to write a harmony text. Nettles wrote books 1-3...and should have written 4, if only for consistency. Then again, maybe that's why harmony classes there are only 2 credits. :D

 

Oh...so much for me not having been exposed to the source of your (mis)infomation. :p

  • Members
Posted

Well it is interesting that you do appear to have exposure to this particular concept. I have dealt with this traditionalist vs. modernist ad nauseum. Even within Berklee, there are 4 core "modern" theory classes and 4 core "trad" classes, 1 counterpoint and 1 two part cannon and invention classes that are required. But what it boils down to, for me as a musician, is that the trad route can explain the evolution of western systems, but simply does not account, or alow for many of the things that are just plain USED. Modern explaination granted is a patchwork system that partially uses pre-existing nomenclature, and is forced to devise names for fuctions that are used in harmony we hear and use everyday. BUT AT LEAST IT ATTEMPTS TO EXPLAIN THEM. As for all these wonderfull schools you listed, I'm sure you attended them all as well as Berklee and therefore have an objective opinion on the subject. I'm also sure that in your vast wisdom, and disdain for the author of Berklee's HR4's text author, Steve Rochinski, must know more than some of the best minds in the buisness, collectively.

  • Members
Posted

Bigger music schools?

 

Julliard 224 Music Faculty, 2 Guitar

Eastman 130 Music Faculty, 2 Guitar

Duquesne approx 85 faculty, 10 Guitar

Indiana 150 total Music Faculty, no info on guitar

 

 

Berklee College of Music 460 Music Faculty, 59 on Guitar

  • Members
Posted

 

Originally posted by Cackalacky

But what it boils down to, for me as a musician, is that the trad route can explain the evolution of western systems, but simply does not account, or alow for many of the things that are just plain USED. Modern explaination granted is a patchwork system that partially uses pre-existing nomenclature, and is forced to devise names for fuctions that are used in harmony we hear and use everyday.


Functions in harmony refer to something that exists in tonal music, not modal. Modal music doesn't have functional harmony; modern usage of modes is almost always a 1 or 2 chord vamp---anything more and it starts to be heard as tonal. Also, not everything needs a special name or categorization, which is an obsession for guitarists, most likely because that's how they learned in the first place.


BUT AT LEAST IT ATTEMPTS TO EXPLAIN THEM.


Berklee explanation: "there are characteristic chords and avoid chords. here they are." The thought of 'avoid chords' is bad enough, but the twisting of the word 'characteristic' into cadential' is an abomination of both music theory and the English language.


I'd love to hear their explanation of Phrygian cadences and German 6th chords.


As for all these wonderfull schools you listed, I'm sure you attended them all as well as Berklee and therefore have an objective opinion on the subject.


Attended one of them...taught a Master Class to grad students at another.


I'm also sure that in your vast wisdom, and disdain for the author of Berklee's HR4's text author, Steve Rochinski, must know more than some of the best minds in the buisness, collectively.

 

 

My copy was written by Alex Ulanowsky. It would appear that the content hasn't changed. Maybe they think if they repeat it enough times, they'll start to believe it.

 

And obviously, when someone writing Berklee's harmony textbook(s) paints himself into a corner by committing a nasty error on the fundamental level, and then carefully sidesteps the issue by altering his wording where it would contradict the work of those who truly ARE the best minds in the field, he's got a major gap in his understanding and shouldn't be writing that text in the first place. I don't care WHO puts their name on the cover--they're still hijacking the word 'cadence' and making things up as they go along. I know what the mistake is, the significance thereof, and I have no qualms about calling them on it.

  • Members
Posted

 

Originally posted by Cackalacky

Bigger music schools?


Julliard 224 Music Faculty, 2 Guitar

Eastman 130 Music Faculty, 2 Guitar

Duquesne approx 85 faculty, 10 Guitar

Indiana 150 total Music Faculty, no info on guitar



Berklee College of Music 460 Music Faculty, 59 on Guitar

 

 

"Bigger" in terms of stature and esteem, not the size of the faculty...and why single out the number of guitar instructors? Music theory applies across the board, and historically, guitarists are the ones who understand it the least.

 

Berklee also has the lowest admission standards; they'll take pretty much anyone who can pay. There's nothing wrong with that, but it goes a long way to explaining their increasing number of students and faculty.

  • Members
Posted

That's cool you figured that out, djmojo.

 

The drive from V-I is generally considered the defining quality of western music.

 

Technically, it's V7 - I.

 

The reason is, the 3rd and the 7th of the V7 chord tend to want to resolve in opposite directions to the 1st and 3rd of the I chord, respectively. It makes for nice voice leading, and resolves the tension of those two notes, called the tritone.

 

Like in key of C, F-B of the G7 chord resolves to E-C of the C chord.

 

That's basic classical theory. Jazz theory has taken the concept further in a number of ways.

 

For one thing, jazz likes to go ii7-V7-I.

 

The ii7 chord is the relative V to the V chord. It could be galled v7 of V7, or v7/V7.

 

You can go around the circle of fifths this way - iii-vi-ii-V-I. Each preceding chord is the fifth of the chord after it.

 

Also, jazz extends the upper extensions to the basic triads past 7 - there are 9ths, 11ths and 13ths. So ii7-V7 could just as soon be ii13-V7.

 

Also, since the dominant 7 interval is symmetric, you can make substitutions of chords that have the same 3rd and 7th.

 

For instance, C7 has E as 3rd and Bb as 7th. F#7 has Bb (A#) as 3rd and E as 7th. C7 resolves to F. Therefore, F#7 could resolve to F, too.

 

Dm7 has F as 3rd and C as 7th. Ab has C as 3rd and F as bb7 (6th). Dm7 resolves to G7, but Ab6 to G7 would work as well.

 

Also, you could make that Dm9 to G7, or Ab6/9 to G7, etc.

Posted

It is my personal belief that music theory is a flexible, ever changing medium, not bound fast by a set of rules like in math or physics. As music changes (modal music today is not the same as modal music of centuries past), the theory then follows to explain the workings of the music.

 

Whether or not it's appropriate to call progressions in modal music 'cadences,' (although, using a basic definition of 'cadence' as merely a harmonic punctuation in music, it's conceivable to have modal cadences) is not my point. I just think it's a little constraining to hold hard and fast theory as rules and dismiss any incogruent thinking as immediatly 'wrong' and not debate (not argue) the issue and consider the merits of the case.

 

In other words, there's no need to shout. :o

  • Members
Posted

Candences are the punctuation marks of music. No matter the scale you 're using, you need punctuation if you want to be a good "narrator". But why not fighting over it?

:D

Posted

Originally posted by ManiacManos

Candences are the punctuation marks of music. No matter the scale you 're using, you need punctuation if you want to be a good "narrator". But why not fighting over it?

:D

 

 

That's my point exactly. There will always be cadences in any kind of music in order to have phrasing. While some may not fit the precise definitions of classical theory, these sorts of cadences wouldn't be used in classical music anyway.

  • Members
Posted

Originally posted by Poparad




That's my point exactly. There will always be cadences in any kind of music in order to have phrasing. While some may not fit the precise definitions of classical theory, these sorts of cadences wouldn't be used in classical music anyway.

 

 

Except that the initial post specifically dealt with harmonic cadences, which are clearly and specifically defined, and are in no way limited to classical music. :p

 

The basic, fundamental terminology used in theory is the foundation for everything built upon it. When you tamper with the foundation, you screw everything up. The same applies to any other theoretical field, be it math, science, etc.

 

The more fundamental a concept, the more universal its application across an enormous array of styles. This maintains the common bonds that tie together the whole of western music, which is what allows musicians to not only move from one genre to another, but it also allows them to study music styles on a comparative level rather than build a new and unique set of principles for each one. The foundations should remain the roots and trunk of the theory tree, and save the deviations for the branches and the leaves.

Posted

Originally posted by Auggie Doggie




Except that the initial post
specifically dealt with harmonic cadences
, which are clearly and specifically defined, and are in no way limited to classical music.
:p

 

 

Ok, I should have put it differently: harmonic cadences are already defined as they apply to tonal (major and minor) music (as opposed to just the classical style). Now we can include popular music, various Western influenced ethnic musics, and a certain ammount of jazz (earlier jazz predominantly).

 

When the tonality isn't based on a traditional major or minor key, then the foundation is changed, and thus the rules (I like principles better) that are applied to it have to change.

 

I do a gree though about the universality of a fundamental principle, but I think in this case we are talking about music that doesn't adhere to that (the traditional major/minor tonics).

  • Members
Posted

perhaps, then it'd be better to use different nomenclature if the foundation is different

(while a saptak and a scale have similarities -- the concept and use are a little different)

 

I find that can be a great tool - that way the concepts don't become confused...and all too often people get worried that if a term may not be as suitable to a concept, the concept is somehow less valuable

 

"what do you mean it's not a function?!? it's not useless!!! :mad: "

 

"oh it can be useful, it's just that formula doesn't describe a function...notice the 2 Y vals for that X?"

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...