Jon Slaughter wrote:
> Joey Goldstein wrote:
>> Jon Slaughter wrote:
>>> In Am this chord is Bbmaj. Is this chord simply borrowed from the
>>> relative submediant and acts as a IV chord or equivalently the
>>> subdominant's submediant chord?
>>> i.e.,
>>> Am Bbmaj
>>> is sort of like a iii IV in Fmaj.
>> The way I learned it is the the "Neapolitan Chord", usually referred
>> to as "the Neapolitan Sixth" because it almost always occurs in 1st
>> inversion, is a borrowed chord from the parallel phrygian scale.
>> I believe that in CPP era music, while borrowing from the parallel
>> minor scales (when in major mode) and the parallel dorian scale was
>> fairly common, the N6 chord was the *only* chord that was ever
>> borrowed from the parallel phrygian. But I could be wrong about that
>> detail.
>> The way you're describing it appears to be the same as the way I'm
>> describing it but there are subtle conceptual differences.
>> Modal borrowing is *not* a form of modulation. The tonic remains the
>> same. I.e. If your Bbmaj chord is really a functional chord in the key
>> of A minor then it makes no sense to look at it as coming from the key
>> of F major or D minor, even though the pitch collections involved are
>> the same. Scale and key are not the same things.
> No, I'm basically thinking as you are but I am using it in a modulating
> way at times. i.e., if it is a phrygian borrowing then we can borrow it
> but then also use it as a pivot chord to modulate into the key a maj3rd
When it is used to modulate then it is used to modulate.
When it is used as you have described, it's just bII.
At any rate, you did say "sort of like a iii IV in Fmaj", and it *is*
'sort of' like that, but not really that. that' was my only point.
>>> It seems to me that this chord is really just temporarily treating
>>> the minor tonic as a iii chord. In the key of E minor we end up with
>>> Em Fmaj. The non-chord tones suggest that the Fmaj works
>>> best(smoothest) as a IV chord(maj7th + #4th seem to be most natural
>>> to my ears).
>> Again, scale and key are not the same things. This is especially true
>> for chord-scale relationships.
>> Just because you use a lydian scale on a major chord does not
>> automatically make that major chord functionally a IV chord in the
>> key. Jazz players are fond of using lydian on I chords.
> Well, I think this could be argued.
Go ahead.
> If "function" is not set in stone
> but has many dimensions
A piece of Tonal music may have various functional ambiguities, but if
the music is clearly in a key at every point in time then then any
decent functional analysis of that music should not have many
'dimensions' to it. If the music does not utilize the phenomenon of key
then a functional analysis of it is simply wrong-headed.
> then playing a lydian scale over a clearly
> non-lydian chord changes it's function,
Not at all.
In modern music Imaj chords will often be coloured with the ionian
scale, the mixolydian scale, the blues scale, or the lydian scale.
Some folks in modern jazz will go as far as the lydian augmented scale
or the symmetrical augmented scale.
If the music is composed such that the maj chord in question feels like
the "home" chord then the music is in a major key.
> even if just by "color". It may
> effectively not change the function but in an "absolute sense" the
> function does chance.
Now you're just contradicting yourself left and right.
What do *you* man by "function"?
What *I* mean by harmonic function is the manner in which a chord
functions within a key.
To my way of thinking there are two levels of this:
1. The RN designation of the chord's root in relations to its intervalic
distance from the tonic of the key.
2. The designation of one of 3 generally recognized harmonic areas of
the key, namely T D or SD.
> e.g., ii and IV are different chords and have different functions but
> effectively have the same function.
ii and IV both have SD function, yes.
But if you use an ionian scale from the root of a chord that is truly
functioning within the key as a IV chord it doesn't automatically become
a I chord.
> I guess I'm using bad terminology since if I say different function you
> probably will say that is wrong.
> What I mean is that the ii and IV chords are different. This difference
> mean that they must function in some way differently. But because the ii
> and IV are so close we generally just say they are the same function(but
> they technically are not).
They are both used *within a key* to achieve the same purpose, but they
are different chords.
> So, to me, the playing lydian over a I chord makes that I chord function
> different... it may still effectively be a I
Exactly.
> but it is
> different(obviously).
Granted. but that doesn;'t make it a IV chord.
Lydian is also the expected scale colour for a bVI chord in minor.
Surely you don't think that playing lydian on Imaj turns it into a bVI
in minor, do you?
> As the I/Lydian and I/Ionian have different
> functions...
Scales do not have harmonic functions.
> but functions that may be close enough(depending on
> context) to say the function's are effectively the same.
> To me, I like to somehow take into account the things that make stuff
> different. Even pitch order makes a difference. C E G and C C G E are
> different and have different functions in an absolute sense. Obviously
> they are so close that it doesn't matter to really call them different.
Now you're using the word "function" in a very general sense.
That's dangerous if you want clarity in a discussion of harmonic
function which is much more specific than that.
> The problem here is that I'm using, at times, the same term to mean the
> two different concents. i.e., an "absolute function" and "effectively
> equivalent function".
> Even Gmadd6 and Em7b5, to me, have an absolute functional difference.
> They are different chords by the nature of the notation(else we should
> only use one and would have to have a way to determine that). But they
> are effectively(maybe for all practical purposes) the same chords and
> are interchangable.
> I'm probably not clear on this
Check out The Chord-Scale Theory And Jazz Harmony - by Nettles and Graff.
> and it probably is something that comes
> from my mathematical background. I am trying to look at things in a more
> general way... in a sense just interpretting function as being either a
> T to SD relationship(such as IV->I, I->IV, etc...), T to D, SD to D, and
> all the reversals(which seem to work different... e.g., I V is different
> in "function" than V I). So it doesn't matter what chords are what but
> which of the 6 relationships they fall under.
There are only 3 harmonic functions within any single key: T D and SD.
The goal of any non-I chord in a key is to promote the return to I.
So the only possible harmonic sentences are:
D T
SD T
SD D T
D SD T
Anything else you see within a key (without invoking borrowing from
closely related keys or chromatic approach chords) is just variation of
the above.
> A IV I V expresses a SD->T relationship twice
It does?
> and a SD to D relationship
> once
> (the outer IV V progression that exists in a higher level).
???
>>> So normally this would act like a pivot chord if we modulated to
>>> Fmaj/Dm but the resolution for the neapolitan is obviously different
>>> which is why there is a distinction.
>>> e.g., I'm playing along in Am and decide I want to modulate to Fmaj
>>> and play Am Bbmaj but "forget"(or whatever") that I was going to
>>> Fmaj and play the E7... I like the sound and hence come up with a
>>> new chord function. I use it in a lot of my compositions and the it
>>> spreads through the world and people think it's a really cool sound
>>> and start to use it too.
>>> Point being, can I think of it as a simple pivot chord with an
>>> irregular resolution(sorta inbetween Am and Fmaj/Dm) rather than
>>> just some new spontaneously created chord out of thin air?
>> My understanding is that in classical music the "Neapolitan Chord" was
>> almost always used as a pre-dominant chord and was usually in 1st
>> inversion. In modern Tonal music it does not make sense necessarily
>> to analyse every instance of a bII chord as a "Neapolitan Chord".
>> If it resolves like a Neapolitan Chord then sure, it makes sense to
>> label it as such. But more often than not it's just a plain old bII.
> Yeah, probably...
>> In modern Tonal music we may see other chords borrowed from the
>> parallel phrygian as well as bII. Eg. bVIIm.
>> In modern Tonal music we also see modal borrowing from scales like the
>> parallel lydian, mixolydian, and locrian - which did not see much if
>> any action in CPP era music.
> My only issues with this is that it seems that one is just finding some
> relationship that exists to explain it without necessarily that
> relationship really being meaningful(maybe it really doesn't matter
> though).
These relationships are 'meaningful' to me.
If the music is truly in a key, meaning that a tonic has been
established to feel like a place of rest and that a maj or minor chord
has been implied or established with that tonic as its root, then until
some other tonic is established *in the ear* any non-diatonic chords
that occur have to be seen as being borrowed from some other scale system.
If chords are borrowed from diatonic scales (i.e. scales with 5
whole-tones and 2 semitones in which the semitones are as far apart as
possible) that contain the tonic, aka "closely related scales", then the
ear won't have a very hard time retaining its ties to the tonic.
If borrowing is occurring from a scale that does not contain the tonic
then it is much less likely that the initial key feeling can be
retained, and something akin to a modulation will usually result.
> We could, I imagine, simply say any chord
...
Erfahren Sie mehr »
|
