It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Subscribe to our Patreon, and get image uploads with no ads on the site!
Base theme by DesignModo & ported to Powered by Vanilla by Chris Ireland, modified by the "theFB" team.
Comments
@phil_aka_pip, @mike_l, I would just like to add something to what's been said about the old dominant 7. I think there is a bit of an issue with the general usage of the term in that "dominant 7" is a phrase so often heard, that we tend to think that the dominant refers to or is in some way connected to the 7, and that a 1,3,5,b7 is therefore automatically a "dominant 7th". But it isn't.
The phrase "dominant 7" means that the chord is the Dominant chord, which is the name for the V chord and the V chord only, and refers to its relationship with the Tonic chord. The "7" obviously is for when it has a 7 note (and in diatonic music it often does indeed have a 7 as well as a 1, 3 and 5, and the reason that's so effective is because that 7 is a 4th above the tonic so you can move down the scale 4 notes to reach the tonic, and the 8 is a 4th below the tonic so you can move up the scale from the 8th 4 notes to reach the tonic. So that 7 and 8 together on the V chord is very symmetrical and pleasing.)
And it's written with a capital V and a little 7. When it resolves to the tonic, if the tonic had a 7th in it, that wouldn't be a dominant 7, it would be a tonic 7, and written with a capital I and a little 7, and if it were blooz and had a flattened 7th it would be written with a capital I and then a little flat sign and a little 7 and called "tonic flat 7". As I think you're both saying, you couldn't or shouldn't call it a dominant 7 "in function" because it's not a dominant chord - it's not in the V position. Unless you were suddenly transposing it and making it a V.
But furthermore it can introduce a bit of confusion to say a chord is dominant 7 in form but not in function in cases where it's not actually a dominant (V) chord. I know it's unusual to say it's a tonic b7 in the case of a blues I chord, but that's what's correct, because "dominant" refers only to the chord's relationship to the tonic. I do understand why people like to say it's *like* a dominant 7, but I don't like it, and besides as Phil says, it's only true in the diatonic, melodic minor, harmonic minor and a few other families where the V7 chord is a root, a major 3rd, a perfect 5th and a minor 7th. If you were writing in for example the Persian scale, the dominant 7 chord would be a root, augmented 3rd, perfect 5th, major 7th.
Thus in the case of melodic minor, that 1,3,5,b7 of the IV chord, is called a subdominant 7 or IV 7, not a dominant 7 btw.
Supportact said: [my style is] probably more an accumulation of limitations and bad habits than a 'style'.
In your example, and in Phil's example of the blues tonic (I) chord, which is a 1, 3, 5, b7, there is one thing to consider though. It is true to say that the chords go from I to IV sometimes. In 12-bar blues that occurs in a third of the changes off the I chord. (I, I, I, I, IV, IV, I, I, V, IV, I, V). That doesn't change the fact that it's a Tonic b7, or a I b7, but on those occasions it is true that there is a secondary or artificial dominant occurring here because at the transition from I to IV at the 5th bar, the IV could be said to be briefly tonicised - not a true modulation because the IV doesn't establish itself as the new I, but just temporarily; so the I chord (along with its b7) is borrowing a secondary dominant for a fleeting moment at that transition point.
Aside from special cases like these, I think saying a Tonic b7 is like a Dominant 7 in form not function just doesn't work because Dominant implies function so strongly that you can't ignore it.
In summary, before I let Bucket's thread to return to normal, it's not correct to say a chord is a dominant 7, or a type of dominant 7 simply because it has 1,3,5,b7, unless it's acting in a dominant situation with respect to a (possibly temporary) tonic.
Supportact said: [my style is] probably more an accumulation of limitations and bad habits than a 'style'.
So, @viz, I assume you're basically saying Limbrick was wrong, (which is OK, if he was), but may I ask if this is a case of taking strict diatonic definitions beyond the scope if their originally intended usage?
I ask because I complained to another tutor recently because he'd used terminology such as
I7 III7 II7 V7 (example in G: G7 B7 A7 D7)
and I said "You can't do that the ii and iii chords are minor" and he said: not in this progression they're not which is why I used capitals and stated explicitly they are all seventh chords built like a dominant with a minor 7 on top of a major triad" ... from which I concluded that he was using no more of diatonic theory than he needed to in order to describe his progression.
Seriously: If you value it, take/fetch it yourself
Basically I'm a pedant, and I'm saying that if you're using classical lingo, which has very precisely defined meanings, then you've got a few choices:
a) stick to the classical meanings and only talk about classical music.
b) stick to the classical meanings and use them pedantically to describe new music although that might be clumsy.
c) adapt and enlarge the meanings to fit the new music.
d) invent new terms.
I tend to favour (b), partly because of my upbringing and partly because after all classical theory is easily capable of describing diatonic, harmonic, melodic and all other strict scale families; the question is whether it's suited for music where the chords essentially don't adhere to the key signature.
Anyway, it sounds like you could be applying a pinch of reasonableness and pragmatism and favouring (c), though from what you write I'm not actually convinced that I'm saying anything different from your Limbrick interpretation; I think I totally agree with what you say he said:
The D7 is a dominant 7 because it's the V chord, always. It doesn't *have* to resolve to the tonic every time it's used (I guess that's what's meant by it's not 'functioning' as a dominant, but it still is the dominant chord nevertheless) - it's dominant purely because it's the V, and it's a 7 purely because it has the 7 extension. So that sounds good to me.
And what he said certainly doesn't go as far as saying that the I b7 is also a dominant 7, which I would disagree with, so I concur with all you've said.
With the other tutor, I agree with that too I think! And here I would be a bit relaxed on the lingo. He's using capitals for major chords so yes it's a III7 and as we're bloozin' it up, offsetting the major E-shape barre chord and not adhering to the key sig (and by the way I'm assuming the III chord is a Bb not a B, as in Smoke on the Water, despite the G chord having a major 3rd, so it's not even clear whether we're in major or minor) I would refrain from writing something bizarre like III#3b7, a III7 would suffice. So long as you don't start calling it a V7 (or a dominant 7, same thing). I would therefore also try to avoid saying 'built like a dominant', I'd want to say built like a major-minor 7 chord, because the word Dominant is soooooo relevant to its function as a V and its relation to the tonic. But I do accept that is me being very literal and going against the grain of many practising musicians.
By the way, the best description of all this was given by your very good self in an earlier thread - I remember it well, I'll have to find it - where you were proving rather eloquently why you could not call a I 7 a dominant 7.
Supportact said: [my style is] probably more an accumulation of limitations and bad habits than a 'style'.