|
Welcome to the Piano World Piano Forums Over 3 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments. Over 100,000 members from around the world.
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers
(it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!
|
|
68 members (aphexdisklavier, bobrunyan, anotherscott, AaronSF, apianostudent, beeboss, brdwyguy, benkeys, 17 invisible),
2,192
guests, and
372
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 24,601
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
|
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 24,601 |
I take it you'll feel your question was answered.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,746
6000 Post Club Member
|
6000 Post Club Member
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,746 |
I take it you'll feel your question was answered. Not really. An authentic cadence is just V, I, the sub-dominant is optional. I've never heard anyone refer to II as the sub-dominant before and still haven't, definitively. But that's okay if you want to think of it that way, from my perspective, it is unnecessarily confusing.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 6,703
6000 Post Club Member
|
6000 Post Club Member
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 6,703 |
Guys, I just skimmed the last few posts ... you make it even more confusing when you write II (for a diatonic triad built on scale degree two in major) when ii clearly indicates the flavor of the triad as being minor.
I see a II chord (in the cadence context) and I immediately think five of five or a major triad built on scale degree two.
Yamaha AvantGrand N1X | Roland RD 2000 | Sennheiser HD 598 headphones
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 17,277
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
|
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 17,277 |
IIb-V-I or IV-V-I is all old hat. Gimme Ic-V-I (or Ic-V7-I) anyday - much more 'final' . Mendelssohn uses it a lot in Elijah etc....
If music be the food of love, play on!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 19,678
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
|
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 19,678 |
Isn't it "PREdominant" rather than SUBdominant in this discussion about II?
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 1,394
1000 Post Club Member
|
1000 Post Club Member
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 1,394 |
oh the joys of nomenclature and polychords
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 6,703
6000 Post Club Member
|
6000 Post Club Member
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 6,703 |
Isn't it "PREdominant" rather than SUBdominant in this discussion about II? It depends if you're above or below the equator.
Yamaha AvantGrand N1X | Roland RD 2000 | Sennheiser HD 598 headphones
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,746
6000 Post Club Member
|
6000 Post Club Member
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,746 |
Hey, let's use musical terms to describe music, okay?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 635
500 Post Club Member
|
500 Post Club Member
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 635 |
IIb-V-I or IV-V-I is all old hat. Gimme Ic-V-I (or Ic-V7-I) anyday - much more 'final' . Mendelssohn uses it a lot in Elijah etc.... one could even have IIb7-Ic-V-I for a great final cadence :p
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,607
2000 Post Club Member
|
2000 Post Club Member
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,607 |
Hey, let's use musical terms to describe music, okay? It's a word that is used often in a musical context, just like 'colour'.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,264
4000 Post Club Member
|
4000 Post Club Member
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,264 |
21 November 2012 We’ve been trapped into the web of a bum five line stave with neums (neither of which give an accurate graphic image of note pitch and duration) ever since Crazy Horse Guido d’Arezzo (Middle Ages) came up with the antiquated garbage.
But to give the joker his fair due ,.. the chappie wanted to give members of his choir a visual indication of the ups and downs in the chants ... adding symbols indicating note duration.
And since then we stumble on and make bland statements like that of bennevis (no insult intended) with “I’d say music theory is the equivalent of grammarâ€... (whatever that means).
The truth is that we have not broken out of our notation hoodoo ... and hammer away at out our pianos, using endless repetition of an obsolescent notation system ... to eventually sound quite good.
But the solution to prima vista reading lies in a notation system which accurately indicates the pitch and duration of notes (vertically and horizontally) ... linking the symbols into a clearly defined map of the music.
IPSO FACTO
Sadly there's no going back.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 24,601
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
|
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 24,601 |
I take it you'll feel your question was answered. Not really. An authentic cadence is just V, I, the sub-dominant is optional. I've never heard anyone refer to II as the sub-dominant before and still haven't, definitively. But that's okay if you want to think of it that way, from my perspective, it is unnecessarily confusing. Consider the context of what I said. The OP was wanting to get a basic idea of what these terms mean when he sees them, and that's what I was trying to give him. Sure, if you're talking narrow definitions, what you said is right. But as per the posts by some other people, the term "subdominant" is indeed sometimes used for II chords, when they serve a subdominant-type of function (I understand that you haven't come across the usage) and I thought it would be good to mention that for him in case he came across such a usage. I didn't get into "but strictly speaking it's not 'really' a subdominant, and BTW it would usually be just for versions of II like II6 or II65" for what I think are obvious reasons for such a context.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 24,601
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
|
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 24,601 |
Guys, I just skimmed the last few posts ... you make it even more confusing when you write II (for a diatonic triad built on scale degree two in major) when ii clearly indicates the flavor of the triad as being minor.
I see a II chord (in the cadence context) and I immediately think five of five or a major triad built on scale degree two. Your objection and your concept go against standard notation and terminology. The standard meaning of II, at least in classical music, is how it's been used here. When it's the major chord functioning as "V of V," it's called "V of V." If it's not, it's the minor chord.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 6,703
6000 Post Club Member
|
6000 Post Club Member
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 6,703 |
Now I'm confused. I was under the impression that a diatonic ii chord in major was being labeled II. I must have misunderstood what was being conveyed. My standard notation goes something like this: C Major: ii, V, I = Dm, G, C II, V, I = D, G, C ... and I probably would have written ... [V] of V, V, I ... back in the university.
Yamaha AvantGrand N1X | Roland RD 2000 | Sennheiser HD 598 headphones
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 5,998
5000 Post Club Member
|
5000 Post Club Member
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 5,998 |
Now I'm confused. I was under the impression that a diatonic ii chord in major was being labeled II. I must have misunderstood what was being conveyed. My standard notation goes something like this: C Major: ii, V, I = Dm, G, C II, V, I = D, G, C ... and I probably would have written ... [V] of V, V, I ... back in the university. In that context it amounts to the same thing, but there is a place for upper and lower case II chords because the modified II doesn't always lead to V. It depends on the context. I learned advanced harmony at university and they still teach V/V in terms of functional harmony analysis, but modern composition doesn't always fit in the neat boxes, so being able to sharpen or flatten any chord by putting # or b in front of the roman numeral, as well as being able to use an upper or lower case numeral for the chord gives total flexibility to describe the harmony. As to whether a chord is described as an applied (secondary) dominant to another chord depends somewhat on the skill of the analyst to notice it, and the preference of nomenclature. For me seeing a II V I will suggest a V/V V I, but either description sits fine with me.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 5,998
5000 Post Club Member
|
5000 Post Club Member
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 5,998 |
21 November 2012 We’ve been trapped into the web of a bum five line stave with neums (neither of which give an accurate graphic image of note pitch and duration) ever since Crazy Horse Guido d’Arezzo (Middle Ages) came up with the antiquated garbage.
But to give the joker his fair due ,.. the chappie wanted to give members of his choir a visual indication of the ups and downs in the chants ... adding symbols indicating note duration.
And since then we stumble on and make bland statements like that of bennevis (no insult intended) with “I’d say music theory is the equivalent of grammarâ€... (whatever that means).
The truth is that we have not broken out of our notation hoodoo ... and hammer away at out our pianos, using endless repetition of an obsolescent notation system ... to eventually sound quite good.
But the solution to prima vista reading lies in a notation system which accurately indicates the pitch and duration of notes (vertically and horizontally) ... linking the symbols into a clearly defined map of the music.
IPSO FACTO
Sadly there's no going back. Sorry, but that's just pure bat crazy talk. I have to question your level of understanding of music theory and skill at the piano if you can hold this view.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 6,703
6000 Post Club Member
|
6000 Post Club Member
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 6,703 |
It depends on the context. I learned advanced harmony at university and they still teach V/V in terms of functional harmony analysis, but modern composition doesn't always fit in the neat boxes, so being able to sharpen or flatten any chord by putting # or b in front of the roman numeral, as well as being able to use an upper or lower case numeral for the chord gives total flexibility to describe the harmony.
Yes, context is everything ... and I qualified myself by writing the following ... I see a II chord (in the cadence context) and I immediately think five of five or a major triad built on scale degree two.
I've always liked figured bass since it was so pure, if you know what I mean. No analysis per se, just the intervals.
Yamaha AvantGrand N1X | Roland RD 2000 | Sennheiser HD 598 headphones
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,405
1000 Post Club Member
|
1000 Post Club Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,405 |
The ii is the Subdominant parallel. (Sp) (you Englsih speakers call it the Super Tonic) The II (and usually then a II7) is the Dominants Dominant. (DD) All according to glorious Funktionstheorie. Up here in the cold, cold North amongst Polar Bears we learn; Funktionsanalys (Functional harmony) Tonic=T, Subdominant parallel=Sp, Dominant parallel = Dp, Subdominant=S, Dominant=D, Tonic parallel=Tp, (Tonic, Super Tonic, Mediant, Subdominant, Dominant, Submediant) or Steganalys (Step Analysis or Scale Degree) I, ii, iii, IV, V, vi, vii Just thought you should know.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 17,277
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
|
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 17,277 |
IIb-V-I or IV-V-I is all old hat. Gimme Ic-V-I (or Ic-V7-I) anyday - much more 'final' . Mendelssohn uses it a lot in Elijah etc.... one could even have IIb7-Ic-V-I for a great final cadence :p While on the subject of interesting harmonies, and bearing in mind the reindeer-and-bearded-man-in-red-suit season coming upon us, I wonder which harmonization of 'O Come All Ye Faithful' (Adeste fideles) people here will be singing in a few weeks' time. Here in UK, David Willcocks's harmonization is almost universal, even if choral conductors may write their own descants and harmonizations for the last two verses. Willcocks use I-II7d-Vb for the first line, but in Germany and most other countries, I've only ever heard I-Vb. (In case anyone doesn't know, in the key of G, that II7d chord is G-C-E-A from bass to soprano/treble: in effect, the low G is being used like a suspension before dropping down to F# for Vb, thereby also avoiding consecutive fifths and octaves which would otherwise occur with the awful I-II-Vb). And how about that all-time favorite 'Silent Night'/Stille Nacht, which has been subjected to all sorts of arrangements/derangements over the years? (And let's not forget that the tune as we know it today isn't quite the same as what Franz Xavier Gruber wrote....) There's the simple and straightforward Willcocks and Philip Ledger (who sadly passed a few days ago) versions, all the way up to the weird and wonderful Jan Sandström's harmonization/arrangement.
If music be the food of love, play on!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 5,998
5000 Post Club Member
|
5000 Post Club Member
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 5,998 |
I've always liked figured bass since it was so pure, if you know what I mean. No analysis per se, just the intervals.
Yes, figured bass is good too. We had to be fluent in all of the styles of representing harmony to pass our harmony course. They all have their benefits. It takes a bit longer to be fluent with figured bass but it's very efficient.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Piano
by Gino2 - 04/17/24 02:34 PM
|
Piano
by Gino2 - 04/17/24 02:23 PM
|
|
Forums43
Topics223,408
Posts3,349,457
Members111,637
|
Most Online15,252 Mar 21st, 2010
|
|
|
|
|
|