You are of course correct. It has been a little while, and I forgot about that definition of the word dominant. I was using the more restrictive definition, specifically referring to the dominant fifth chord. (I know that, by my own logic, I should say dominant five chord, but I usually hear it called a dominant fifth. I guess it’s really not ambiguous, like referring to a minor seventh chord might be.)
Also, I will point out that referring to a chord as a dominant seventh usually is a synonym for the more correct major-minor seventh, because a minor-major seventh chord most often functions as a dominant. Heck, I’m not even sure how to indicate a major-minor seventh chord* except to name it as a dominant fifth of the chord a fifth below (or a fourth above).
*It seems to me that I may have gotten the distinction backward, as I wanted to say major-minor seven chord there.
Fair enough. I was basing my analysis on what I learned from Beatles musicologist Allan Pollack (see link and excerpt below). I see now that “parallel” is too strong a word for the tenuous connection between this chord pattern and the general attempt, in classical Western tonality and beyond, to establish the tonic by introducing some kind of dominant (and, preferably, a subdominant as well) as the song progresses. Still, at the most basic, structural level, this is what these songs are trying to do, however modal they are. (But, as Pollack reminds us, we should realy call that flat-VII a “four of four”, if we’re trying to fit it into any kind of tonal analysis. That’s why it’s so “weak” – it’s just a subdominant of the subdominant.)
It’s just a game, really, because it’s neither modal nor tonal, it’s rock! Picking out modal and/or tonal stuff in rock songs is interesting, but we shouldn’t try to take it too far.
When I see bVII-IV-I, I think of it as playing as a double-plagal cadence, as Allan Pollack notes. You can even stack them further. Add another IV-I in there (on the bVII) and you get the perfectly usable, sonorous bIII-bVII-IV-I. Add another IV, and it’s bVI-bIII-bVII-IV-I. Etc.
I wish to quibble with the assertion that a ii chord and a II7 function the same way. When you make the chord on the 2nd scale step into a major chord, you have made the raised third of that chord into the leading tone to the dominant, making it a secondary dominant chord. Intensify that with the 7th and you strongly turn the ii chord into a V7 of V. That’s got more impulse to resolve to the 5th step than a mere ii chord. It does tend to flow in a similar manner, but it doesn’t really function the same.
I’ve actually referred to that type of progression as a “four of four” chords. In other words, I would say that the bVII is actually a IV/IV, the bIII is a IV/bVII (or IV/IV/IV), etc, just like the “five of five” series: V/V for II, V/II (V/V/V) for VI, etc.
Another term I used was circle of fourths.
ETA: You can also see it as two borrowings from the Mixolydian mode.
I’m not sure I understand the distinction you’re trying to make. In this particular progression the ii pulls to V which pulls to I. As you mention, making it a II7 strengthens the motion towards V. How does it’s function differ?
I’m not saying that you can always make such a substitution. But often if I’m comping I might play ii7 and then for a brief moment II7 which creates a chromatic line towards V. And a bass player may also, in walking to the V, play the leading tone, even though the chord written in the music is a ii.
I’m not a theory expert, so I’m not sure if this notion violates contemporary theoretical concepts, but it seems arguable to me that, in this case the V of V can be considered a pre-dominant.
ii7 and IV are both pre dominants which goto V. II7 is a secondary dominant that goes to five. I would agree with “they both function the same” in the sense of going to V.
HOWEVER,
Major II7 for my Bach-esque ears sounds like I’m preparing a half cadence in the middle of a piece, whereas minor ii7 is (typically) more suited for a cadential progression.
Moe: that’s what I was taught in my four semesters of music theory. The V/V is a chromatic modification to the predominant (specifically, the ii). It involves moving the 4th scale degree up to a #4 to create a stronger pull towards the 5th scaled degree, the root of the dominant V. It was from this that we were able to explore the Italian, German, French, and even Neapolitan sixths.
I also have no idea why a V/V would sound like a half cadence if it is not actually a cadence. There are pieces where you actually have V/V-V-I.
Perhaps “sounds more like a half cadence than a cadential progression,” would have been a better way of phrasing. I was just trying to think of a way of describing how the context in which the two would be used would be different. I could go to my music and scrounge up examples of chorales that do this. It’s not to say all V of Vs lead to a half cadence, but many half cadences use a V/V
And the V/V-V-I…I don’t argue that it’s a plausible chord progression, but as a cadence? I’m sure there’s examples around, but for my money, that just sounds off…the tonal centre isn’t being clearly established enough for me.
EDIT: Ok, I take it back. I went to the piano, it sounds O-K. But I still think there’s a different function between the two.
To hear the difference between these two chords, play a progression that stops at the ii chord. The next chord could certainly be a V chord, as musical conventions can imply, but there are a wide variety of other directions that could occur. But play that same progression and change the ii chord to a II7 and stop and you have a much stronger impulse to resolve up to the fifth. The dissonance of the diminished fifth (between the raised third of that chord and the seventh of that chord) pull in stongly toward the V chord. The raised third, alone, functions as a leading tone, as a couple of people have mentioned, since it is often used melodically as a passing tone to the fifth. So I’d say that while in many progressions, the ii does precede the V and feels like it naturally leads to it, it doesn’t have the same function as the II7 does, as a V7 of V.
To be clear I was saying that the ii and II7 (V of V) can have the same function, not that they always do, and I was specifically referring to the 6-2-5-1. Jazz musicians substitute II7 for ii and VI7 for vi often to strengthen the pull through the cycle. The II7 is of course termed a “secondary dominant” but I don’t know if that also excludes it from being considered as functioning also as a “predominant”. I would think it would simply come down to definitions and conventions of terminology within the theoretical world. If a theorist read in a journal the line “in this case the II7 (or V7/V) functions as a predominant” would he/she be likely to object.
If you played a progression and stopped at a Neopolitan chord your ear would probably hear some different possibilities of where to go compared with a ii, but they’re both pre-dominants.
Good point. One can never be too nit-picky in these kinds of threads. I was completely locked into “major key” mode, so thanks for clarifying for those reading along.