Submediant Chord (VI) question

[Color of Music]

But that's a totally hypothetical scenario. If you drop the C#, then the Db is going to act as C# in its place. Even with the C# there, the Db is only a higher octave of the same note.
IOW, you actually don't have an "Edim7" chord there; you have a C#dim7 misspelled.

If there was a C natural lower down, then you'd have a point. (Still a vanishingly rare scenario in practice, but a theoretically valid one.)
What would we name a chord built A C E G Bb Db?? IMO, it would have to be "C7b9/A". And god bless her and all who sail in her...
You could just about argue that it's A7#9b9 (C=B#), in a very odd inversion (as if the chord wasn't odd enough to start with).

haha! Yeah. As O've said before, I have used them!

The other possibility is a polychord, Gdim over an Am triad, written thus:

Gdim
Am[/QUOTE]

And when should one use them? I mean like write them because when I see this:

A/C7 - To me this = that C13b9b11 - to which you said it was incorrect. How as the b9 = Db, b11 = Fb and your 13th. I concede that A/C7 makes things clearer though. (And I get the enharmonic major third issue, too)

Right. I totally agree. But you can take the tertian interval rule too far .
There are times when it's important to acknowledge an augmented 2nd rather than a minor 3rd.

Did you read my "Harmonic minor" post?

With dim7s, that's all dependent on context. Derivation is one thing (7th degree of harmonic minor). But if you take an Edim7 and put it in another tonal context, then its Db may well be heard (and function) as a C#. It makes no sense then to preserve the "Db" label.

You mean like the ii7b5/iv6 deal? Or the V6/iii7, I6/iv7? (Strangely, the V6 isn't mentioned alot. it's usually V7/9) So, how to know which one to go with because when it's just heard it makes no difference like you said.

I mean, if we get down to what theory is all about, it's supposed to make music simpler and easier to understand. The sounds are what rule. The theory comes in to explain the sounds, to give them a context, a category, a framework.

I agree wholeheartedly!

I do agree with taking it to far. So, more over/over stuff and less extended stuff?

Not at all. You still only have one of each note, so there is no need to rename anything. The C# is still C#, the 3rd of the chord. Db would make it a diminished 4th (or diminished 11th) and this is an extended dominant chord built from a major triad, not some bizarre quartal assembly.

If anything, it's that B# that's the oddity, so-called because of the rule you mention of "one-of-each-note". In most contexts where that chord is used, it would make a lot more sense to call it C. (And I have seen such a chord labelled "A7b10" before, although not for many years )
But anyway, moving the notes around makes no difference.

Well, even if it needn't be, that's often how I call/write it mentally. You know, I used to write a GdimMaj7 as such: G-Bb-Db-Gb, but that looks odd to me as I much rather use F# because how it's structured which the chord tells me. Gdim triad + Maj7 interval.

That's not to say enharmonic equivalents might not make sense in other situations. The tritone sub for A7#5#9 is Eb13#11 (both resolve to Dm or D). From the "Eb" perspective, C#=Db, E#=F, B#=C. And yet the chords are really the same (give or take 1 or 2 extensions).

It really does depend on the situation. Lest, someone does this: Eb13#11/A-A7#5#9/Eb.

Now that I can't answer!

If you mean what happens when 9ths 11ths or 13ths occur in the bass, then my view is they tend to become different chords. Those extensions tend to take over the root role, because of stronger intervals formed with other chord tones. (Either that, or they form an unusably dissonant chord, ie, one with no functional use.)

I do realize the immense amounts of names when inverting. Tried to do so myself on a piano chord site. I only got one chord right. lol

Well, some schools of thought say that only sus4 chords exist. A sus2 is just an inverted sus4 (in that view). And no other chord tone can be suspended in the same way. (A 6th is just an extension, not a suspension.)

Putting the 9th of a chord on the bottom does turn it into a sus chord, in certain situations.
Eg, Cadd9/D = D9sus4 (more or less) - although "C9/D" is some kind of unholy "D9sus4b13"

I see. I rarely use b13 though. #5 is more my speed; besides notice how confusing it may be if not in parenthesis or a superscript

11ths on the bottom cause all kinds of issues, although if it's a #11 on a dom7 chord, then it becomes its tritone sub. "C7#11/F#" = F#7b5b9 (more or less).
(I'll let you work out what happens in other cases...)

Touche!

As I said earlier in the post, the theory gurus live over on emusictheory, and IMO this question would be a good one to ask over there: "is figured bass used for anything bigger than 7th chords, and if so, how - esp with inversions?"

I'll have to check that out. Thanks!

[Color of Music]

Well, not from any C-root scale or mode, because it contains a C#.

To go back to the relevant sequence:

vi-V-IV-V7b9-VI

(which you numbered relative to the previous C tonic.)

It's definitely interesting, because the b9 of the G7 does act as a G# leading tone to the A, making the last chord sound like a modulation, albeit a slightly surprising one.
I'm guessing it would be classed as a deceptive cadence, but I'm not sure.
In most chords, yes.Well, it depends what you mean by "looking" the same .

It might be surprising because of the leading tone, but that V7b9 is the same V7b9 if you invert and attached a note. G7b9<-->E7b9. What happened was I didn't use a chord tone in the bass (and this does happen). This is probably where the deception comes in, but while not "consonant", it's not that dissonant.

Again, I didn't use a chord tone - A, G, F, G (not E or G# as this would have made it blatantly obvious an A was coming). You knew it was, you didn't expect the bass to snatch from A minor, especially since A Major showed up.

And how it was played (I wrote it in and listened) - I intertwined G7b9<-->E7b9. Yes, it was an E7b9, but the bass took the G; therefore, it sounded like an inverted G7b9. (Not to mention E7b9 giving you the obvious cadence. I, too, could have used the tri-sub in the bass, but that too would have made it obvious). It doesn't hurt to imply as opposed to outright state.

You hear lots of songs do this. It has to do with how keys - and chords, but in relation to them - are described along with the functionality expect.

Major keys sound bright, happy, hopeful, you feel like you've accomplished something. Minor keys feel differently. Obviously, there's more than that to make a song feel whatever mood, but key is the first thing cited most often.

So, in a 4:00 tune, all but the last second has you feeling down, but in that last second, you're not sad anymore and true, you don't expect it!

That's what happened in the iv-V-IV-V7b9-VI (but a stronger I. If you stick a Maj7 on it, you really feel it) Remember vi and I serve the same function and VI is borrowed from vi. (Parallels)

C-A(7, 7b9)-Dm-G(7, b9)-C. I-VI-ii-V-I

Rather than the usual: I-vi-ii-V-I

You mean from a higher octave of the root? A root position maj7 may just be 1-3-5-7.
It's not exactly "resolved" in classical terms of course, but is secure enough to jazz and pop ears.

.

Yeah. You're right that it's not resolved; however, invert it and the lush characteristic diminishes (no pun intended)

Well, if there's only one of each note, then - in close voicing - all inversions other than root position feature the minor 2nd between 7 and 1.

No argument here.

Well, that's a subjective interpretation. Firstly, there's a significant difference between V and V7. The V triad is not tense in itself, unlike the viio triad (which is what I meant).

I misinterpreted.

The V7 chord is arguably more tense or urgent than the viio triad, because it includes the viio triad (with its tense tritone), and adds the V root forming another (mild) tension of a min7th.

The viio7 chord (as a dim7 rather than m7b5) is a further tension, because its two overlapping tritones. Again, adding a V root bumps it up even more, with the addition of the 1-b9 interval. Same applies to a major key viim7b5 and V9 chord, although they are less tense. Even so, context might contribute to how tense these chords sound.

Would that have to do with the consonant nature? The V9 is just consonant thirds (some minor, some major) Same with the viim7b5 (a rootless V9).

Not quite following you there. You mean the 3 A7 chords as alternatives? If so, yes of course, the fewer alterations the less tension.
(BTW: "A13b9b11"? You mean #11? )
I know I'm being pedantic again, but if the chord is A7 then "Db" should be C#.

*Sigh* I kid. Force of habit.

I know as a notated melody alone, Db is correct because it means fewer accidentals; but in this harmonic context it ought to be C#.

I stand corrected.

(To be continued ... )

[Color of Music]

I'm also having to read between the lines to understand what you mean by F being the tense note, when it's not in your melody. (It's there in the middle 3 chords.) Maybe the Db was a typo for F?
And in fact - as I'm sure you're aware - you have a full chromatic descent in one other voice: B-Bb-A-Ab-G, and a partial one in D-C#-C-Cb-B.

Yes, that was an error on my part! Thanks for catching it. I paid attention to the b9 (get it) and not the #5. And yes, I'm aware of the descent. Harmony should be melodic, no?

Dbmaj9 is not a tritone sub for V. That would be Db7 or Db9; but judging from the second sequence (Fm7b5/Db), you do actually mean Db9.
But then "Ebm7b5/A" is not the same thing as A7b9, so I'm not really sure what you mean.

You're correct. I was probably think of soething else when I made that erroneous equivalent.

Of course, as you say, the slash chords obscure the functional role of the chords in the first sequence, although they can serve the purpose of clarifying voicings for a player.

Sure. I agree (if I understand you right). I would always write "Cmaj9" in preference to "Em7/C", unless I thought the person reading would understand the latter better.

Ah, the land of obscurity; however, as you wrote it goes both ways.

"b11"?? Db = C# = 3rd of the chord. No need to mention it. Those 5 notes are simply A13b9.

So, 13b9's from here on out. Wonder why I never saw b11s on that piano chords websites. Again, force of habit.

Meanwhile, the chord G-Bb-Db-F# could be simply written as "F#/G", given that a likely context for those 4 notes would feature A# and C# rather than Bb and Db.

I see. However, I'm thinking minor third, lowered fifth, raised seventh since the root is G. The A#-C# to me would work if the root and seventh were Fx and Ex and this would certainly look obscure to a performer - not as well versed or even one who is. I rarely use double sharps when naming chords, but I'm to strict with the Tertiary, Alphabet rule? What irony!

Yes. It might be useful where you don't actually want the chord player to play the C root (where you can't trust his/her jazz instincts to leave it out ).

Ah, okay.

Hold on - sorry if I wasn't clear this time - I was referring to your sequence:

CMaj7-Dbdim7-F6-Fm6-CMaj7

You're right Edim7 (as natural vii chord in F minor) would have a Db; so I see what you did there in inverting it. I saw it as C#dim7 because I was seeing F6 as an inverted Dm7.

I agree dim7s are trouble! It's a toss-up whether we name them according to function, or according to simply what the bass note is. IMO most people would prefer the latter. "Edim7/Db?? why not just call it Dbdim7??"

Wait! That should be C# (E is Fb, too!) I kid!

Another consideration (classically) is voice-leading. As a chromaticism, Db would be expected to lead downwards from D to C. As you're starting with Cmaj7, I'd therefore expect a semitone up in the bass to be C#.
In any case (and it may be just me), either C#dim7 or Edim7 is preferable in this context to Dbdim7.

Generally, I call dim7s based on where I'm going to - not coming from. (Going to D and to me Db is before it) I realize scale-wise (single notes), but chords are somewhat different when regarding chromaticism (At least imo)

One more consideration is that "Dbdim7", in its own right, can only exist in the key of Ebb minor - which I think we'd both agree is non-existent.

Yep. And I even tried using something similar. The intro to Girl From Ipanema I arranged went:

DbMaj7-Ddim7-Ebm9-Ab7b9 (almost did it again).

Here, Ddim7 clearly doesn't exist, so using contemporary analysis, I called it a biidim7 (which is Ebb, but that of course is too much.) What would it be called as a SD unless it's a NP chord?

C#dim7 belongs to D minor, and Edim7 (with a Db note) belongs to F minor. In this sense - at least in an F-key context - "Edim7/Db" is quite correct, in a way that "Dbdim7" is not.
I guess it's a matter of how theoretically concerned one is . "Dbdim7" makes me wince for 2 or 3 reasons. No one else has to care .

All four notes are flats! Hey, it could be worse. Build another dim7 chord over that one (stacking dim thirds) Yep. Four flats, three double flats AND one triple flat. And I really thought about this! (Db-Fb-Ab-Cb-Ebb-Gbb-Bbb-Dbbb)

You don't care - well, there's your reason!