Chord Progression Reductionism

[Roger Kunkel]

I'm trying get my head around swing/jazz chord progressions.

Is it generally true that swing chord progressions could be thought of as I IV V progressions in disguise?

That is, each chord functions in the role of a root,dominate, sub-dominate, or passing chord? For example: C6 = C, C#dim = C(?), Dm7 = F, G7 = G, etc., reducing the progression to its simplest form.

To what extent is this a useful exercise?

[EarlG]

Swing tunes like "Five Foot Two" follow the circle of fifths, meaning the next chord is the IV chord of whatever chord you are now on, most of the time, of course not 100% but you can usually keep up thinking that way.

Is this the swing you mean?

I'm sure you'll get better answers but this way of looking at it helps me. Swing tunes are very difficult for me to play by ear.

[John Kasley]

My limited understanding is the most common jazz/swing chord progression is ii7, V7, I. Do a search in the Jazz, etc section of the board and I'm sure you'll find much more info on chord progressions. The posts I always find the most helpful are those by Don Stiernberg.

[EdSherry]

It depends on the progression. A more common way (at least for jazz players) to think about it is as a set of ii-V-I progressions (e.g., Dm-G-C), where the ii is (and can be thought of as) the relative minor of the IV. I.e., a ii-V-I progression is, as the OP says, a "disguised" IV-V-I progression.

[Edit -- I see John and I posted this at the same time.]


Lots of early jazz tunes leap forward (or backward) around the circle of fifths, and then "backcycle" to the root. E.g., a G-E-A-D-G progression (think "Salty Dog Blues") can be thought of as going through a series of V-I progressions (E to A, A to D, D to G), strung together back-to-back.

EarlG (correctly) says that a V-I progression (D-G) can also be thought of as a I-IV progression (the G is the IV of D), but that's not the way it's usually described.

I strongly recommend looking at the Circle of Fifths and visually seeing the patterns while playing through swing/jazz progressions.

C#dim (I#dim) is in no way a C (I) chord. You can "simplify" such a progression by omitting some of the steps, but they're not the same thing.

[Philphool]

My reductionist concept of tunes is basically:

For non-(I IV V) tunes:
Does the I chord go to the II, III, or VI before starting through the circle of fifths.
Main difference between songs is the rhythm and whether some of the chords are major or minor in the progression.

e.g.:
Five Foot Two & All of Me are I --> III ('All of Me' changes maj & min of vi & ii at different points in the tune)
Salty Dog is I --> VI
etc
Make any sense? :)

[Roger Kunkel]

My reductionist concept of tunes is basically:

For non-(I IV V) tunes:
Does the I chord go to the II, III, or VI before starting through the circle of fifths.
Main difference between songs is the rhythm and whether some of the chords are major or minor in the progression.

e.g.:
Five Foot Two & All of Me are I --> III ('All of Me' changes maj & min of vi & ii at different points in the tune)
Salty Dog is I --> VI
etc
Make any sense? :)

Makes sense, thanks. I'm starting to hear the circle of fifths thing.

[Pete Martin]

In his book "Hearing The Changes", Jerry Coker analyzes common chord movements in Jazz and gives good insight how to learn to recognize them by ear.

In his book "Metaphors for the Musician", Randy Halberstadt shows what he calls "Harmonic Astronomy". This is a wonderful chart of chord possibilities we often see in Jazz tunes. There is a chart for major and a chart for minor keys.

I have used both these books succesfully with myself and students. Both are highly recommended by me.

In chapter 12 of my .pdf book "Jazz Chording For Mandolin", I look at how to voice chords for:

Chapter 12 Common Chord Progression Blocks
II V I major
Turnarounds
Circle of Fifths
II V I minor

You can download this no charge at my web site.

Best of luck. Learning Jazz chords and voicings is a fun journey in which you never reach your destination.:mandosmiley:

[Don Stiernberg]

Dear Original Poster:
You are on to something, and it's the idea of isolating keys or tonal centers within a tune's harmonic structure.As stated above by a few fellow posters, A I-IV-V progression and a I ii-V progression are quite similar given that chord number ii(minor seventh chord) and chord number IV(major chord) are relative minor and major, built from the same group of tones. I really like a term I heard Ted Eschliman use for these sounds: "The chord of preparation", between the more easily discernable root(I) and dominant(V)chords.

All of these mathematical expressions of sound come together in the harmonized scale concept. We have had discussions of that here which you might consult. certainly Pete's books or Ted's or many others will explain that very well and answer your question more fully. Also in my column
for Mandolin Magazine we analyze tunes in this manner.

Basically when we build chords from the scale tones of a major scale, a golden mean pattern(true in all keys) is made. It's this, with upper case representing major, lower being minor:

I ii iii IV V vi vii(actually a min7b5 or 'half-diminished chord') I

Swing tunes can have many types of progressions. You'll see either ii-V-I OR IV-V-I(blues)
or I-vi-ii-V-I or the aforementioned circle of fifths progression.

Minor tonalities can be detected from understanding the harmonized minor scale. Cutting to the chase, the progression in a minor key corresponding to ii-V-I is iim7b5-V7alt-i. For example,
Dm7b5-G7b9-Cm. Look at your fakebooks. An altered dominant (V7#5,b5,#9,b9) usually indicates a minor tonality--if you see G7b9, for example, Cm is usually there too, or implied in sound, and Dm7b5(chord of preparation!) is in the neighborhood most likely as well.

So, back to swing tunes---you often get a combination of tonalities. A tune will live in one key for a bit, go visit another, come back...the good ones combine major and minor tonalities. Autumn Leaves is a good example. Em and G major.

The C# diminished in your original question? A passing chord between chord I and ii, not drawn from the parent major scale tones. Chords "in the cracks' like that, connecting chords, are quite often diminished chords. try one between chord ii and iii. see? It works there too..

i hope any of this helps clarify some of the things you're wondering about. understanding the harmonized scales and how chords commonly move(by number) can simplify a lot of things and help you access a great number of cool and swingin' tunes.

[Roger Kunkel]

Thanks for the cogent replies. I'm diving into Ted's book and looking at Pete's too.

[Ted Eschliman]

Because there are numerous ways of (and terms for) describing the phenomenon of the "Tonal Universe" it's easy to get bogged down by the terminology and labels. Stripped to its essence, think of only three kinds of chords:

Tonic
Dominant
Dominant Preparation

This is easily relatable to jazz and folk/bluegrass. The chords will only be slightly different, but they will function the same. In jazz you may have many micro-tonal centers, but you still have these three very basic functions.

If you want a free sample of how this works, check out my inaugural article in the MandolinSessions website: Understanding the 'ii V7 I' Progression (http://archive.mandolinsessions.com/dec03/ted.html).

Also: Again the Tonal Centers: Understanding the 'ii V7 I' (http://archive.mandolinsessions.com/oct04/mandology.html)

[Roger Kunkel]

Because there are numerous ways of (and terms for) describing the phenomenon of the "Tonal Universe" it's easy to get bogged down by the terminology and labels. Stripped to its essence, think of only three kinds of chords:

Tonic
Dominant
Dominant Preparation

This is easily relatable to jazz and folk/bluegrass.

That's what I was thinking with "I IV V in disguise" - assuming those scale degrees are the most fundamental gravity points of a tune. If that makes sense.

BTW, enjoying your book!

-Roger

[JeffD]

Isn't II, V, I just going down in fifths, resolving and resolving again

Because two fifths up from I is II.

So for example in C

II would be D, down a fifth from D is G, (which is V in C) down a fifth from G is C (or I in C).

[EdSherry]

JeffD -- You're right, but there's a big difference between the roles of a II chord (e.g., D major) and a ii chord (D minor). Plaing II-V-I involves moving backwards around the circle of fifths; playing ii-V-I does not.

[JeffD]

JeffD -- playing ii-V-I does not.

ok. I missed that.

[Jim Broyles]

JeffD -- You're right, but there's a big difference between the roles of a II chord (e.g., D major) and a ii chord (D minor). Plaing II-V-I involves moving backwards around the circle of fifths; playing ii-V-I does not.

What??? 2-5-1 is 2-5-1 whether the 2 is major or minor and it is still moving in the same direction within the circle of fifths.

[EdSherry]

Jim B -- No, it doesn't. Take a look at a Circle of Fifths chart, like the one here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_of_fifths

Note that ii (D minor) is next to IV (F). It is two steps counterclockwise from V (G). By contrast, II (D) is one step clockwise from V (G).

The I-II-V-I progression (C-D-G-C) moves two steps clockwise (C to D, I to II) and then moves "backwards" (counterclockwise) from II to V (D to G) and then from V to I (G to C). The progression I-ii-V-I (C-Dm-G-C) first moves one step counterclockwise (C to Dm, I to ii), then two steps clockwise (Dm to G, ii to V), then one step counterclockwise (G to C). Entirely different beasts.

[Jim Broyles]

That chart does not show the scalar degrees in order. D is the second degree of the C major scale and any kind of a D to any kind of a G to any kind of a C is 2-5-1 and it all moves the same way in the circle of fifths. In fact if you use the nomenclature "V of V," the II is more accurate than the ii.

[Ken_P]

That chart does not show the scalar degrees in order. D is the second degree of the C major scale and any kind of a D to any kind of a G to any kind of a C is 2-5-1 and it all moves the same way in the circle of fifths. In fact if you use the nomenclature "V of V," the II is more accurate than the ii.

Yes, but "V of V" is much more descriptive of a D major chord in the key of C than II is. In any ii-V-I progression, the ii (d, in this case) is setting up the V chord as a dominant in preparation of a return to the tonic (I). If you make that chord D major, it completely changes the way the listener perceives that progression.

[Jim Broyles]

To show you what I mean about the directionally misleading aspect of that chart, consider the positions of C major, F major and G major. Now, nobody would really think the direction of I, IV, V in is left, then right. That chart shows the D minor as the relative minor of F major, not as the ii chord of C major. You can't use that chart for circle of fifth direction if you are going to differentiate between major and minor. The roots are the only things to consider for the circle of fifths.

[Jim Broyles]

Yes, but "V of V" is much more descriptive of a D major chord in the key of C than II is. In any ii-V-I progression, the ii (d, in this case) is setting up the V chord as a dominant in preparation of a return to the tonic (I). If you make that chord D major, it completely changes the way the listener perceives that progression.

No, they say the same thing. II in C major is D major, ii is D minor. I am not talking about how the progression sounds, just what it is called. ii-V -I and II-V-I are circles of fifths going the same direction.

[Jim Broyles]

To show you what I mean about the directionally misleading aspect of that chart, consider the positions of C major, F major and G major. Now, nobody would really think the direction of I, IV, V in is left, then right. That chart shows the D minor as the relative minor of F major, not as the ii chord of C major. You can't use that chart for circle of fifth direction if you are going to differentiate between major and minor. The roots are the only things to consider for the circle of fifths.

And the reason why is because those circle of fifth charts are referring to KEYS, not chords. The key of D minor is indeed an entirely different beast from a ii chord in the key of C major. You can't look at the positional relationships of specific chords on that chart when laying out scalar harmony. Scale theory and the circle of fifths chart are two different beasts.

By the way, just to clarify, I come from the school of using capital Roman numerals for major chords and lower case ones for minor chords. This differs from some folks here, but that's how I learned it.

[groveland]

Scale theory and the circle of fifths chart are two different beasts.

Yeah. And like McGann's phone number metaphor (Steve Martin). Change one digit, and you get a whole 'nother person. The circle of fifths will map the actual change of key that occurs when we change the ii of the scale to a II (the V of V).

Like a rhino with birds on its back. Two beasts with a symbiotic relationship, maybe. :)

[J.C. Bryant]

Wow! All this great! I can't add anything worthy of this great discussion but I encourage you to continue for it is very interesting and informative as a spectator. Knowing things are great, but I don't understand all I know.

[Tom Smart]

I'm no expert, so correct me if I'm wrong:

With II V I, the tonal center changes. To me, the term "circle of fifths" implies a shift in the tonal center with each V-I movement. The further back in the circle you start (e.g., VI or III), the more tonal shifts you progress through to get back to the main key.

With ii V I, the tonal center doesn't change. That's why it sounds so different from a "circle of fifths" motion. I don't think of it as a "circle" at all, but rather just a basic cadence leading back to the tonic from somewhere else in the same key.

[Jim Broyles]

Tom, whether or not you are correct, it is not the subject about which I'm talking. I am talking about the direction of the Co5th's in either case, not if the tonal center changes. Any kind of a 2-5-1 falls within the circle of fifths, simply due to the roots of the chords. D-G-C is a 5th (or 4th) movement. There really isn't another way that I can see of looking at it. ii-V-I allows one to "solo" using strictly scale tones, whereas II-V-I does not due to seeming to temporarily change key, but to my ears, it doesn't really. The 2 major is so ubiquitous in popular music that it feels natural. I would say that the V-I in a ii-V-I is as much of a tonal center change as a II to V or a III-VI-II-V, or any other "dominant to tonic" movement. My 2¢, and it's worth it!

[EdSherry]

Jim B -- I agree that "The 2 major is so ubiquitous in popular music that it feels natural." True, but so is the 2 minor (ii). A II-V-I progression sounds (and is) different than a ii-V-I progression, even though both are "ubiquitous" and both "feel natural." They certainly sound different to me.

Similarly, a "V of V" is a II, not a ii.

Which is why I get frustrated at players who only tell you the root and not the nature (major/minor) of the chord. There's a fiddler at one of the sessions I go to who keeps saying "the song is in A" when it's really in Am (or A dorian or A mixolydian). When the bass player says "D" and I play a D major and the "right" chord for the song is a Dm, it's a trainwreck.

To say that 2-5-1 involves fifth movements of the ROOTS is correct. But "the circle of fifths" is not just about roots, but about the relationships between chords and how they operate in the overall music. There's a reason why the ii (Dm) and IV (F) chord are at the same place on the circle of fifths, even though they have different roots, and the II (D) and ii (Dm) chords are in different places, even though they have the same root.

As I noted earlier, a I-II-V-I progression involves a very different motion around the circle of fifths than a I-ii-V-I progression does, even though the ROOTS are the same in both cases.

I strongly disagree with your statement that

"ii-V -I and II-V-I are circles of fifths going the same direction"

Again, simply looking at a Circle of Fifths shows that they are not "going in the same direction." ii-V-I jumps two steps clockwise, then one step counterclockwise. II-V-I is two consecutive counterclockwise steps. The ROOT motion (D-G-C) is the same in the two progessions, but the root (the D note) and the chord (D major vs D minor) are not the same thing.

Likewise, it is true that the Circle of Fifths shows that Dm is the relative minor of the F chord (so if F is I, then Dm is vi). But the Dm is also the ii chord of the key of C. The Circle of Fifths shows both relationships.

I fully agree that the Circle of Fifths "does not show the scalar degrees in order." It's not intended to. There are ways of taking the circle of fifths and generating scalar degrees, depending on which scale you have in mind. For example, to generate the major scale, start with any note on the circle of fifths (let's stick with C). Jump two steps clockwise to get the second note (D) of the C major scale, two more steps clockwise to get the third note (E), then five steps counterclockwise to get the fourth note (F), then two steps clockwise to get the fifth note (G), two more steps clockwise to get the sixth note (A), two more steps clockwise to get the seventh note of the scale (B), then five steps counterclockwise to return to the root (C).

That +2+2-5+2+2+2-5 pattern is the diagrammatic (Circle of Fifths) version of the "whole step-whole-half-whole-whole-whole-half" formula for a major scale, and both hold regardless what note one starts on.

Other scales (e.g., the Dm scale) follow different visual patterns.

As for your suggestion that "nobody thinks of I-IV-V as going first left, then right" -- well, I know that I (for one) have been thinking that way (or, more accurately, in terms of counterclockwise and clockwise) for as long as I've known about the Circle of Fifths. It's a different way of thinking about it than a scale-step approach. But neither is "better" than the other. They're just different.

[Jim Broyles]

Ed, you have to stop saying that the chords jump steps clockwise and counterclockwise. Didn't you even read my post? The chart is about KEYS, not chords. You can't discuss scale theory by looking at a circle of fifths chart.

As I noted earlier, a I-II-V-I progression involves a very different motion around the circle of fifths than a I-ii-V-I progression does, even though the ROOTS are the same in both cases.

No, it does not. Scales are linear, not circular, and to me, I-IV-V goes right > right. The key signatures move the way you are describing, but you can't call the chart a layout for scalar harmony.
I am finished with this discussion.

[Rob Gerety]

I wish you guys were not done with this - I'm totally lost and I was hoping if you kept it up I might learn something. As it is - I have no clue what the disagreement is even about.

[groveland]

I feel a discourse on the harmonic overtone series and the origin of the major scale coming on, followed by a debate regarding temperament and just intonation. I'm outta here. :grin:

[mandocrucian]

In G
I-IV-V:
GBD CEG DF#A

In jazz there are 4-note chords; so instead of I IV V becoming IMaj7 IVMaj7 V7
GBDF# CEGB DF#AC

the iim7 is used instead of the IV, so there won't be two major7 chords, which can be a bit ambiguous to the ear, becasue of possible aural confusion because the Maj7 tends to be perceived as the tonic.
GBDF# ACEG DF#AC

so that is my take of one reason why you have the use of iim7 V7 rather than IVMaj7 V7

NH

[Rob Gerety]

Thank you Niles. I get it.

[Jim Broyles]

But jazzers don't substitute a ii for every IV. You'll hear a lot of IV13ths and IV9ths in jazz. The ii-V-I seems to be more of a "rule of cadence" than a "rule of thumb" but there aren't hard, fast rules for any type of popular music.

[Tom Smart]

Ed, you have to stop saying that the chords jump steps clockwise and counterclockwise. Didn't you even read my post? The chart is about KEYS, not chords. You can't discuss scale theory by looking at a circle of fifths chart.

The circle of fifths is about relationships.

When you're learning the order in which to add sharps or flats and the resulting key names, it's about the relationship between keys.

When you're looking at the clockwise and counterclockwise movements between chords in a given key, it's about the relationships between chords. (Like Ed, that's the main way I've used the circle since I first learned about it.)

And although few teachers would pull out the circle of fifths when teaching a beginner about the major scale, Ed showed in an earlier post how you can indeed talk about scales in terms of spatial relationships on the circle of fifths.

Since chords and keys themselves are derived from (harmonized) scales, it's no surprise that the circle of fifths captures completely regular and predictable relationships between key signatures and names, key movements, chord structures and names, chordal movements, and scale types and tones.

All of these are related, and the circle of fifths can be used to illustrate all the relationships--which is why it's so useful.

[Jim Broyles]

I still maintain that all 2-5-1 movements go the same direction in the circle of 5ths. You can't go by where dm is on the chart compared to G and C because the chart is not designed to show the relationships of the chords to one another within one key. Just eliminate the dm for a second. How can G to C move in both directions?

[Rob Gerety]

I don't understand what difference it makes what direction you are going around the circle of 5ths. Also, I have sometimes used the circle to find the chords of the harmonized scale - although I don't need the circle to do that. Are you guys saying the circle is not relevant or useful to find chords? Help me here and please be patient. I'm sure I'm just lacking some fundamental understanding.

[Jim Broyles]

It doesn't make a difference in the vast scheme of things, but Mr. Sherry made the statement that II-V-I goes the opposite direction from ii-V-I and I do not agree.

[Jim Broyles]

Rob, the chart shows how in going clockwise, starting at zero sharps or flats, each additional sharp changes the key by a descending fifth: C>G>D>A>E>B>F#; and going counter-clockwise, starting at zero sharps or flats, each additional flat changes the key signature by a descending fifth: C>F>Bb>Eb>Ab>Db>Gb. The same obviously holds true for the relative minor, or the minor key with the same signature as its relative major. Popular music containing the chord patterns, such as C Am Dm G7, or C E7 A7 D7 G7 are said to be utilizing the circle of fifths. It is kind of true, but what it is really using is the concept of the circle of fifths. What I am trying to get across is that scalar chord harmony and theory doesn't really use the circle of fifths, it simply coincidentally matches up root-wise with the outer circle of the circle of fifths. I am saying that you can't go by where the D minor in the circle of fifths in order to map the movement of the 2 minor of the key of C major, or any other chord change, because the location on the circle represents a key signature, not a scale degree. I think it can be confusing to some to say that ii-V-I moves the opposite way in the circle of fifths from a II-V-I change, because a simple acknowledgment of the roots of the chords should tell you that the direction is the same in both cases. The only difference is the harmony of the 2 chord, that is, whether it be minor or major. This is my main point about the direction of the changes. I think we are conflating the concept of the circle of fifths: i.e., the musicality of 5 of 5, or 5 of 5 of 5, with the actual tangible chart of the circle of fifths. I think it becomes too confusing to do it that way.

[Rob Gerety]

I'm still sort of wondering about this question of what direction you go around the Co5 and I guess for now I'm going to ignore that because I don't see why it matters. The functional difference between a ii chord and a II chord is important and the two chords are depicted on the Co5 in different places relative to the I in the key signature - which makes sense to me. What direction you go around the circle to find the II as opposed to the ii isn't important - right?

The important thing - for me at this point in my learning - is that I understand the harmonized scale - I ii iii IV V vi vii(dim) I - and that I understand that in some music there will be changes in the tonal center and so you might use a chord outside the key signature's harmonized scale - so you might use a II for example. And when you use a II you really do have a change in the tonal center - however brief it may be. Isnt' that right? And you also find passing chords - like the I#dim.

Am I making any sense here? This is how I have understood this stuff but I am self taught and not a music major so I am always nervous that I'm off on a wild goose chase.

[mandocrucian]

It's the motion of the chord roots that is going around the circle of 5ths

Things can stay within the key signature (like in the 2nd part of "Take Five"):
F#m7 Bm7 Em7 Am7 Dm7 G7 CMaj7

or go through a series of Dixieland/Ragtime dominant 7ths
E7 A7 D7 G7 C.....
(think "Sweet Georgia Brown", Alabama Jubilee", "Salty Dog"....)

or it can move through different key areas/tone centers:
Bm7 E7 | Am7 D7 | Gm7 C7 |


Just as an aside to perplex you further.... one of the underlying ideas of the tritone swaps/substitution is that the bass line (of chord roots) moves chromatically. These are just the chord roots, not the variety of chord (7, m7, m7b5, 7b5, 7#5) which might be used.

B E A D G C F could be altered to something such as
B Bb A Ab G Gb F or
B E Eb D Db C F

NH

[Don Stiernberg]

Well said, Niles.

I've been looking for a succinct way to grasp and explain tritone subs for a long time. Your statement cleared up a lot of things. Thanks

[Rob Gerety]

Now, I'm starting to get a headache. I can see I have a lot to learn.

[EdSherry]

Rob -- The Circle is VERY useful to find relevant chords. Suppose you know a progression in one key (say, G-E-A-D-G), and you want to transpose that progression to a different key. If you know the relationships between the chords you're playing in one key (G), you can look those chords up on the Circle, see how they relate to the key, and then keep those same relationships when you transpose to a different key.

JimB-- I suspect we're talking past one another. The Co5 is a pedagogical tool. Different people can use it in different ways. All such tools have limitations.

I agree that the Co5 is not a particularly user-friendly way of dealing with scales and scalar harmony; there are better pedagogical tools for that.

I do not agree that the Co5 solely about "keys," because it's ALSO about chords and how they relate to one another. Knowing that the ii is the relative minor of IV, and that the iii is the relative minor of V, is something that is easy to see on the Co5 but otherwise is something that probably would just have to be memorized by rote.

I also do not agree that the Co5 is JUST about "key signatures." I agree that's the way it's often presented (indeed, probably most often presented), but IMHO there's much more to it than that. The relationships would be there (and useful) if one didn't use printed music notation at all.

For example, one of the biggest insights I recall learning when looking at the Co5 was the idea of what I've heard referred to as "jumping forward and then backcycling": e.g., a G-B-E-A-D-G progression can readily be understood by looking at the Co5, noting that the initial leap involves a clockwise jump four steps around the Co5 (G-B), then moving back counterclockwise (in fourths) around the Co5 (B-E, E-A, A-D, D-G). None of that is apparent simply by looking at key signatures.

I'm not sure I understand the distinction you're trying to draw between "the concept of the circle of fifths" and the "actual tangible chart of the circle of fifths." Obvously, one could use the Co5 with different names for chords ("do" rather than C), and the relationships between things would be the same if one started with a different diagram (e.g., put C# at the top rather than C, just like those "upside down" maps that put the Southern Hemisphere at the top rather than at the bottm). But other than that, it's not clear to me what you're getting at.


You say that "scalar chord harmony and theory doesn't really use the circle of fifths, it simply coincidentally matches up root-wise with the outer circle of the circle of fifths." I'm not at all sure what you're saying here. The I-ii-iii-IV-V-vi-vii0-I progression doesn't "match up rootwise with the outer circle of the circle of fifths" in any sense of "matchup" I'm familiar with.

I agree that II-V-I involves a fifthwise movement of ROOTS. I agree that ii-V-I likewise involves a fifthwise movement of ROOTS. I stick by my proposition that, when looking at the Circle of Fifths and thinking of these as CHORD progressions, the two are very different.

That may not be the way you think about it, and that's fine. But it works for me (and the kind folks who, years ago, helped me understand [some of] the mysteries of the Co5).

[Jim Broyles]

It's like Niles said -
It's the motion of the chord roots that is going around the circle of 5ths Forget the relative minor circle and only look at the outer circle as the Roots of the chords. This is the only aspect of the Co5 you can correlate to scalar chord changes within ONE KEY. It makes no difference whether a chord in a key is minor or major. In the key of C, E anything to A anything to D anything to G to C is 3-6-2-5-1 and it all goes the same way in the Co5 whether the 3,6, and 2 are major or minor. I'm out.

[EdSherry]

Jim B --To me it doesn't make sense to "forget the relative minor circle." I find the visual and conceptual link between ii-V-I (as shown by mixing minors with majors) and IV-V-I very helpful, even though the roots of the two progressions are different.

I strongly disagree that "it makes no difference whether a chord in a key is major or minor." On that criterion, a II chord (say D in the key of C) is not a chord "in the key" of C. It certainly has a note (F#) that is not in the C major scale. Again, the only context in which "it makes no difference whether a chord ... is major or minor" is if one is concerned only about the root of the chord. And with all respect to my bass-playing friends, there's more to music than "root-fifth."

A long time ago, a fine musician taught me that, when playing in ensembles, it's often better for a chordal accompanist to play just the third and the seventh of the chord, on the theory that the root and the fifth will be handled by someone else.

If ALL you care about is ROOT motion, I would agree that a 3-6-2-5-1 is the same whether one is talking III-VI-II-V-I or iii-vi-ii-V-I or (heaven forfends) III-vi-II-v-I (or even worse monstrosities). But the Co5 is, to me, about a lot more than just roots.

If you think there's no difference with respect to the Co5 (NOT the Roots) between Dm-G-C and D-G-C, or between E-Dm-A-Gm-C and Em-D-Am-G-C, then you're not looking at the same Co5 diagram that I'm looking at.

In any case, I think we've largely beaten this one to death. It seems to me that the discussion recently has reflected, not a difference about the underlying music, but a difference in the relative importance of roots, chords, scales, and of different pedagogical tools for understaning and analyzing them.

[Rob Gerety]

Not unlike two ships passing in the night.

[bobby bill]

And when you use a II you really do have a change in the tonal center - however brief it may be. Isnt' that right? And you also find passing chords - like the I#dim.

Yes, absolutely right. When in the key of C and you find the D Major rather than d minor chord, it is most often acting as secondary dominant of the G chord, which gives the effect of a brief change in tonal center.

The c# diminished, rather than being just a passing chord, also often functions as a secondary dominant. The notes of a c# diminished are the top 3/4 of an A dominant 7 chord and, even with the root not present, your ear will hear it as a dominant 7 chord when it moves to the ii (d minor) chord.

[Rob Gerety]

But when the 1 is sharped and diminished and functions as a step in the move up to the ii 7th in a swing tune - no change in tonal center- right? I'm thinking of the common texas swing progression - I, I#dim, ii7th, V9th, I.

[bobby bill]

But when the 1 is sharped and diminished and functions as a step in the move up to the ii 7th in a swing tune - no change in tonal center- right? I'm thinking of the common texas swing progression - I, I#dim, ii7th, V9th, I.


To the extent that a secondary dominant (or five of five) chord creates a micro-change in tonal center, I think the i#dim acts in the same way. For example, if you had C A7 dmin7 V9, you would have no problem seeing the A7 as a secondary dominant of the ii chord and creating a V - i sound (which for a very brief moment shifts the tonal center to d). My point is that the c#dim chord is the same as the A7 except lacking the root, but your ear will still hear it function that way.

[AZStu]

Thank you Bobby Bill. That makes a lot of sense. I had always viewed the I#dim as a passing chord which walked the bass up. e.g. C C#dim7 Dm7 G7 could have the bass progression C C# D D.

But seeing it as a chord substitution for A7 makes it more theoretically palatable and certainly does follow the Circle of Fifths.

[Rob Gerety]

Hmm. Interesting. I always thought of it like that too.