"Peace" chord function question

[Mike A]

Originally Posted by JoeB

...The bVI7 is an interesting case. It has the b6 tone as the root, but also has a tritone in common with II7 and #IVm7b5 so is considered related to them. Berklee's terminology for bVI7 is altered SDM. II7 is altered subdominant. In any case the expected resolution is to I like the SDM chords.

Interesting, thanks.

SDM is very cool. I love that sound.

[invitapriore]

Hey folks, I'm new here, but I wanted to point out one more attribute of the melody that I think supports the idea that the first few bars are unambiguously in Bb, despite the several brief tonicizations in the changes. This hinges on a Schenkerian understanding of melodic function, but as I see it, part of the melodic tension of the repeated Eb in the first bar is due to the fact that it functions as a neighbor note to the more fundamental D, which is in fact the governing pitch of the entire first bar by virtue of the fact that the Eb and the C at the end of the bar serve exclusively to prolong its span, rather than operating in any sort of independent context. That's why the C-D pickup is so important: it provides the melodic context for the Eb. You can see for yourself by whistling the melody with the pickup omitted, imagining the changes under it - the Eb feels somewhat groundless and arbitrary until the very end of the bar, a feeling that that the harmonies underneath it don't do much to dispel. I have a hard time hearing any pull towards Eb for this reason - the fundamental melodic nodes in these bars, Bb and D, don't make sense in an Eb context.

The fact that there is significant sense of melodic repose on the Bb in bar 2 is part of what makes the the Bmaj7 chord of bar 3 such a notable event: at that point we're ready for a pretty bread and butter cadential gesture, but we get just the opposite. It's definitely a great moment in jazz.

Also, as a literature nerd, I want to nitpick a statement of Jeff's, which is:

Since none of us here appear to be privy to Mr Silver's thought processes on this, this interesting discussion is therefore speculation.

It's tempting to think that creators have the final say as to what is going on in their work, but that's a fallacy: they are no more qualified to offer an analysis of their work than anyone else. In fact, creators are frequently less qualified to do so, because they are likely to base their analysis on things that aren't actually present in the object they've created. If many qualified people analyze a piece of music and come to a conclusion that the creator disagrees with, the creator is simply wrong, because the cultural conditioning of the crowd trumps his intent as the determiner of what's "actually happening" in the piece.

In any case, thanks for making me think about what makes this tune tick. I haven't listened to it in a while, and I've actually never played it.

[Fred]

Originally Posted by JoeB

The bVI7 is an interesting case. It has the b6 tone as the root, but also has a tritone in common with II7 and #IVm7b5 so is considered related to them. Berklee's terminology for bVI7 is altered SDM. II7 is altered subdominant. In any case the expected resolution is to I like the SDM chords.

The expected resolutions of VI7 and II7 are depending on the cadential situation and the harmonic rhythm. VI7 can often easily be heard as subV7/V7 and II7 can be heard as V7/V7, depending the situation.
But you are also right, both chords can resolve directly to the tonic in an apropiate situation.

[engelbach]

Originally Posted by invitapriore

Hey folks, I'm new here, but I wanted to point out one more attribute of the melody that I think supports the idea that the first few bars are unambiguously in Bb, despite the several brief tonicizations in the changes. This hinges on a Schenkerian understanding of melodic function, but as I see it, part of the melodic tension of the repeated Eb in the first bar is due to the fact that it functions as a neighbor note to the more fundamental D, which is in fact the governing pitch of the entire first bar by virtue of the fact that the Eb and the C at the end of the bar serve exclusively to prolong its span, rather than operating in any sort of independent context. That's why the C-D pickup is so important: it provides the melodic context for the Eb. You can see for yourself by whistling the melody with the pickup omitted, imagining the changes under it - the Eb feels somewhat groundless and arbitrary until the very end of the bar, a feeling that that the harmonies underneath it don't do much to dispel. I have a hard time hearing any pull towards Eb for this reason - the fundamental melodic nodes in these bars, Bb and D, don't make sense in an Eb context.

The fact that there is significant sense of melodic repose on the Bb in bar 2 is part of what makes the the Bmaj7 chord of bar 3 such a notable event: at that point we're ready for a pretty bread and butter cadential gesture, but we get just the opposite. It's definitely a great moment in jazz.

Also, as a literature nerd, I want to nitpick a statement of Jeff's, which is:



It's tempting to think that creators have the final say as to what is going on in their work, but that's a fallacy: they are no more qualified to offer an analysis of their work than anyone else. In fact, creators are frequently less qualified to do so, because they are likely to base their analysis on things that aren't actually present in the object they've created. If many qualified people analyze a piece of music and come to a conclusion that the creator disagrees with, the creator is simply wrong, because the cultural conditioning of the crowd trumps his intent as the determiner of what's "actually happening" in the piece.

In any case, thanks for making me think about what makes this tune tick. I haven't listened to it in a while, and I've actually never played it.

invitapriore,

Welcome.

I agree that sometimes the last thing you want is for an artist to try to "explain" his own work.

I hope we'll be hearing more from you. What instrument do you play?

Cheers,
Jer

[invitapriore]

Hi Jerry! I mostly play guitar and hand percussion (somewhat inevitable when you grow up listening to salsa), though studying composition has forced me to become a mediocre piano player, and I try to play my saxophone from high school when I can. I play violin badly. I have child-in-the-candy-store syndrome when it comes to instruments, unfortunately, but I always find myself enticed by the different advantages that every instrument has.

From the perspective of a creator I do agree that the testimony of a skilled musician can be really valuable. It is, after all, why we seek out lessons from the masters. I don't really believe that a skilled musician's account of how their product works is more valuable than that of a skilled analyst's, though, because once they send it out into the world the only thing relevant to an analysis of the piece is the content of the piece itself.

[Jeff Brent]

Originally Posted by jazz oud

If you call every incidental dominant-tonic relationship a cadence, that's okay with me, but then what do you call a real cadence?

How about:

incidental dominant-tonic relationship = harmonic cadence

real cadence = melodic cadence

does that work for youse?

[randalljazz]

no need to re-invent the language, jeff. a cadence is what ends a phrase. a temporary D-T relationship is a tonicization.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadence_(music)

it's only wiki, but it suffices.

[Jeff Brent]

Originally Posted by randalljazz

no need to re-invent the language, jeff. a cadence is what ends a phrase. a temporary D-T relationship is a tonicization.

How would that definition of "tonicization" relate to a "harmonic cadence" that doesn't move to another key, ie. a dominant-tonic relationship that is still within the original key but not coinciding with a "melodic cadence"?

[invitapriore]

A dominant-tonic succession in the original key that doesn't end up as a standard cadence is one of two things: an elided cadence, in which case the expectation of a cadence is set up melodically and harmonically but the arrival on the tonic harmony coincides with the beginning of a new phrase on the tonic, instead of a closing gesture like the long F over the first BbMaj7 chord in Peace; or nothing, which is to say that it's just a succession from V to I and doesn't deserve to be treated with any special significance.

[Jeff Brent]

Originally Posted by jazz oud

If we say the tune cadences in A major, then we also have to agree that it cadences in G minor and B major as well

Therefore the G minor cadence (bars 1&2), the B major cadence (bars 2&3) and the A major cadence (bars 5&6) would be "elided tonicizations"?

[invitapriore]

Personally, I wouldn't call any of those cadences, as they don't have metrical support. Think of the commonly trouted-out analogy between the phrase (which by definition ends with a cadence) and the sentence; when you're speaking with someone and you complete a sentence, the end of it is articulated via grammatical indications (you have a subject and a predicate that operates on it; in the case of music, this would be roughly equivalent to the harmonic and melodic articulation of a cadence) and by gestural indications (the pitch of your voice descends over the course of the last few syllables, and you pause a little bit, which is roughly equivalent to the way that a cadence comes after a clearly ending phrase and is a period of diminished activity in the melodic/harmonic/rhythmic domains).

As I see it, Peace has three cadences: the cadence on Bb in bar 4, the cadence on Db in bar 8, and the cadence on Bb in bar 10. A dominant-tonic succession that occurs in the middle of a phrase isn't ever a cadence by definition, and all of the other dominant-tonic successions in the tune occur in the middle of phrases. I don't see any elided cadences in this tune, just a lot of brief tonicizations.

I'm tempted to make the case for this tune only having two phrases in total, with the last two bars acting as an extension of the phrase starting at bar 5 that returns it to the original Bb tonality after a somewhat diversionary cadence on Db, an interpretation that might be aided by the fact that Bb and Db have a chromatic mediant relationship...

[Jeff Smith]

Deep stuff! Without getting too deep on the function of F#m7, measures 5 & 6 on my lead sheet are: Bm7 E7 l Amaj7 F#m7 , - harmonically that just sounds like rhythm changes to me and the A major scale works over it, so.... change the F#m7 to F#m9 and it's just a sub for Amaj7...so I look at it as the good old II - V - I, is that simple enough, or does it need to be more complicated...or did someone already explain it this way and I didn't understand it?

[engelbach]

Originally Posted by Jeff Smith

Deep stuff! Without getting too deep on the function of F#m7, measures 5 & 6 on my lead sheet are: Bm7 E7 l Amaj7 F#m7 , - harmonically that just sounds like rhythm changes to me and the A major scale works over it, so.... change the F#m7 to F#m9 and it's just a sub for Amaj7...so I look at it as the good old II - V - I, is that simple enough, or does it need to be more complicated...or did someone already explain it this way and I didn't understand it?

In playing and listening to the tune, from the melody and strong bass movement it's obvious that it's going to pass right through AΔ - F#m7.

We may not anticipate where it's going — it could have doubled back onto Bm7 - E7 - AΔ, and that would have established A major — but we find out right away, in the continuation of the phrase, that the real target is the key of Db major.

It might be possible to be fooled by the chords, but the structure and momentum of the melody point us in the right direction.