# Using min7#5 chords



## Hybrid138 (Aug 17, 2012)

Just finished watching a Scale the Summit guitar video and he uses a Dmin7#5 and goes to a Bmin7#5

What key is he in? What are some good ways to apply this chord? In the Dmin7#5 is the #5 is an A#, so I goes the A# is like a leading tone for the B in the Bmin7#5? Do you just use the #5 as a leading tone to get to the next chord?


----------



## djyngwie (Aug 17, 2012)

The key depends on the context, but no matter what, thinking the two chords to be part of the same tonality (scale, if you will) is probably not a good idea.


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (Aug 17, 2012)

^ This. Key isn't about what notes you play, but rather cadences. OP, got the video handy?


----------



## ElRay (Aug 17, 2012)

SchecterWhore said:


> Key isn't about what notes you play


This (I think) I get, because even though a piece may be written in the key of G, it may not include any notes that aren't in the Key of C and if you had a C pedal point or or implied tonality of C, you couldn't tell that it was "written in G" or that one sharp would be in context as an accidental in C. This has been one of those "niggly bits" with my daughters' lessons. All the twinkle variations and early pieces were written in G, but there's nothing that's not a "white key" (C Major scale) being played. The best answer I've gotten about this is that even though the notes are indistinguishable from C Major, the fingering used is more G Major-ish than C Major. I can definitely see this for the piano (older daughter), but I'm not so sure it rings true for the guitar (younger daughter).


SchecterWhore said:


> but rather cadences.


This I don't get. To me, cadence is the underlying rhythm (like you're clapping the piece). What am I missing/misunderstanding?

Ray


----------



## phrygian12 (Aug 18, 2012)

ElRay said:


> To me, cadence is the underlying rhythm (like you're clapping the piece). What am I missing/misunderstanding?
> 
> Ray


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (Aug 18, 2012)

Different kind of cadence. I'm talking about harmonic cadence, not drumline stuff.

Beethoven - Piano Sonata 21, Op.53, "Waldstein", Mvt.2, "Introduzione"


Skip to 2:41.






I just went over this piece with a student yesterday. This is quite relevant to the question on hand. Let's check out what's going on. Key signature indicates the key of F major. First chord is F. Good, that's the tonic chord. Second chord is F7. Er, that's not in F major. Next chord is E. Also not in F major. Em? Nope. We have a B coming up, how about B? Nuh-uh. After that is B°. No? Okay, Db7. Still no. Next is C. Aha! Finally something diatonic! C7, that's still in F, and it's all diatonic to the end of bar 9.

After the first chord, it takes nearly a minute before we hear anything in the key of F again. Yet, the key of the piece is F major (I analyze that one part in E, because it looks cleaner that way. It's still technically F at that point, as no key new key is established.). The reason we can still claim to be in that key is because we have a couple of cadential figures at the end of the progression that establish the tonic, despite everything else being chromatic. If you want to look at the framework, the chords are a harmonization of a chromatic descent in the bass to the dominant tone, and the dominant-tonic relationship is where it's at where tonal music is concerned.


----------



## ElRay (Aug 18, 2012)

SchecterWhore said:


> ...and the dominant-tonic relationship is where it's at where tonal music is concerned.



OK, to make sure I got this, it's because the bass is framing the tonic (root) and dominant (fifth), it's in F Major, correct? So the left hand part could just be an alberti bass between the tonic and the dominant, and the right hand could be playing "what ever works" and we'd still be in the same key, correct?

Similarly, if the treble part had the same tonic-dominant relationship, but the bass was essentially something atonal and rhythmic, it would be in the same key, even though there might not be any "scale tones" being played in the bass, correct?

Now that I re-read this, why is it the dominant and not "the fifth" or "7 half-steps"?



Ray


----------



## Hybrid138 (Aug 18, 2012)

Here is the video for reference. 



If we aren't talking key here... then what Roman Numeral role would these chords have? If you can't tell the key, Roman Numerals wouldn't apply right? Can we give these types of chords a function like pre-dominant or something to that effect?


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (Aug 18, 2012)

I'd call those chords m7(&#9837;13) rather than m7(#5). They're the same thing, just different spelling. Not that it matters, since these aren't functional chords in the context you presented. Given what's in that video, I wouldn't say it's a tonal progression. The relationship between the roots of those chords is a minor third. You might want to search this forum for "chromatic mediant".

m7(&#9837;13) chords, on the other hand, are easy to find a use for. In major keys, iii and vi both have &#9837;13's. In minor keys, it's the same deal for i and v (as used in natural minor). And, you know, all the modal variations thereof. 



ElRay said:


> OK, to make sure I got this, it's because the bass is framing the tonic (root) and dominant (fifth), it's in F Major, correct? So the left hand part could just be an alberti bass between the tonic and the dominant, and the right hand could be playing "what ever works" and we'd still be in the same key, correct?



Sort of. The fundamental chord progression in Western tonality is I-V-I. Schenkerian analysis states that this is the underlying pattern of all tonal music. Obviously, music as we know it is rarely four notes and nothing more, but this framework does exist. What we see in practice is that there is prolongation and elaboration between that first I and V. It's a journey to get to the dominant, then the dominant drives it back home to I. You can put all sorts of chords before getting to V, make it interesting, and you'll be cool until then. Once you get to V, though, you have to make a choice: prolong the progression (as in measure 7; that deceptive cadence forces the progression to continue), or end the phrase on the tonic (as in measure 9, which is an authentic cadence). Phrases frequently end on the V, as well (as the end of the Beethoven piece does), and that's usually a signal that there's more to come.



> Similarly, if the treble part had the same tonic-dominant relationship, but the bass was essentially something atonal and rhythmic, it would be in the same key, even though there might not be any "scale tones" being played in the bass, correct?


Our ears (brains, rather) tend to select patterns, but they also tend to turn musical information into a composite. Think about a drum kit: a drummer plays a fairly large number of instruments to create one unified groove. However, if you isolated each tom, each cymbal, the snare and bass drum, their individual rhythms aren't as complicated. It's the same with pitch material. If you have a cadential pattern going on in one instrument and some atonal thing going on in another, your powers of perception will put the two together and decide whether there is or is not a tonal center. And if there is a tonal center, you're going to have some interesting sonorities, unless you do something like Beethoven did above.

A good and relatively recent test of these limits is bitonality. Give a listen to this. Those are two major triads, believe it or not. What you probably hear is the composite sound of the two tonalities, rather than two distinct tonalities. I spent last semester doing bitonal ear training, so I can't talk. 



> Now that I re-read this, why is it the dominant and not "the fifth" or "7 half-steps"?


The "dominant" is more of a concept. It implies dissonance, and a very specific relationship with the tonic. "The fifth" can tell us the numeric location of the tone in relationship to the scale, or usually a chord. I don't like to say "the fifth" unless it has something to do with a chord, actually, because a "fifth" is an interval rather than a location. "7 half-steps" is a range that helps to determine the size of a perfect fifth, but is hardly suitable for talking about harmonic relationships. There's actually another reason for the "dominant" terminology. Look at the score I posted. We start at F, then go down to C. Well, that C isn't a fifth away from that F, nor is it 7 half-steps: it's a perfect fourth there, or 5 half-steps. Eventually, it's easier to forgo the numbers. Besides, try saying "chromatic descent to the dominant" in a room full of guitarists. Feel that? That's power, my friend. There's more where that came from.


----------

