What arpeggio am I playing here?

bigjon

Oh yeah, the answer to the original question is E9add13/G# - very Paul Gibert-esque

viz

Phil_aka_Pip said:

mike_l said:

Using the flat7 hasn't made the chord dominant, you've just used the dominant shape.

I say again, a flat7 doesn't make the chord dominant.

Simple blues progression A7-D7-E7 all use the flat 7, only the E7 is dominant.

They're all dominants Mike. You're trying to impose western european diatonic theory in places where it only partially applies. The problem with saying only the E7 is "dominant" is that in the blooze case it doesn't resolve to a tonic, the thing it "resolves" to (loose usage of the word)  is not a "tonic" (tonics don't include a b7). So you don't have the diatonic V-I relationship. Note the difference between being dominant in form (ie having a b7 stacked on top of a major triad) and being dominant in function (ie resolving to a tonic, being a major chord - with optional major 7th, whose root is a perfect fifth lower). Notice also that harmonising the Melodic minor gets you two chords which are dominant in form (on the IV and the V), but staying within the key only the one on the V will function as a dominant.

@phil_aka_pip, @mike_l, I would just like to add something to what's been said about the old dominant 7. I think there is a bit of an issue with the general usage of the term in that "dominant 7" is a phrase so often heard, that we tend to think that the dominant refers to or is in some way connected to the 7, and that a 1,3,5,b7 is therefore automatically a "dominant 7th". But it isn't.

The phrase "dominant 7" means that the chord is the Dominant chord, which is the name for the V chord and the V chord only, and refers to its relationship with the Tonic chord. The "7" obviously is for when it has a 7 note (and in diatonic music it often does indeed have a 7 as well as a 1, 3 and 5, and the reason that's so effective is because that 7 is a 4th above the tonic so you can move down the scale 4 notes to reach the tonic, and the 8 is a 4th below the tonic so you can move up the scale from the 8th 4 notes to reach the tonic. So that 7 and 8 together on the V chord is very symmetrical and pleasing.)

And it's written with a capital V and a little 7. When it resolves to the tonic, if the tonic had a 7th in it, that wouldn't be a dominant 7, it would be a tonic 7, and written with a capital I and a little 7, and if it were blooz and had a flattened 7th it would be written with a capital I and then a little flat sign and a little 7 and called "tonic flat 7". As I think you're both saying, you couldn't or shouldn't call it a dominant 7 "in function" because it's not a dominant chord - it's not in the V position. Unless you were suddenly transposing it and making it a V.

But furthermore it can introduce a bit of confusion to say a chord is dominant 7 in form but not in function in cases where it's not actually a dominant (V) chord. I know it's unusual to say it's a tonic b7 in the case of a blues I chord, but that's what's correct, because "dominant" refers only to the chord's relationship to the tonic. I do understand why people like to say it's *like* a dominant 7, but I don't like it, and besides as Phil says, it's only true in the diatonic, melodic minor, harmonic minor and a few other families where the V7 chord is a root, a major 3rd, a perfect 5th and a minor 7th. If you were writing in for example the Persian scale, the dominant 7 chord would be a root, augmented 3rd, perfect 5th, major 7th.

Thus in the case of melodic minor, that 1,3,5,b7 of the IV chord, is called a subdominant 7 or IV 7, not a dominant 7 btw.

beed84

My understanding is that all chords built up on 1 3 5 b7 are types of dominant 7th but only dominant 7th when played on the fifth degree of the scale. Dominant 7th = next chord fourth higher or fifth lower

Therefore the 7th degree simply denotes whether it is major or "dominant" tonality.

viz

Well you're better off calling other 1,3,5,b7 chords a major-minor 7 or something because precise terms like dominant 7 have such a specific meaning, and a dominant 7th can only be a dominant 7th if it's built off the dominant chord. There's only one dominant 7th and that's the V7. That probably sounds dogmatic, but that is what the term means and the reason it's important is because that word 'dominant' has a very specific reason which as nothing to do with the flat 7 per se. And that's true for blues, jazz and any other form that has a Tonic and a V chord.

In your example, and in Phil's example of the blues tonic (I) chord, which is a 1, 3, 5, b7, there is one thing to consider though. It is true to say that the chords go from I to IV sometimes. In 12-bar blues that occurs in a third of the changes off the I chord. (I, I, I, I, IV, IV, I, I, V, IV, I, V). That doesn't change the fact that it's a Tonic b7, or a I b7, but on those occasions it is true that there is a secondary or artificial dominant occurring here because at the transition from I to IV at the 5th bar, the IV could be said to be briefly tonicised - not a true modulation because the IV doesn't establish itself as the new I, but just temporarily; so the I chord (along with its b7) is borrowing a secondary dominant for a fleeting moment at that transition point.

Aside from special cases like these, I think saying a Tonic b7 is like a Dominant 7 in form not function just doesn't work because Dominant implies function so strongly that you can't ignore it.

In summary, before I let Bucket's thread to return to normal, it's not correct to say a chord is a dominant 7, or a type of dominant 7 simply because it has 1,3,5,b7, unless it's acting in a dominant situation with respect to a (possibly temporary) tonic.

Phil_aka_Pip

It was Alan Limbrick in the Guitar Institute that taught us about the various forms of chords, and about as much of the diatonic theory we'd need. He did say it couldn't be forced to apply in all cases, especially blues. I do remember him telling us that (eg) D7 is what you get when you harmonise the dominant of the G maj scale and that's where it gets its name from. If it resolves to G (or some major extension thereof) then it's a functional dominant. If it's just part of some blues chord progression and doesn't resolve then he said it was non-functional.

So, @viz, I assume you're basically saying Limbrick was wrong, (which is OK, if he was), but may I ask if this is a case of taking strict diatonic definitions beyond the scope if their originally intended usage?

I ask because I complained to another tutor recently because he'd used terminology such as

I7 III7 II7 V7  (example in G: G7 B7 A7 D7)

and I said "You can't do that the ii and iii chords are minor" and he said: not in this progression they're not which is why I used capitals and stated explicitly they are all seventh chords built like a dominant with a minor 7 on top of a major triad" ... from which I concluded that he was using no more of diatonic theory than he needed to in order to describe his progression.

viz

@Phil_aka_pip Well you've been educated by far more qualified people than me, particularly in the field of rock, jazz and guitar and stuff! - I'm coming at it from my classical upbringing so I definitely accept there could be lingual- and definition-adjustments.

Basically I'm a pedant, and I'm saying that if you're using classical lingo, which has very precisely defined meanings, then you've got a few choices:

a) stick to the classical meanings and only talk about classical music.
b) stick to the classical meanings and use them pedantically to describe new music although that might be clumsy.
c) adapt and enlarge the meanings to fit the new music.
d) invent new terms.

I tend to favour (b), partly because of my upbringing and partly because after all classical theory is easily capable of describing diatonic, harmonic, melodic and all other strict scale families; the question is whether it's suited for music where the chords essentially don't adhere to the key signature.
Anyway, it sounds like you could be applying a pinch of reasonableness and pragmatism and favouring (c), though from what you write I'm not actually convinced that I'm saying anything different from your Limbrick interpretation; I think I totally agree with what you say he said:

The D7 is a dominant 7 because it's the V chord, always. It doesn't *have* to resolve to the tonic every time it's used (I guess that's what's meant by it's not 'functioning' as a dominant, but it still is the dominant chord nevertheless) - it's dominant purely because it's the V, and it's a 7 purely because it has the 7 extension. So that sounds good to me.

And what he said certainly doesn't go as far as saying that the I b7 is also a dominant 7, which I would disagree with, so I concur with all you've said.

With the other tutor, I agree with that too I think! And here I would be a bit relaxed on the lingo. He's using capitals for major chords so yes it's a III7 and as we're bloozin' it up, offsetting the major E-shape barre chord and not adhering to the key sig (and by the way I'm assuming the III chord is a Bb not a B, as in Smoke on the Water, despite the G chord having a major 3rd, so it's not even clear whether we're in major or minor) I would refrain from writing something bizarre like III#3b7, a III7 would suffice. So long as you don't start calling it a V7 (or a dominant 7, same thing). I would therefore also try to avoid saying 'built like a dominant', I'd want to say built like a major-minor 7 chord, because the word Dominant is soooooo relevant to its function as a V and its relation to the tonic. But I do accept that is me being very literal and going against the grain of many practising musicians.

By the way, the best description of all this was given by your very good self in an earlier thread - I remember it well, I'll have to find it - where you were proving rather eloquently why you could not call a I 7 a dominant 7.