#1
Does any particular style of music use a ii - i, that is a diminshed triad(ii dim) to a i chord in the natural minor mode to end a progression or phrase?

This does not seem like a very strong resolution compared to other types. The only thing I can try to hear is scale degree 2 and 4 resolving to scale degree 1.

My theory text mentions that the ii (dim) chord is used as a predominant which I can clearly hear why. But why cannot it be used as I mentioned earlier? Not strong enough?
Last edited by Unreal T at Aug 22, 2014,
#2
1) I think you mean in minor keys. "The natural minor mode" is nonsensical.

2) It's not meant to be a "strong" resolution.

3) It can be used as you mentioned. Theory is NOT prescriptive.
#3
"Minor mode" is a thing.

To answer your question.. Throw the 7th of your tonic in there somewhere and you'll get your dominant chord. It's hard to say why it's sounds the way it does without having context. I'm sure with the right voice leading and voicing you can probably get it to imitate a 7th chord.

As far as labeling it's labeled a pre dominant because it naturally leads to the dominant, not the tonic
#4
Yes, it's not as strong as the dominant. That is why.

But like crazysam said, if you want to end a progression with it, go ahead. It's good to understand theory, but if it restricts you, then it's not a good thing.
#5
Quote by klintala
"Minor mode" is a thing.

"The natural minor mode" (which is actually "the natural minor scale" or "a minor key" or even, more rarely, "the Aeolian mode") is a misnomer term. However, if you use the term "minor mode" to refer to the Dorian mode, the Phrygian mode, & Aeolian mode...then you are using the term correctly.
#6
Quote by crazysam23_Atax
"The natural minor mode" (which is actually "the natural minor scale" or "a minor key" or even, more rarely, "the Aeolian mode") is a misnomer term. However, if you use the term "minor mode" to refer to the Dorian mode, the Phrygian mode, & Aeolian mode...then you are using the term correctly.


Its fairly common to use the term "minor mode" to refer to the minor scale, regardless of the variation (natural, harmonic, or melodic).


I've never heard the term "natural minor mode" used though.


Quote by Unreal T
Does any particular style of music use a ii - i, that is a diminshed triad(ii dim) to a i chord in the natural minor mode to end a progression or phrase?

This does not seem like a very strong resolution compared to other types. The only thing I can try to hear is scale degree 2 and 4 resolving to scale degree 1.

My theory text mentions that the ii (dim) chord is used as a predominant which I can clearly hear why. But why cannot it be used as I mentioned earlier? Not strong enough?



It's not a strong resolution, but that doesn't mean it won't sound good.
Last edited by GuitarMunky at Aug 23, 2014,
#7
Quote by GuitarMunky
Its fairly common to use the term "minor mode" to refer to the minor scale, regardless of the variation (natural, harmonic, or melodic).

Maybe so, but I find it misleading since we're not talking about modes.
#8
Quote by crazysam23_Atax
Maybe so, but I find it misleading since we're not talking about modes.


It's not misleading once you know that its commonly used that way.
#9
Quote by GuitarMunky
It's not misleading once you know that its commonly used that way.

It is, because it implies a half-truth.
#11
Quote by crazysam23_Atax
It is, because it implies a half-truth.



It does not, that's just your misunderstanding of it.
#12
Quote by crazysam23_Atax
It is, because it implies a half-truth.



It is a very common term, even in college level texts on classical theory which never mention modes other than major and minor for more than a paragraph.
#13
Quote by GuitarMunky
It does not, that's just your misunderstanding of it.

Uh-huh. I think you're assuming too much, if you think I'm misunderstanding it. I'm arguing the semantics of it, not the understanding of it.

Quote by Vlasco
It is a very common term, even in college level texts on classical theory which never mention modes other than major and minor for more than a paragraph.

Which automatically means we should use it, right?
#14
Quote by crazysam23_Atax

Which automatically means we should use it, right?


I will take the word of those authors over the word of UG, yes. Especially considering they don't have a vendetta against everything involving the word mode.
#15
Quote by crazysam23_Atax

Which automatically means we should use it, right?


We should use it(or accept the use of it) because that's the way it has been for over 350 years.
The idea of Diatonic modes didn't really take off until the end of the 19th century.

I know this is a guitar forum but the term mode isn't exculsively a term for a "scale position" a guitarists plays over a two chord vamp. (Which hasn't really been a thing for very long)
#16
Oh good, this debate again. Idk about you guys, but I understood exactly what he meant, and to me that's the only purpose of speech.

To answer the question, You can most definitely do that. The i7 in aeolian is like only one added root note away from the III. If you take those same chords, iidim-III, but name them with the roman numerals of Ionian you get viio-I, which is very strong. But that added extra note, making the I a vi7, or in aeolian mode, a i7, means that the pull is a bit less strong, but those two chords still gravitate well together in that way. Also, not surprisingly, you can do a viio-vi in Ionian too. As mentioned you can technically do anything, but that cadence works well easily.
Last edited by fingrpikingood at Aug 23, 2014,
#17
Quote by crazysam23_Atax
Maybe so, but I find it misleading since we're not talking about modes.


What was misleading about that? with the information he has given me, I can without error play in the exact right key he was talking about, without any error. Play the exact chords he was referencing. Or rather, the correct chords relative to one another.

Before he said natural minor mode, He could have been playing in dorian, but just replaced the ii with a iio. Which is actually a substitution I would use, and incidentally a iio7-i sounds quite awesome in dorian mode, or a iio7-i9 keeps that high pedal tone up there. In general those two chords sound good.

But when he said natural minor mode, he removed all questions, and I knew precisely what he meant, and I could then play that cadence exactly how he meant it, in general context of how he meant it.

A iio-i in dorian is not the same thing at all.


This again is why the classical naming system is complicated. I need to know which mode the roman numerals refer to, in order to know what chords to play on my guitar. because the roman numbers reference different chords depending on what mode your in, so that the tonic always holds the value of "1".

There is no language I can use, using the classical system, to reference those two chords, and that cadence, without any implication of mode.

The roman numerals are powerful, because they are not note specific, they are relative values. I don't have to say a specific chord name, or note name, and someone can use any note name they want.

But they are mode specific, which loses some of that power. If the values stay the same, constant, then you can always tell anyone exactly what chords you mean in a relative sense, without ever alluding to any key or mode. If all music was strictly diatonic, it wouldn't be so bad, but it isn't.
Last edited by fingrpikingood at Aug 23, 2014,
#18
^ first you say "oh no not this again" then you double post to argue "this again".

GutiarMunky, Vlasco, and Klintala nailed it, as did you when you said you knew exactly what he meant.

No need to carry on this off topic discussion in this thread.

Stick to the topic (iidim-i cadence) please.
Consider this fair warning.
Si
#19
Who cares if it's called "minor key" or "minor mode"? Just shut up. That wasn't the point of the thread.

I think I have heard ii dim - i in some pieces (maybe in some hymns). It doesn't make sense without a context. But whatever, you could try writing a song that uses ii dim - i and see if it works. But I'm sure it's used somewhere.

I think you could use it like this: ii dim - i - V - i. The ii dim sounds pretty similar to the iv chord in minor and many times you could replace the iv chord with the ii dim chord. Maybe try playing the dim chord in its first inversion and it sounds even closer to the iv chord. (For example if you are playing in A minor, the ii chord is Bm7b5 and playing it in its first inversion actually makes it a Dm6 chord.)
Quote by AlanHB
Just remember that there are no boring scales, just boring players.

Gear

Bach Stradivarius 37G
Charvel So Cal
Fender Dimension Bass
Hartke HyDrive 210c
Ibanez BL70
Laney VC30
Tokai TB48
Yamaha FG720S-12
Yamaha P115
#20
^^^ Well said dude! Hey would you mind fixing my spelling mistake in your sig? (Remember, not Rememeber)

I see it every day and cringe a little.
And no, Guitar Hero will not help. Even on expert. Really.
Soundcloud
#21
Quote by AlanHB
^^^ Well said dude! Hey would you mind fixing my spelling mistake in your sig? (Remember, not Rememeber)

I see it every day and cringe a little.

LOL, I've been noticing it as well XD
#22
Quote by AlanHB
^^^ Well said dude! Hey would you mind fixing my spelling mistake in your sig? (Remember, not Rememeber)

I see it every day and cringe a little.

Lol, I haven't noticed it before. Fixed.
Quote by AlanHB
Just remember that there are no boring scales, just boring players.

Gear

Bach Stradivarius 37G
Charvel So Cal
Fender Dimension Bass
Hartke HyDrive 210c
Ibanez BL70
Laney VC30
Tokai TB48
Yamaha FG720S-12
Yamaha P115
#24
Quote by 20Tigers
^ first you say "oh no not this again" then you double post to argue "this again".

GutiarMunky, Vlasco, and Klintala nailed it, as did you when you said you knew exactly what he meant.

No need to carry on this off topic discussion in this thread.

Stick to the topic (iidim-i cadence) please.
Consider this fair warning.


Lol, well, almost. At first I said, that it was ******ed to argue over that, and I mentioned how it doesn't matter about technicalities, what is important is that we understand each other, and that it was not misleading or confusing what he said, but was giving us more precise information.

I was never disputing whether or not it was technically correct in some academic sense. That was what I think is pointless.

Imo, theory is a language which is useful only for 2 things. Communicating with people, and helping you play what's in your mind better, kind of mentally simplifying stuff so you can be more deliberate, and have better mastery of your instrument.

If you can achieve those 2 things, then that's mission accomplished. That's what I'm saying. That's all that matters to me. Whether something is technically this, or technically that, I couldn't care less. Whether one school teaches one thing, or another school teaches another, I couldn't care less.

I care about being able to talk about things with people, and I care about my ability to play music. Whatever works to that end is fine with me.

When he said what he said, that gave me specific information, which was useful. It was a fast and efficient way to communicate what he wanted to communicate with me. So, that's a successful use of language. That's my point. I don't care whether or not it is technically correct, according to someone else. Everyone understood it, and it meant something, and delivered precise and useful information.

Anyway, if some people seem to think that it is technically incorrect instead of insisting all the time, all they have to do is link some academic page where the definitions are given. That would at least settle the argument on what is technically correct.

But I personally don't give a shit what is technically correct. I don't see the point in arguing about it. I care about communication, and I care about being able to play, with a priority on being able to play.

As you know, I deliberately have a different philosophy on some aspects of theory. I name things differently. I know the technically correct way, but I don't care, because I prefer the way I do it, for the way I play. It works for me, I play better that way, and that's what's important to me. I have to use the normal way to communicate with others which is annoying, but if everyone used the same approach as me, I think it would be better for communication as well. Obviously that would never happen, and I would never tell anyone to adopt it, or try and convince anyone, or care whether or not they do, but I find it a superior approach, for me at least, and so I deliberately use it.

I don't see the point in arguing about what is "right" or whatever, because theory uses an arbitrary naming system that evolved piece by piece over the years. It's not some absolute truth. Some aspects are, but the fashion in which they are named and organized, is not.

That's the point. I'm not arguing whether or not it is correct to say this or that. I'm saying, OP concisely explained to us exactly what he meant, it was important information he gave us, and that's all that matters to me. It was in no way misleading. It may or may not have been technically correct. But I don't care, and I won't argue that point. That's what I said.
Last edited by fingrpikingood at Aug 25, 2014,
#25
^ I understand that and I guess we all understood what TS meant. But I don't agree with you. It's the same as if you gave words new meanings without telling about them to other people. Theory is a language - certain words mean certain things. And there are correct and incorrect names in music theory. A cat is not a dog. Your way of naming things of course works for you but changing the meaning of every word to fit your way of naming things isn't reasonable. It's a lot more reasonable to use the "correct" terms that mean exactly the same thing and everybody will understand it. You could call minor major and say that's your way of naming things but nobody would understand it. And music theory is all about communicating.

We all understood that TS was talking about minor key and just used different words to say that. What p!ssed me off a bit was that people started arguing about pointless things. And it was all because of the use of the word "mode". The thread was about ii dim - i, not about modes, so let's stay in topic and not turn this thread into a mode war.
Quote by AlanHB
Just remember that there are no boring scales, just boring players.

Gear

Bach Stradivarius 37G
Charvel So Cal
Fender Dimension Bass
Hartke HyDrive 210c
Ibanez BL70
Laney VC30
Tokai TB48
Yamaha FG720S-12
Yamaha P115
#26
Quote by MaggaraMarine
^ I understand that and I guess we all understood what TS meant. But I don't agree with you. It's the same as if you gave words new meanings without telling about them to other people.


Yes. I gave words new meanings and didn't tell them to anyone, and don't use them that way to communicate with anyone, and only use them for myself, because I think it is more efficient faster easier, and lets me make better music.

If I want to communicate with others, I will use the common terminology, which I know full well.

I will also purposefully misuse english words at times to get my point across, and I don't see what's wrong with that. That's how a lot of new words are formed. As long as what is said is understood, and is not ambiguous or misleading, I couldn't care less what words anyone uses to deliver a specific message to me.


Theory is a language - certain words mean certain things. And there are correct and incorrect names in music theory. A cat is not a dog. Your way of naming things of course works for you but changing the meaning of every word to fit your way of naming things isn't reasonable. It's a lot more reasonable to use the "correct" terms that mean exactly the same thing and everybody will understand it. You could call minor major and say that's your way of naming things but nobody would understand it. And music theory is all about communicating.
It is just for me. I don't need other people to understand me. If I was a cook and wanted organize my fruits and vegetables, I might classify a tomato as a vegetable, because in the realm of cooking, that would make more sense to me. I would change the academic way of defining whether produce is fruit or vegetable, and use my own classification system which is based on flavours, and how I use the ingredients instead, because that is easier for me as a cook.

But I still know full well a tomato is a fruit.


We all understood that TS was talking about minor key and just used different words to say that.


now you're being ambiguous. There are a number of modes which a song could be written to, which would have a different tonic. These are all minor modes. These could be referred to as a minor key. Generally when people say THE minor key, they are referring to the standard aeolian key. His iio-i was most likely in that key, but it didn't have to be. You could have a progression in dorian let's say, and then throw in a iio-i cadence. The question "does that work?" is different in that context.

When he said natural minor mode, everybody could be certain of exactly what he meant. Now, what he said, may not have been precisely academically correct, and I don't see why we'd fuss abotu that, and I don't care tbh. I understood him, and I only precisely understood the question when he said natural minor mode. Anyone that says that they understood before he said that, was making an assumption right up to that point, albeit an assumption with good odds of ending up correct.

What p!ssed me off a bit was that people started arguing about pointless things. And it was all because of the use of the word "mode". The thread was about ii dim - i, not about modes, so let's stay in topic and not turn this thread into a mode war.


This is essentially what I was saying also. This post of yours that I'm replying to, is as much perpetuating deviation from the topic at hand than any other, including mine, I'll admit that, but I did respond to TS as well.

I think TS got their answer by now anyway. There's not really all that much to say about it.


EDIT: I just noticed something lol. I had misquoted my prior response. I actually agree with everything you said in what I quoted by accident. I will also take back that your post was aiding to deviate the topic, I think it was actually the opposite of that. But then I stupidly quoted it, which gave it the opposite function. It was supposed to be directed to this:


Quote by 20Tigers
^ first you say "oh no not this again" then you double post to argue "this again".

GutiarMunky, Vlasco, and Klintala nailed it, as did you when you said you knew exactly what he meant.

No need to carry on this off topic discussion in this thread.

Stick to the topic (iidim-i cadence) please.
Consider this fair warning.


Will change it now.... ooops sorry, my bad.
Last edited by fingrpikingood at Aug 25, 2014,