6's or not 6's.

Oh, sorry for the rapid fire here, I'm absorbing... maybe.

When you say V7-I, you're speaking of playing the chord that begins on the 5th, with IT'S 7th interval, right, rather than the 7th of the root(?)

So playing your vi min 7... you're playing a minor sounding chord (minor 3rd) and adding the minor 7th of THAT chord, which I'm guessing sounds very dissonant (in relation to the I, since that chord is rooted on the vi....?)

Oh oh oh... I'm getting something.

dominant 7th can only refer to a chord with it's 7th that' root is the 5th of the root, hence V7(?)... I was in the dark about why the V7 instead of just the 7... now I think I see.

V7 refers not to just an interval, but a chord WITH a specific interval... it describes both the degree of the chord, and it's modifying notes! (?)

Confirm or deny please!

I'm having a little trouble following you undercat, but I'm thinking you have it right. The structure of all chords comes from the root of the chord, regardless of what key you're in, so a '7' chord always has b7 of the chord root. Roman numerals are used to show the chords in relation to the key (the tonic is always I or i, depending on whether it's major or minor). You can have a 7 chord on any scale degree, like I7 or IV7, which are common in blues... but V7 is the only dominant chord that doesn't have to step outside the key.

For instance, in C, the I7 is C7 (C-E-G-Bb) and the Bb isn't in key... the IV7 is F7 (F-A-C-Eb), with Eb outside the key... but V7 is G7 (G-B-D-F) with all notes that belong in the key.

I think I'm getting it, let's see...

- the V7 is G7 (G-B-D-F)

The F is the 7th here, but it's not the 7th of the C chord, it's the 7th of the G7 chord, and where G is the 5th degree, G7 is the V7 in the key of C. Right?

And do you just say V7 like "dominant 7" always, or do you say "Five-Seven"?

Absolutely right, undercat. Any 7 is a dominant 7 (unless it says maj7). I usually just refer to the chord names (like G7) and say "G-seventh"... it's kind of hard to say II or ii and make the difference meaningful :)

In lessons, I'll talk about the 'five chord' while writing V, though.

Sweet!

And how do you say "V7"?

"Five Seven"?
"Five Seventh"?

Or can you only say "Dominant 7th"?

Five seven is ok :)

NoteBoat..

your "you need three notes to make a chord, not two" point..

i used to think it had to be three, and i was talking to my guitar teacher about it, and like fought to the death over i was right.. he said :

in some cases it is, and in some cases, it isnt, take C and G, its an interval of a perfect 5th, you would need a major or minor third from the root for it to be a chord.. Now take C and E, people would interperet this as being C major. without the fifth but it still has a very major like quality about it, with thirds, two note chords do exist, but anything but thirds, people would count as intervals, not everyone agrees with this, but the people ive spoken to over the years, agree with it

..thoughts?

In the strict sense, two tones make an interval, three make a chord. Yes, C and E will sound a lot like a C major chord, but consider additions to it....

Your teacher says C-G isn't a chord, because it doesn't imply major or minor (the missing third), and since C-E has the third, it implies major.

Now add a G# and tell me it's still a major chord.

The quality of a chord depends on at least three notes. It's true that you can simplify chords - dropping the 5th of a 9th chord, for instance - but there is a point at which simplification leads to ambiguity. That's the point where you can no longer determine the chord quality from the tones that are presented.

Yes, C-E can function as a major chord (just as C-G can), because of context in a piece - your ear will fill in whatever is appropriate to hear a chord progression. That doesn't mean the individual pieces are chords, though - taken in isolation, there is not enough information to name it as a chord, but there is enough information to name it as an interval. The interval name is a precise description, while assigning a chord name is at best a good guess.

but if you add a G# then its not using only two notes, its using three, therefore implying a chord.

its like saying a three note chord C Eb G.. as you said a chord, add another note, Gb, and you have a German 6th. i mean just using C and E with no other notes (only two) then its a lot more chord like than C and G.

i dont agree that a C-E implies ambiguity though. i would see it as implying major.
C-E can function as a major chord (just as C-G can),

C-E can
C-G cant as its got nothing to imply major, (remmembers how one of his music teachers put it) its like a sandwich with nothing on it. wheas a C E G is (C being one bun, G being the other) and E being the filling. With just two buns you cant call it a specific sandwhich..

.. now if you have one bun and some filling, you can identify it as a specific sandwhich (but you dont know if there would be another filling on the other bun, just like C-E.. could be bottom of C major, or the top of A minor).

This is one of those things i know there will never be a deffinate answer to, im not trying to say your wrong, as you cant be in this specific topic, its open to interpretation. Im just putting my point across.. But i am interested to hear youres. :)

Ok, Alex... I think it's best if you hear my point of view. I didn't say a fifth interval was a major chord, I said it could function as one. Listen to this chord progression:

progression #1 for Alex

Nice and cheery. Three voices, moving merrily along in chords... except that the second from the end isn't a chord (G-G-D = a fifth interval). I've set your ear up to hear a G major, and there's no way you can interpret the interval as being perhaps a G minor... it functions as a major chord, because I've already used a G major triad (in beat 3 of the first measure) and I lead you into a nice V-I resolution... but the V ain't a chord in this case, it just strikes your ear as one. In isolation, you'd say it was an interval (and you'd be right), but I think you'll be hard pressed to deny I can make it sound like a chord.

Now let's take your case of a third always sounding major, shall we?

sample #2 for Alex

I open with a Caug7 arpeggio (C-E-G#-B). Please note the top three notes of this chord form an E major triad. This is immediately followed by a major third interval, G-B. Because the E triad has set your ear up to hear an E major sound, this major third strikes you as the upper part of an E minor chord, even though the E is no longer present. I hold the G while stepping the B up to C - the E (although still not present) gives you a sense of minor/major movement - even though the specific intervals involved are a major third and a perfect fourth.

When you view two notes in isolation, they are ALWAYS an interval. Only three or more notes can be judged a chord in isolation. But we don't hear in isolation - our memory of recent events is what makes things sound good or bad at any given point in time (think about that - a note that's out of key will sound out of key all by itself... that is, if it's the only note being played at the moment. We judge it out of key because of what we remember hearing. The ambiguity of intervals combined with that sense of sonic memory can be exploited by composers; I can make a major interval sound like a minor chord, as you can plainly hear for yourself.

Alex-,

You've answered your own argument:
dont agree that a C-E implies ambiguity though. i would see it as implying major.

The very fact, that you use the word "imply", is an acceptance that there is an ambiguity. By it's very nature, implication is hearing what you want to hear or what the other person wants you to hear.
It is only the context that leads you to assume a major chord (as in Noteboat's example). Taken out of context, you would have to guess major/minor.

A chord clearly "defines", an interval "infers".

i couldnt see myself being absolutely and totally proved wrong, but youve done it, and im glad you have.

But on my defense, writing about theory on a forum and thinking in my head about the notes (the words i read written down) i naturally think of what ive been taught and dont tend to think about in performance can things be different, from my eyes, seeing letters representing notes and basing judgements, it seems right.

But that really has no relavence if you cant apply it to actual music, to me theory is a subject itself, seperate to music, and it shouldnt be. In practicality, things will be different.

And ill keep that in mind whenever i read an arguement similar to this again!

- Point gracefully noted :D