chord progressions based on minor scale vs. major scale

Yes, we do always use the major scale for numbering - either in notes (like 5, b2, etc.) or chords, like bVII.

What makes a progression minor or major isn't the first chord (although it often is); it's the chord that's the 'tonic' of the key - the I or i. Sometimes the tonic isn't very clear, but most of the time it is - because you have a 'cadence', a move from a dominant chord to the tonic.

Another big clue for minor keys is having an altered chord tone - for example, G# used in the key of A minor... that's part of the harmonic minor scale, but it's not found in the relative major scale.

Now your progression doesn't have a clear cadence - which means it could actually be in any one of several keys.

Let's substitute chord names for the numbers, since we haven't really fixed the 'I' chord:

Am-G-Em-F

You could be in Am, making it i-VII-v-VI, but then it leaves you hanging for resolution - it ends on a major chord, and most minor pieces written after about 1700 don't do that. (Before 1700 it was common; if you were in Am, the very last chord would be A major, called a Picardy third)

You could be in C; that's even a little more likely than Am if the song ends on C (F to C is called a plagal cadence; some folks call it the "Amen" cadence). Then you'd have vi-V-iii-IV-(I)

You could also be in F. Progressions without cadences are usually short, just 2-3 chords, and often called 'vamps'. By avoiding a cadence, they're especially well suited for modal melodies. If you're in F, you have iii-II-vii-I. II isn't a naturally occurring chord in a major key, but the B natural note in both the G and Em chords means it would work really well with an F Lydian melody.

Dear Noteboat:

Now that you mention bVII, where does it come from? is it a borrowed chord added to the major scale? . I read in some books that this chord substitutes VII, which is seldom used.

Thanks in advance.

Roberto

It's not exactly borrowed - it comes from harmonizing other scale types.

Picture the key of G:

G-A-B-C-D-E-F#-G

This harmonizes to viiº (F#-A-C). But what if your melody is based in G Mixolydian, which flats the seventh degree? Your chord now becomes major: F-A-C.

But we're still in the 'key' of G - that's the tonic note. Since the chord is major, it will be shown with a capital Roman numeral; since we describe chord positions in relation to the major scale of the tonic (no matter which scale is actually used), using an F chord in the key of G makes it the bVII.

Cool Tom.
Now i understood.
Thanks again.
Roberto

Thanks Tom. When you say a cadence is a move from a dominant chord to the tonic chord, what does dominant chord mean? Is it a chord that is the IV or V of the major scale, or does it just mean one of the main chords that defines the chord progression and not a spariningly-used transition chord, etc?

Is a cadence basically a mini resolution that marks the end of a phrase or idea? And if your progression is lacking a proper cadence it'll be like a run-on sentence? Thanks

That's a good analogy, Patrick - some theory writers describe cadences as punctuation in a musical sense. That makes perfect historical sense.

The term cadence wasn't originally applied to chords, but to the motion of melodies. If you've ever been to a church service that was entirely sung, there are two entirely different styles used - the first we'd recognize as a song, the second is more of a monotone single-pitch thing, called recitative. The priest/minister/rabbi/imam/whatever is clearly reciting a tone... but just one.

Then he (or maybe she) gets to a resting point, and the pitch usually changes just slightly, then returns to the recitative tone - the melody might go CCCCDCC. That's a cadence; it usually falls halfway thruogh the line of text, like a comma. A bit more singing on A, then the end of line is a little more decorative: CCCCBCA. That's a 'final cadence', and it's used like a period.

A few hundred years later, this chant style had become two-voiced; one voice was recitative, the other more melodic. With only two voices, we didn't have chords, only intervals (they called 'em dyads). Since it was more complex, the rules of how cadences behave began to be formalized in terms of voice movement, and these rules grew more complicated after chords appeared.

We've now got terms to describe chord motion, like 'authentic' (V-I) or 'plagal' (IV-I); terms to describe voice position, like 'perfect' (both chords in root position) or 'imperfect' (anything else); and terms to describe dynamic position, like 'masculine' (falling on the downbeat) or 'feminine' (falling on a weak metric position).

Specific terms have specific meaning - a perfect authentic masculine cadence is a definition like 1983 Ford Fiesta. General terms don't really have as much specific meaning as you'd think - 'car' will mean probably something to you that's different from what a railroad worker envisions.

So the real idea of cadence is still what it was a millenium ago - it's musical punctuation. F-C may look like a plagal cadence, but it may not be... it depends on whether or not its use actually gives a sense of pause in the music.

In general songwriting, cadence is almost always an authentic cadence beginning with a dominant 7th chord. Probably 95% of all songs conform to that standard.

NoteBoat, while we're on the topic of cadences. Something that has always puzzled me is why (here, at least) texts never want to include the I-IV cadence. Some even go so far as to say it doesn't exist. Admittedly it's rare, but it does exist. An example is at the end of the first line from Auld Lang Syne: Should auld acquaintance be forgot and never brought TO MIND.
Any thoughts on it - or do you know any name for it? 'Inverted plagal' would probably be the most likely, if I was to guess.

That's a good question, Fretsource.

Any cadence that doesn't end on the tonic is considered a 'deceptive' cadence (some folks call it a 'false' cadence). I-IV would fall into that general category.

But that brings up another level of cadences - the use of cadential pairs in a call-and-response type of phrasing. It's common for songs to have paired phrases where the first part (the antecedant) builds to a point of tension, and the second part (the consequent) provides a release.

Antecedants usually use a "half cadence", which is a cadence transposed - usually to the dominant, but sometimes to the subdominant. The matching consequent cadence would be a "full cadence" moving to the tonic.

Because half cadences aren't used as final cadences, they're analyzed a bit differently... it's a temporary tonicization of the chord of resolution; the Harvard Dictionary of Music shows a I-IV in its discussion of half cadences, but analyzes it to be a V of IV -> IV resolution.

Thanks NoteBoat - interesting points, especially the Harvard interpretation, which I'll come back to in a moment.
The subject of cadences, is one of those minefields of confusion due to different terms and definitions commonly used on either side of the Atlantic. Trying to remember which are ours and which are yours is becoming virtually impossible, e.g. the perfect cadence, the authentic perfect, the final, the imperfect, the semi-perfect and so on.
The definition of the deceptive cadence, as it is taught here, is stricter than yours. Here, it isn't just to any chord other than chord I. The principle is that it must 'deceive' and a true deceptive cadence is one in which the listener, while hearing chord V, has been led to expect chord I but is given another chord instead in a kind of pleasant surprise. This rules out I - IV and I - V as deceptive cadences as the listener wasn't expecting chord I anyway. Generally, the progressions V - VI and V - IV are the only deceptive cadences mentioned in most UK texts.

The Harvard interpretation is interesting because many years ago I asked my then theory teacher (a professor of composition) about why there is never any mention of the I - IV cadence. His first response was to echo the texts and say it was because there aren't any. When I showed him that example, he was stumped for a minute - then said, "All I can think of is that it's a tonicisation and I - IV is actually V - I in the key of IV" - just like Harvard said. However, he wasn't happy with his own interpretation as the concept of tonicisation seemed too sophisticated and contrived for such a simple pentatonic melody.

Anyway I feel that I - IV is as valid as I - V as a half close, and needn't be analysed as a perfect cadence in another key. And it should have its own name like I - V has. So, as I disagreed with him, I'll disagree with Harvard too. Why not? They'll never find me :lol: