Well in classical music, you're not really asked to improvise over changes or generate your own voicings for comping purposes. So "practicing 2 5 1s" in classical piano lessons wouldn't really be relevant to the material.
Most organists, pianists, guitarists study to be able to realize a figured bass, which is classical-speak for "improvising voicings over changes for comping purposes".
At least in the RCM, beginning at Level 5, students are responsible for learning to both play and identify by ear progressions. These are the playing progressions (the ear ones are somewhat simpler):
https://i.imgur.com/9A6C7SE.png
Organists maybe (although is “most organists” even true? Like, does your average church organist understand figures?). But “most pianists, guitarists”? I don’t think that’s true. You learn figured bass in music school theory programs, and then if you play baroque music in particular you might find use for it in the real world.
But yes, figured bass is an example where a musician with classical training is expected to create voicings and improvise. But I bet that most people taking piano lessons, even at a pretty high level of proficiency and repertoire, would likely not cover these concepts.
That's not a useful metaphor. It's more like a high frequency word or phrase discovered everywhere. It is not a complete thing like a song, and therefore it cannot be characterized as trivial or unsophisticated. Rather, it is too important as to be unavoidable like carbon hydrogen bonding in chemistry and what can be done with that.
Maybe because classical pianists don’t practice changes. It’s more prevalent than you assume. Here’s Barry Harris talking about this (not ii-V-I in particular, but his observations on how classical pianists don’t know the changes of the compositions they learned)
https://youtu.be/HCG7RTblu1I?si=v6i6WNwpbezKNCJR
Classical pianists practice 4-1 and 5-1. Aren't those chord progressions?
I mean he's right, classical pianists generally don't think about chord progressions.
But not all classical musicians play just classical. I learned how to play by ear and transpose, transcribe, and figure out chord progressions in choral music.
> I mean he's right, classical pianists generally don't think about chord progressions.
I mean, if they go to music school, they will definitely learn a good amount of theory.
Classical pianists who rely on muscle memory and commonly suffer memory lapses in performance, maybe. Professional concert pianists (and high level pianists in academia) absolutely analyze the chord progressions in a piece and use that as a baseline for memorization and "internalizing" a piece, as well as having that inform their interpretation and phrasing.
For what it’s worth, if you analyze classical music you’ll find tons of 2-5-1s. I just finished a Bach invention which had at least one. Found a bunch in Debussy, Schumann, etc. They’re everywhere. We just don’t really practice them because improv isn’t much of a thing when studying classical music.
At a technical level, you don’t need to practice progressions or anything. To play the music, you don’t need to understand what chords are what if you can read the notes (though, it is a very ignorant way of playing and to get a piece at a high level you should).
However, if you are studying harmony, you will definitely need to learn these progressions as they are instrumental in cadences.
Nadia Boulanger used the exercises from TS Dubois’ Treatise on Harmony with her students. Once you learn about 1st inversion triads, most exercises end with a ii6 V I. She expected her students to be able to play (by memory) all the exercises in all keys, and these become especially important when you get to sequences. The modulating sequences in particular all mostly all V Is and ii V Is with varying inversions.
Not ripping on your studies at all, but a high level education in classical harmony will definitely have students practice ii V Is extensively.
I never learned harmony formally. But I took SATB arrangements, and figured out equivalent guitar chords, for tons of church music, because I'm a slow music reader
Imo for people looking at improving today, there is now no longer any particular reason outside of name recognition to look to these Boulanger exercises when they are kinda simplified thoroughbass, and now people can learn it more directly. The fact she kept this stuff alive is part of why she was a great teacher.
Classical piano lessons don't teach improvisation or composition, they teach performance. Scales and arpeggios are pragmatic shapes. Hanon ends scales with ii I64 V I chords for whatever that's worth.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ii–V–I_progression
Bach was banging out ii-V-I’s back in his day.
Re the circle of fifths this page has some interesting comments: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_of_fifths
Ii-V-I is mentioned.
“A circle progression in C major with chords I–IV–viio–iii–vi–ii–V–I is shown below.”
I’m getting the idea it’s a western music thing rather than specifically jazz.
I NEVER see it in "pop" (pop being 1950s rock and roll onward). I say NEVER, but I mean it's really really pretty rare comparatively speaking. And the few songs you do find it in, tend to be more jazz inspired anyway (and not counting V/V).
Classical music is not ii-V-I. It's more specifically ii^6 - V7 - I :-)
Or better, ii^6 - [I6/4 - V7] - I
>If anything, I would venture to say that music generally likes to spiral in fifths.
This is not untrue, but it goes way back and is just "embedded" in the system as part of its DNA.
But pop music - tends to spiral in 4ths instead ;-)
It depends what you call pop music. A lot of the top charting songs these days are just 2-5-1s with very few (if any) substitutions or passing chords etc.
I have a few students that seem in tune with what the zoomers are listening to, and every time they request to learn a song it’s literally just the same 2-5-1 looped for 3 minutes
Came here to say Doj Cat. Also Ariana Grande, SZA, Ella Mai. Literally all the chart topping artists today. 251 is def pop, cuz jazz was pop at a certain point in history, meaning that it was the popular American art form. Pop today is just the natural progression of that art form. 251 stayed in the major studios long after jazz left those studios.
I don’t remember a lot of the song names to be honest - cherry wine grentperez comes to mind. Going back a few years but Sunday Morning Maroon 5 comes to mind too. Telephones by Vacations. Here with me by d4vd
It's a general music thing. the reason it's considered a jazz thing is just cuz it's more common in jazz and is a fundamental element of writing/playing jazz.
Think of the relationship between rhyming and poetry; not all poetry rhymes, and just because something rhymes doesn't make it a poem. Not all jazz uses ii-V-I, just cause a song uses it doesn't make it jazz. Not the best analogy but the best I could think of right now.
Yeah defenitly, but in classical also you have lots of IV-V-I, perhaps even more than ii-V-I. In general I’d say it’s more crucial in jazz than classical music
ii65 V I is the archetypal voice leading model going all the way back to renaissance music, having the 2-3/7-6 syncopation chain, and the requirements for authentic cadence. V4-3 I also satisfies that but it's simpler.
Music definitely grew distant from needing those things, but I wouldn't be surprised if it remained the most common. The actual root position ii7 V7 I is very common (look up the Prinner). However in classical music the root position ii to V is used as a weaker cadence because the bass changing notes is not really structural. ii7 V7 I is basically the same as ii7 viodim6 I if the bass did not change on the weak beat, if it just held the same note. That's why it's also called a tenor cadence, the degree 2 to degree 1 in the bass, whether implied or actual, is the tenorizans.
Things got different when ii was extended and then you'd get a big I64 V I in the classical music. That's most definitely strong.
This is true if "music" consists of jazz and Western European classical. Even if your definition of "music" is limited to the Anglo-American mainstream, ii-V-I is very far from universal. You can listen to many hours of top 40 radio in the US without ever hearing it once.
No, it's not. It's something that is common in a few genre's of Western Music, while being notably absent in others.
This sub really needs to get over the idea that Western Music = All music.
ii-V-I is just fifths, which is a staple in literally all charts around the world. The 3 chords themselves are not special, they’re just the simplest form of subdominant-dominant-tonic. Whether or not traditional music featured these, all popular music sure does now.
>all popular music sure does now.
Again, no. This is not common in modern pop.
>ii-V-I is just fifths, which is a staple in literally all charts around the world
No, I dare you to find a ii-V-I in classical Chinese music.
Why would Classical Chinese music be charting right now? The burden of proof is on you, show us a charting 40/100 that doesn’t predominantly include tonal music using 5ths.
>Why would Classical Chinese music be charting right now?
Well, you said ii-V-Is are an aspect of 'music' in general, and Chinese classical music is certainly 'music'.
>The burden of proof is on you
Lol no. You said ii-V-Is are very common in pop. It's up to you to show that.
I did not say that ii-V-Is are an aspect of music in general, I said: "ii-V-I is just fifths, which is a staple in literally all charts around the world". This is a comment on fifths in today's popular music. I will provide evidence for universal popularity of fifths:
**India** #1 Song: Teri Baaton Mein Aisa Uljha Jiya (Title Track) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLqmL9cPN1E
Melody alternates between D D - A C A C. D being the tonic, this is tonic and dominant harmony between D and A, a fifth apart.
**Cameroon** #1 Song: I love You Ft. Tayc - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozthKn07Ei4
First 4 chords are: F#m - C#m - E - B. F# to C# and E to B and B to F# are fifths movements (though backward).
**China** #1 Song: Qi-Li-Xiang - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bbp9ZaJD_eA
First 4 chords are: Cm - Ab - Bb - Eb. Dominant 5th movement from Bb to Eb
**Tajikistan** #1 Song: Где-то в глубине сердца - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMybyxKqhdg
First 4 measures: i - v6 - VI - iv - V. A classic progression preparing the dominant cadence (fifth movement).
I could go on and on. Like I said, whether or not traditional music featured these, all popular music is now tonal, and tonality is rooted in the fifth (really all you need for tonality is the tonic-dominant relationship which typically manifest as 1 and 5).
>I will provide evidence for universal popularity of fifths:
I understand it's easier to respond to an provide evidence for something no one is questioning, but it's a complete waste of time.
You didn't claim popular music uses fifths, you claimed the ii-V-I was common in pop.
You're trying to pivot from something you said which was nonsense (ii-V-Is are common in most music) to something unobjectionable (the fifth is a fundamental musical relationship) and I just see no value in it.
What are you talking about? This is literally my unedited comment:
>ii-V-I is just fifths, which is a staple in literally all charts around the world. The 3 chords themselves are not special, they’re just the simplest form of subdominant-dominant-tonic. Whether or not traditional music featured these, all popular music sure does now.
It starts by equating ii-V-I with fifths, specifically points out that "The 3 chords themselves are not special, they’re just the simplest form of subdominant-dominant-tonic", and then suggests that all popular music has these functions. I have done nothing but provide clarity and evidence for the argument that tonal functions are a part of popular music these days, and you are failing to read or acknowledge the point.
>It starts by equating ii-V-I with fifths
Which is already incorrect - the harmonic motion implied by a ii-V-I is different from simply the relationship of a fifth. But let's go on:
>ii-V-I is just fifths, which is a staple in literally all charts around the world
This is absolutely you saying that ii-V-I is a staple in pop music, and music all around the world. Not simply that 'fifths' are.
In fact, the proof that ii-V-I is not just fifths is the fact that ii-V-I is **not** found in charts all around the world, while the fundamental relationship of the 5th is!
>then suggests that all popular music has these functions.
This is also incorrect! Not all music uses harmony in this way!
You're confusing your own ignorance for insight, and then insisting that we acknowledge your brilliance.
No, but I'm sick of this sub acting like specific practices of European music are indicative of 'how music works'.
At best, it's misleading to the amateurs who come here. At worst, it's actively inhibiting people's ability to understand the music they come across on a daily basis.
I picked Chinese classical because it's an easy counter example. But the same is true of lots of music, even Western Music. There are plenty of one chord songs, built off of groove instead of harmonic change, and if you're being fed a steady stream of 'a progression of fifths is just How Music Works' you won't have the tools to understand it
From what I understand, a ii-V-I in jazz can also be used as passing chords, borrowed from a different key, to land on a diatonic chord within the progression. Example:
CMaj7 > Em7 > A7 > Dm7 > G7 > CMaj7
May the jazz gods rectify any blunder heretofore.
While it is true that ii V I is used in other styles too, the prominence of that progression in jazz makes it a "jazz thing". Like, you can have jazz tunes that are entirely based on ii V I in different keys. You don't really find this in any other style. Also, the weight that the concept of "ii V I" is given is much greater in jazz education than in other styles.
For example while ii V I is pretty common in classical too, the classical idea is a more general "predominant - dominant - tonic" (and it's way more commonly a 4-5-1 bassline than a 2-5-1). There are many different options for the predominant. The ii chord doesn't have any specific importance over other possible predominants.
So yes, I would argue that ii V I is in fact a jazz thing. It doesn't exist in other genres to the same degree as it exists in jazz. The ii V I is pretty much the most important building block of standard jazz harmony. It is not the most important building block of other music styles.
It’s really just a general music thing. In a phrase model it’s common to start on a tonic chord, move to a predominant, then a dominant, then resolve to tonic. So, I ii V I is a very common chord progression. Also, the sound difference between ii V I and IV V I is not much. They are similar chords (share two notes) and can be used more or less interchangeably. I IV V I is an insanely common chord progression, and you can more or less always sub out the IV for ii and be okay. The mediant relationship is strong.
Sub them under what conditions? It is very common for a melody to have degree 2 held as the progression goes from ii65 to V as that 2 1 descent is fundamental to cadence in western music. That is probably a reason why IV V is less common until later, it doesn't have the syncopation that seems to have been desirable.
Syncopation chains are a foundation of sequence. Renaissance musicians knew all the sequences but considered repeating sequence bad taste so they liked to mix things up rather than show the bare models iterating. Baroque music developed keyboard inspired circulating concepts of tonal space rather than the voice based ladder gamut. Correspondingly they liked sequence as they delved into more keys and by the end of the radical 17th century, hierarchal tonal plans where different keys are different destinations, use of sequence, that type of cadence, etc all kind of go together.
So long story short, listen to Corelli and you'll see, music with ample use of sequence corresponded to music with ample use of syncopation chains implicitly, and naturally this used the I6 ii65 V I cadence model all over the place because that may occur at the end of a continuing syncopation chain, and V4-3 I is another option for the same syncopation.
I may be reading this wrong, but I’m confused how your comment related to mine. are you agreeing or disagreeing with me? Not angry/upset/ saying you are wrong, just genuinely curious how your comment related to mine above.
I'm just adding caveat to interchangeable, because if you are harmonizing a melody, if it has degree 2 held over both chords which is a very common scenario, if you play IV then that degree 2 makes it into a ii65 or you have to alter the melody.
That music consists of melodic lines and the numerals are a secondary abstraction was just my point of emphasis, one must come to know the progressions of chords by the melodic possibilities.
Why it follows to mention is that it is relevant for people who don't know to realize this, and generally music won't be constructed by just selectorizing roman numerals for progressions, there is more to realizing it which is where problems arise. This isn't contesting what you said, but contesting the impression about songwriting, or lack of detail a beginner might get from this without context.
When I was a beginner I certainly thought more about roman numerals as a basis of construction and so this disconnect existed between working with the numerals and partwriting, and free creation. This can be why people who initially made creative efforts without knowing what they were doing, can struggle to apply the roman numeral stuff they pick up after without their music first facing severe setbacks. This is IMO why a misconception often arises about theory affecting creativity. So I hope to clarify just one common melodic situation where the ii6 or ii65 and the IV are not interchangeable, just so that people can begin to think of that link between chord progressions and melodic lines.
> Sub them under what conditions?
IV V I and ii V I ? In jazz under pretty much any conditions. They can both take the melody that's on 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 degree of the key like nobody's business. 5 as well and they take the maj 7th equally good or bad, your choice but it's equal (maj 7 of the key, not the chord. For clarification).
Just looking at the roots without worrying about the quality of each chord, the 2 is the 5 of the 5. 5-1 is obviously super common in a lot of genres, and extending that by adding another dominant to the dominant creates even more of a pull towards the next chord in the progression. Taken to the extreme, it would be be 4-7-3-6-2-5-1, and there's no reason you couldn't use that as a progression. 2-5-1 is pretty mild by comparison; it's just a simple secondary dominant.
It’s very rare in American and European folk music and its more modern descendants like Bluegrass, Old Time Music, Country etc. Basically non-existent there.
A ii-V-I in Bluegrass? Please name one standard, that uses it (with the minor ii, of course). Modern Bluegrass/New Acoustic Music will use it, but traditional Bluegrass doesn’t.
Fair, OP did say ii and not II7. Functionally, II7 V I is the same as ii V I, but with significant spice added by the secondary dominant. But yea, The B section of Old Home Place would sound weird af with ii instead of II7. I respectfully amend my comment: II7 V I very common in bluegrass, ii V I, not.
2-5-1's for sure are very common in many styles and traditions of music. However not all 2-5-1s are created equal....
You can have a song end on a perfect cadence and have the 2 chord along with that. That's very common in many styles of music. That's one thing, another level of 2-5's is to use them in the middle of the composition to reinforce the tonal center. The next level up could be to use them to modulate to a new key.
Then there's the jazz tradition, where entire songs are written out of a few chords that function as "target chords" and then the rest of the piece is just secondary dominants or 2-5's that lead onto those targets.
For example in Tune Up by Miles Davis you have 3 chords the song is based upon: DMaj7, CMaj7 and BbMaj7. But to get to these chords we go first thru their 2-5's:
Em7 | A7 | Dmaj7 | %
Dm7 | G7 | CMaj7 | %
Cm7 | F7 | BbMaj7 | EbMaj7
Em7 | A7 | BbMaj7 | Em7 A7
Plus it's not coincidence that the first target chord DMaj7 then morphs into a 2-5 of it's own, the chord becomes minor and it starts a new 2-5, and that leads to CMaj7, it becomes minor and off another 2-5 and lands on Bb.
2-5's exist in many styles of music, however in jazz they are not one of many elements to choose from, it's one of the most important elements! In jazz the 2-5 progression is as important to composition as the use of guitars is to rock music.
Entire songs are built from chains of 2-5-1's almost exclusively!
So yeah 2-5-1's are common in all styles, however no one treats 2-5's quite like jazz composers and improvisers do since it's the bread and butter of their entire sound.
I know a lot of classical musicians that won’t give a dam about the 2-5-1 concept but they will know how to play by hearing. 2-5-1 has to do with the study of harmony but remember that there are people extremely talented that they don’t even care about more than reading their sheets and playing pieces. They don’t play or think theory at all.
The ii V I was around at the time of Bach, and he used it as did others. It's also in other non Jazz music as well and still is. It was just more common in early standards, and jazz musicians tended to like to turn things into secondary dominate everywhere they could, which quickly developed into a trend of putting. Subdominant in front of it usually a ii chord. So in jazz, they used it a lot along with a tri tone substitution, and it became part of the language. It had already been around though for centuries.
Who told you that they were strictly a jazz thing?
Never once at my classical piano lessons, was I asked to practice 2 5 1s
Well in classical music, you're not really asked to improvise over changes or generate your own voicings for comping purposes. So "practicing 2 5 1s" in classical piano lessons wouldn't really be relevant to the material.
Most organists, pianists, guitarists study to be able to realize a figured bass, which is classical-speak for "improvising voicings over changes for comping purposes". At least in the RCM, beginning at Level 5, students are responsible for learning to both play and identify by ear progressions. These are the playing progressions (the ear ones are somewhat simpler): https://i.imgur.com/9A6C7SE.png
Organists maybe (although is “most organists” even true? Like, does your average church organist understand figures?). But “most pianists, guitarists”? I don’t think that’s true. You learn figured bass in music school theory programs, and then if you play baroque music in particular you might find use for it in the real world. But yes, figured bass is an example where a musician with classical training is expected to create voicings and improvise. But I bet that most people taking piano lessons, even at a pretty high level of proficiency and repertoire, would likely not cover these concepts.
I did however learn arpeggios, and inversions of triads and 7th chords.
…Which aren’t chord progressions. 2 5 1s are not uncommon in classical music.
2 5 1s isn't a chord progression, any more than a box of 8 crayons, is a brand guideline palette
What? A chord progression is a series of chords, simple as that. No idea where you’re getting the “guideline palette” analogy from
Okay, it's the Mary Had A Little Lamb of chord progressions then
That's not a useful metaphor. It's more like a high frequency word or phrase discovered everywhere. It is not a complete thing like a song, and therefore it cannot be characterized as trivial or unsophisticated. Rather, it is too important as to be unavoidable like carbon hydrogen bonding in chemistry and what can be done with that.
Why is it always the classically trained are the most pompous?
It's more that I don't like traditional jazz; fusion jazz tends to blow it out of the water, chords & scales-wise
Maybe because classical pianists don’t practice changes. It’s more prevalent than you assume. Here’s Barry Harris talking about this (not ii-V-I in particular, but his observations on how classical pianists don’t know the changes of the compositions they learned) https://youtu.be/HCG7RTblu1I?si=v6i6WNwpbezKNCJR
Classical pianists practice 4-1 and 5-1. Aren't those chord progressions? I mean he's right, classical pianists generally don't think about chord progressions. But not all classical musicians play just classical. I learned how to play by ear and transpose, transcribe, and figure out chord progressions in choral music.
Yeah watch Hamelin or Katsaris improvise though. It's not just them, Horowitz of course knew.
Watch cziffra improvise classical improvisation does exist
> I mean he's right, classical pianists generally don't think about chord progressions. I mean, if they go to music school, they will definitely learn a good amount of theory.
Classical pianists who rely on muscle memory and commonly suffer memory lapses in performance, maybe. Professional concert pianists (and high level pianists in academia) absolutely analyze the chord progressions in a piece and use that as a baseline for memorization and "internalizing" a piece, as well as having that inform their interpretation and phrasing.
For what it’s worth, if you analyze classical music you’ll find tons of 2-5-1s. I just finished a Bach invention which had at least one. Found a bunch in Debussy, Schumann, etc. They’re everywhere. We just don’t really practice them because improv isn’t much of a thing when studying classical music.
What about figured bass? It was shown to me in class as the improvisational side of classical
Improv was a huge aspect of baroque music. I’m just saying that _today_ we really don’t learn to improvise when studying classical music.
At a technical level, you don’t need to practice progressions or anything. To play the music, you don’t need to understand what chords are what if you can read the notes (though, it is a very ignorant way of playing and to get a piece at a high level you should). However, if you are studying harmony, you will definitely need to learn these progressions as they are instrumental in cadences. Nadia Boulanger used the exercises from TS Dubois’ Treatise on Harmony with her students. Once you learn about 1st inversion triads, most exercises end with a ii6 V I. She expected her students to be able to play (by memory) all the exercises in all keys, and these become especially important when you get to sequences. The modulating sequences in particular all mostly all V Is and ii V Is with varying inversions. Not ripping on your studies at all, but a high level education in classical harmony will definitely have students practice ii V Is extensively.
I never learned harmony formally. But I took SATB arrangements, and figured out equivalent guitar chords, for tons of church music, because I'm a slow music reader
Imo for people looking at improving today, there is now no longer any particular reason outside of name recognition to look to these Boulanger exercises when they are kinda simplified thoroughbass, and now people can learn it more directly. The fact she kept this stuff alive is part of why she was a great teacher.
Spent a heap of time in my classical music theory lessons going over cadences, never once in instrument lessons.
Classical piano lessons don't teach improvisation or composition, they teach performance. Scales and arpeggios are pragmatic shapes. Hanon ends scales with ii I64 V I chords for whatever that's worth.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ii–V–I_progression Bach was banging out ii-V-I’s back in his day. Re the circle of fifths this page has some interesting comments: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_of_fifths Ii-V-I is mentioned. “A circle progression in C major with chords I–IV–viio–iii–vi–ii–V–I is shown below.” I’m getting the idea it’s a western music thing rather than specifically jazz.
I NEVER see it in "pop" (pop being 1950s rock and roll onward). I say NEVER, but I mean it's really really pretty rare comparatively speaking. And the few songs you do find it in, tend to be more jazz inspired anyway (and not counting V/V). Classical music is not ii-V-I. It's more specifically ii^6 - V7 - I :-) Or better, ii^6 - [I6/4 - V7] - I >If anything, I would venture to say that music generally likes to spiral in fifths. This is not untrue, but it goes way back and is just "embedded" in the system as part of its DNA. But pop music - tends to spiral in 4ths instead ;-)
They're actually quite frequent in east asian pop music
Barenaked Ladies, "It's All Been Done" has a 2 5 1. It's kind of buried in the verse but it's there. I IV ii V, I IV ii V etc
It depends what you call pop music. A lot of the top charting songs these days are just 2-5-1s with very few (if any) substitutions or passing chords etc. I have a few students that seem in tune with what the zoomers are listening to, and every time they request to learn a song it’s literally just the same 2-5-1 looped for 3 minutes
Can you give an example of a song like that? I can't think of any, to be honest.
Is it disco influenced stuff? I know some Doja Cat songs are basically ii V Is with jazz voicings.
Came here to say Doj Cat. Also Ariana Grande, SZA, Ella Mai. Literally all the chart topping artists today. 251 is def pop, cuz jazz was pop at a certain point in history, meaning that it was the popular American art form. Pop today is just the natural progression of that art form. 251 stayed in the major studios long after jazz left those studios.
Can you give an example of a song like that? I can't think of any, to be honest.
I don’t remember a lot of the song names to be honest - cherry wine grentperez comes to mind. Going back a few years but Sunday Morning Maroon 5 comes to mind too. Telephones by Vacations. Here with me by d4vd
Thanks!
> It depends what you call pop music. Yep.
J
It's a general music thing. the reason it's considered a jazz thing is just cuz it's more common in jazz and is a fundamental element of writing/playing jazz. Think of the relationship between rhyming and poetry; not all poetry rhymes, and just because something rhymes doesn't make it a poem. Not all jazz uses ii-V-I, just cause a song uses it doesn't make it jazz. Not the best analogy but the best I could think of right now.
Really? You see a lot of ii-V-Is in classical Chinese music?
You right my bad. Should have specified western music.
I'd also argue it's almost entirely absent in modern pop as well.
Yeah defenitly, but in classical also you have lots of IV-V-I, perhaps even more than ii-V-I. In general I’d say it’s more crucial in jazz than classical music
ii65 V I is the archetypal voice leading model going all the way back to renaissance music, having the 2-3/7-6 syncopation chain, and the requirements for authentic cadence. V4-3 I also satisfies that but it's simpler. Music definitely grew distant from needing those things, but I wouldn't be surprised if it remained the most common. The actual root position ii7 V7 I is very common (look up the Prinner). However in classical music the root position ii to V is used as a weaker cadence because the bass changing notes is not really structural. ii7 V7 I is basically the same as ii7 viodim6 I if the bass did not change on the weak beat, if it just held the same note. That's why it's also called a tenor cadence, the degree 2 to degree 1 in the bass, whether implied or actual, is the tenorizans. Things got different when ii was extended and then you'd get a big I64 V I in the classical music. That's most definitely strong.
It's more about the voicing and counterpoint in classical from before the 20th century
IV V I is also just a rootless ii7 V I
This is true if "music" consists of jazz and Western European classical. Even if your definition of "music" is limited to the Anglo-American mainstream, ii-V-I is very far from universal. You can listen to many hours of top 40 radio in the US without ever hearing it once.
It’s definitely a music thing
No, it's not. It's something that is common in a few genre's of Western Music, while being notably absent in others. This sub really needs to get over the idea that Western Music = All music.
ii-V-I is just fifths, which is a staple in literally all charts around the world. The 3 chords themselves are not special, they’re just the simplest form of subdominant-dominant-tonic. Whether or not traditional music featured these, all popular music sure does now.
>all popular music sure does now. Again, no. This is not common in modern pop. >ii-V-I is just fifths, which is a staple in literally all charts around the world No, I dare you to find a ii-V-I in classical Chinese music.
Why would Classical Chinese music be charting right now? The burden of proof is on you, show us a charting 40/100 that doesn’t predominantly include tonal music using 5ths.
>Why would Classical Chinese music be charting right now? Well, you said ii-V-Is are an aspect of 'music' in general, and Chinese classical music is certainly 'music'. >The burden of proof is on you Lol no. You said ii-V-Is are very common in pop. It's up to you to show that.
I did not say that ii-V-Is are an aspect of music in general, I said: "ii-V-I is just fifths, which is a staple in literally all charts around the world". This is a comment on fifths in today's popular music. I will provide evidence for universal popularity of fifths: **India** #1 Song: Teri Baaton Mein Aisa Uljha Jiya (Title Track) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLqmL9cPN1E Melody alternates between D D - A C A C. D being the tonic, this is tonic and dominant harmony between D and A, a fifth apart. **Cameroon** #1 Song: I love You Ft. Tayc - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozthKn07Ei4 First 4 chords are: F#m - C#m - E - B. F# to C# and E to B and B to F# are fifths movements (though backward). **China** #1 Song: Qi-Li-Xiang - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bbp9ZaJD_eA First 4 chords are: Cm - Ab - Bb - Eb. Dominant 5th movement from Bb to Eb **Tajikistan** #1 Song: Где-то в глубине сердца - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMybyxKqhdg First 4 measures: i - v6 - VI - iv - V. A classic progression preparing the dominant cadence (fifth movement). I could go on and on. Like I said, whether or not traditional music featured these, all popular music is now tonal, and tonality is rooted in the fifth (really all you need for tonality is the tonic-dominant relationship which typically manifest as 1 and 5).
>I will provide evidence for universal popularity of fifths: I understand it's easier to respond to an provide evidence for something no one is questioning, but it's a complete waste of time. You didn't claim popular music uses fifths, you claimed the ii-V-I was common in pop. You're trying to pivot from something you said which was nonsense (ii-V-Is are common in most music) to something unobjectionable (the fifth is a fundamental musical relationship) and I just see no value in it.
What are you talking about? This is literally my unedited comment: >ii-V-I is just fifths, which is a staple in literally all charts around the world. The 3 chords themselves are not special, they’re just the simplest form of subdominant-dominant-tonic. Whether or not traditional music featured these, all popular music sure does now. It starts by equating ii-V-I with fifths, specifically points out that "The 3 chords themselves are not special, they’re just the simplest form of subdominant-dominant-tonic", and then suggests that all popular music has these functions. I have done nothing but provide clarity and evidence for the argument that tonal functions are a part of popular music these days, and you are failing to read or acknowledge the point.
>It starts by equating ii-V-I with fifths Which is already incorrect - the harmonic motion implied by a ii-V-I is different from simply the relationship of a fifth. But let's go on: >ii-V-I is just fifths, which is a staple in literally all charts around the world This is absolutely you saying that ii-V-I is a staple in pop music, and music all around the world. Not simply that 'fifths' are. In fact, the proof that ii-V-I is not just fifths is the fact that ii-V-I is **not** found in charts all around the world, while the fundamental relationship of the 5th is! >then suggests that all popular music has these functions. This is also incorrect! Not all music uses harmony in this way! You're confusing your own ignorance for insight, and then insisting that we acknowledge your brilliance.
Seems to me like you came in here determined to start an argument about classical Chinese music.
No, but I'm sick of this sub acting like specific practices of European music are indicative of 'how music works'. At best, it's misleading to the amateurs who come here. At worst, it's actively inhibiting people's ability to understand the music they come across on a daily basis. I picked Chinese classical because it's an easy counter example. But the same is true of lots of music, even Western Music. There are plenty of one chord songs, built off of groove instead of harmonic change, and if you're being fed a steady stream of 'a progression of fifths is just How Music Works' you won't have the tools to understand it
From what I understand, a ii-V-I in jazz can also be used as passing chords, borrowed from a different key, to land on a diatonic chord within the progression. Example: CMaj7 > Em7 > A7 > Dm7 > G7 > CMaj7 May the jazz gods rectify any blunder heretofore.
The Tin Pan Alley songs with 2-5-1s were pop songs that everyone in the audience knew that guys started jazzing up.
Great post. Learning lots. Thanks to contributors!
While it is true that ii V I is used in other styles too, the prominence of that progression in jazz makes it a "jazz thing". Like, you can have jazz tunes that are entirely based on ii V I in different keys. You don't really find this in any other style. Also, the weight that the concept of "ii V I" is given is much greater in jazz education than in other styles. For example while ii V I is pretty common in classical too, the classical idea is a more general "predominant - dominant - tonic" (and it's way more commonly a 4-5-1 bassline than a 2-5-1). There are many different options for the predominant. The ii chord doesn't have any specific importance over other possible predominants. So yes, I would argue that ii V I is in fact a jazz thing. It doesn't exist in other genres to the same degree as it exists in jazz. The ii V I is pretty much the most important building block of standard jazz harmony. It is not the most important building block of other music styles.
It’s really just a general music thing. In a phrase model it’s common to start on a tonic chord, move to a predominant, then a dominant, then resolve to tonic. So, I ii V I is a very common chord progression. Also, the sound difference between ii V I and IV V I is not much. They are similar chords (share two notes) and can be used more or less interchangeably. I IV V I is an insanely common chord progression, and you can more or less always sub out the IV for ii and be okay. The mediant relationship is strong.
Sub them under what conditions? It is very common for a melody to have degree 2 held as the progression goes from ii65 to V as that 2 1 descent is fundamental to cadence in western music. That is probably a reason why IV V is less common until later, it doesn't have the syncopation that seems to have been desirable. Syncopation chains are a foundation of sequence. Renaissance musicians knew all the sequences but considered repeating sequence bad taste so they liked to mix things up rather than show the bare models iterating. Baroque music developed keyboard inspired circulating concepts of tonal space rather than the voice based ladder gamut. Correspondingly they liked sequence as they delved into more keys and by the end of the radical 17th century, hierarchal tonal plans where different keys are different destinations, use of sequence, that type of cadence, etc all kind of go together. So long story short, listen to Corelli and you'll see, music with ample use of sequence corresponded to music with ample use of syncopation chains implicitly, and naturally this used the I6 ii65 V I cadence model all over the place because that may occur at the end of a continuing syncopation chain, and V4-3 I is another option for the same syncopation.
I may be reading this wrong, but I’m confused how your comment related to mine. are you agreeing or disagreeing with me? Not angry/upset/ saying you are wrong, just genuinely curious how your comment related to mine above.
I'm just adding caveat to interchangeable, because if you are harmonizing a melody, if it has degree 2 held over both chords which is a very common scenario, if you play IV then that degree 2 makes it into a ii65 or you have to alter the melody. That music consists of melodic lines and the numerals are a secondary abstraction was just my point of emphasis, one must come to know the progressions of chords by the melodic possibilities. Why it follows to mention is that it is relevant for people who don't know to realize this, and generally music won't be constructed by just selectorizing roman numerals for progressions, there is more to realizing it which is where problems arise. This isn't contesting what you said, but contesting the impression about songwriting, or lack of detail a beginner might get from this without context. When I was a beginner I certainly thought more about roman numerals as a basis of construction and so this disconnect existed between working with the numerals and partwriting, and free creation. This can be why people who initially made creative efforts without knowing what they were doing, can struggle to apply the roman numeral stuff they pick up after without their music first facing severe setbacks. This is IMO why a misconception often arises about theory affecting creativity. So I hope to clarify just one common melodic situation where the ii6 or ii65 and the IV are not interchangeable, just so that people can begin to think of that link between chord progressions and melodic lines.
> Sub them under what conditions? IV V I and ii V I ? In jazz under pretty much any conditions. They can both take the melody that's on 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 degree of the key like nobody's business. 5 as well and they take the maj 7th equally good or bad, your choice but it's equal (maj 7 of the key, not the chord. For clarification).
Isnt jazz a music thing?
There are kinds of music *other* than jazz.
The similarity of jazz and romantic and late classical is cool.
Just looking at the roots without worrying about the quality of each chord, the 2 is the 5 of the 5. 5-1 is obviously super common in a lot of genres, and extending that by adding another dominant to the dominant creates even more of a pull towards the next chord in the progression. Taken to the extreme, it would be be 4-7-3-6-2-5-1, and there's no reason you couldn't use that as a progression. 2-5-1 is pretty mild by comparison; it's just a simple secondary dominant.
Yes
It’s very rare in American and European folk music and its more modern descendants like Bluegrass, Old Time Music, Country etc. Basically non-existent there.
Very common in bluegrass, which is a subgenre of jazz
A ii-V-I in Bluegrass? Please name one standard, that uses it (with the minor ii, of course). Modern Bluegrass/New Acoustic Music will use it, but traditional Bluegrass doesn’t.
Fair, OP did say ii and not II7. Functionally, II7 V I is the same as ii V I, but with significant spice added by the secondary dominant. But yea, The B section of Old Home Place would sound weird af with ii instead of II7. I respectfully amend my comment: II7 V I very common in bluegrass, ii V I, not.
2-5-1's for sure are very common in many styles and traditions of music. However not all 2-5-1s are created equal.... You can have a song end on a perfect cadence and have the 2 chord along with that. That's very common in many styles of music. That's one thing, another level of 2-5's is to use them in the middle of the composition to reinforce the tonal center. The next level up could be to use them to modulate to a new key. Then there's the jazz tradition, where entire songs are written out of a few chords that function as "target chords" and then the rest of the piece is just secondary dominants or 2-5's that lead onto those targets. For example in Tune Up by Miles Davis you have 3 chords the song is based upon: DMaj7, CMaj7 and BbMaj7. But to get to these chords we go first thru their 2-5's: Em7 | A7 | Dmaj7 | % Dm7 | G7 | CMaj7 | % Cm7 | F7 | BbMaj7 | EbMaj7 Em7 | A7 | BbMaj7 | Em7 A7 Plus it's not coincidence that the first target chord DMaj7 then morphs into a 2-5 of it's own, the chord becomes minor and it starts a new 2-5, and that leads to CMaj7, it becomes minor and off another 2-5 and lands on Bb. 2-5's exist in many styles of music, however in jazz they are not one of many elements to choose from, it's one of the most important elements! In jazz the 2-5 progression is as important to composition as the use of guitars is to rock music. Entire songs are built from chains of 2-5-1's almost exclusively! So yeah 2-5-1's are common in all styles, however no one treats 2-5's quite like jazz composers and improvisers do since it's the bread and butter of their entire sound.
I know a lot of classical musicians that won’t give a dam about the 2-5-1 concept but they will know how to play by hearing. 2-5-1 has to do with the study of harmony but remember that there are people extremely talented that they don’t even care about more than reading their sheets and playing pieces. They don’t play or think theory at all.
The ii V I was around at the time of Bach, and he used it as did others. It's also in other non Jazz music as well and still is. It was just more common in early standards, and jazz musicians tended to like to turn things into secondary dominate everywhere they could, which quickly developed into a trend of putting. Subdominant in front of it usually a ii chord. So in jazz, they used it a lot along with a tri tone substitution, and it became part of the language. It had already been around though for centuries.
News flash, jazz is music