Talk:Secondary chords

Small suggestion
Dear author, regarding the section beginning Of these chords, V (G major) is said to be the dominant of C major (the dominant of any chord is the one whose root is a fifth higher). - should that not read Of these chords, V (G major) is said to be the dominant of C major (the dominant of any KEY is the one whose root is a fifth higher). ?

I would have edited it myself, but for some reason the page seems to be protected (maybe by my workplace, since all other wikipedia pages I tried were also protected). 212.96.141.5 (talk) 07:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

History of terminology
It should be noted that Walter Piston should not be credited for inventing the theories concerned with secondary dominants. Arnold Schoenberg's Harmonielehre (Theory of Harmony) contains a chapter titled "Secondary Dominants and other Non-diatonic Chords Derived from the Church Modes" in which he clearly presents these chords and their funtions in a manner which is widely acceptable today. Harmonielehre was first published in 1911 which pre-dates Walter Piston's theory by 30 years. It should also be noted that Schoenberg, himself, added a disclaimer to his theory that states he has no responsibility for the invention of the term "Secondary Dominant". Given these facts, it seems that no individual should be given sole propietership of it's invention. Should I edit the history section to include both Piston and Schoenberg, without giving responsibility to either? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Craigmizzle (talk • contribs)


 * By all means rewrite the History section, if you have corrected information! That would be infinitely better than adding a sentence in the body of the article saying: "No, the above is untrue..." --which can appear confusing, not to say quarrelsome, in a reference work such as Wikipedia.


 * As the author of this section, I will say that if, indeed, Schoenberg used the term "secondary dominant" in 1911, it didn't seem to have much influence at the time on other theorists. If you look at theoretical works through the 1920s and 1930s, you see the same sort of confusion--authors are either looking for a good description of the phenomenon, or are reverting to the old "transient modulation" explanation.  After Piston's work appeared in 1939, however, all the confusion seems to have stopped--theorists (with a few old hold-out exceptions, such as McHose) embrace the secondary dominant theory exactly as Piston defined it.


 * Now, did Piston borrow the idea from Schoenberg? Or come up with it on his own?  If you can rewrite this section in such a way as to clear all this up, more power to you.  I'll be watching for it.Dr-t 02:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)Dr-t


 * The section begins "The concept of the secondary dominant was not recognized in writings on music theory prior to 1939." -- thus the subject seems to be historical priority, not of historical influence as you argue above. In Schoenberg's STRUCTURAL FUNCTIONS OF HARMONY his "artficial dominants" fill the same role as secondary dominants (and are labeled as such in the book's index). He may have been building on Riemann's "Zwischendominante" (which are similarly labeled "secondary dominants" in the German Wikipedia "Zwischendominante" article). Which of these usages has historical priority? That would seem to require "original research" to determine, and thus would be outside the scope of a Wikipedian. Paramucho 4 April 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.8.26 (talk) 05:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello Dr-t, First I want to note that I did not post the argument under the history section; apparently someone else had taken the liberty of doing such. The only thing I have contributed to this page is here in the discussion section. I just wanted some feedback before editing anything. I will take a shot at rewriting the history section after a friend returns my copy of Harmonielehre (I want to use his specific terminology in regards to Secondary Dominants and "transient modulations" so there is no mistaking the intent of his theory). I have studied the entire Piston text as well, so I should be able to differentiate. One thing I will say about comparing the two texts is that practically every concept presented by Piston (Secondary Dominants, augmented sixths, Neapolitan sixths, chromatic alterations, and extensions) is clearly present in Schoenberg's book. The main invention of Piston's is the consistent use of Roman numeral analysis, and particularly the nomenclature of the secondary dominants in Roman numerals (i.e. V7 of VI). Anyway, I highly reccomend Shoenberg's book to you. If you are interested in the origin of voice leading and modulations, there seems to be no other text so exhaustive. Historically it is in the league of Rameau's Treatise on Harmony. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Craigmizzle (talk • contribs) 06:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * In 1911 Schoenberg was still in Germany writing in German so I doubt he wrote the exact words quoted. I wonder when they where translated and if it was after the term "secondary dominant" was coined. Hyacinth (talk) 15:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I added the word "widely" to "The concept of the secondary dominant was not recognized in writings on music theory prior to 1939" as this is too much of a blanket statement. This concept was indeed recognized by Schoenberg as pointed out in the above discussion. I will attempt to expand upon Schoenberg's contribution to this topic in the near future, but for now, "widely" is all I have time for. Skipfree (talk) 17:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Roman Numerals
I suggest that roman numerals designating minor chords be shown in lower case roman numerals as is conventional. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.92.170 (talk) 19:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. Use ii, iii, and vi, not II, III, and VI for the minor triads derived from a major scale. Can anyone can redo those illustrations? Another Stickler (talk) 00:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

How do the first three look now? Hyacinth (talk) 15:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Nice. Another Stickler (talk) 15:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The roman numerals for ""Primary" chords's scale degree numbering, natural minor scale" is labelled incorrectly. Should be i iio III iv v VI VII - because there are already 3 flats in the key signature the roman numerals do not need flats beside them. Traditionally you only need to indicate flats or sharps beside roman numerals if the chords are not in the diatonic key indicated in the key signature. (Sigil5 (talk) 12:03, 27 February 2018 (UTC))

V/V in C example (right below circle of fifths)
This example exhibits bad voice-leading. V4/2/V should always resolve to V6--without question--because the seventh of the chord needs to resolve down. We need to fix this example. I suggest either resolving the V4/2/V correctly or changing it to a V6/5/V, which is much more common. — Devin.chaloux (chat) 15:03, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * What's your basis for this claim? Hyacinth (talk) 02:01, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

What about this real world example on the guitar? Hyacinth (talk) 09:32, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The basis of my claim is fundamental voice-leading principles in music. I wouldn't turn to guitar music first, which can break the rules as some figures would thus be unplayable. On the other hand, look at keyboard music. Or any theory textbook since the 18th-century. Sevenths always (with one very very very minor exception) resolve down. Leading tones must resolve up when in an outer voice. These are the basics. While certainly one could find an obscure example here or there, I think it is more important to display what has been perceived as the "correct" voice-leading principles for the past 300 years. — Devin.chaloux (chat) 22:12, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * "Fundamental voice-leading principles in music" doesn't seem much stronger than your original claim. If you think you can find these claims (seventh should resolve down) in any textbook it should be easy for you to cite. See WP:C and WP:V. As you yourself argue (Talk:Cadence_(music)), sevenths don't always resolve down because sometimes these rules you allude to are broken. What's wrong with reality? Hyacinth (talk) 00:39, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

"Guitar music...can break the rules" but we're talking about this figure. I could run for president, but I'm not. Hyacinth (talk) 00:41, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Sevenths resolving down is rarely broken. The only exception I know in "correct" voice-leading is in a progression I-V4/3-I6 which the seventh creates parallel tenths with the bass. At that point, the counterpoint takes precedent. It is easy to cite. Open any standard theory textbook. Steven Laitz's The Complete Musician, Roig-Francoli's Harmony in Context, Marvin/Clendenning's The Musician's Guide to Theory and Analysis, Kostka/Payne's Tonal Harmony are the four major textbooks used today. All of them essentially would back this point. — Devin.chaloux (chat) 03:37, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * If necessary, you may need to cite a specific source, rather than request people consult any/every source themselves. That could be covered, perhaps at seventh (chord), resolution (music), and cadence (music). Hyacinth (talk) 03:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC) Started at seventh (chord). Hyacinth (talk) 04:00, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * That's fine. It can be done. But the point I'm trying to make is that there are many incorrect abstract examples of voice-leading that need to be fixed. I just pointed out one of them in this article. There are others. I will get to it at some point. — Devin.chaloux (chat) 20:14, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * That still leaves reality. Just because a book says you shouldn't do something doesn't mean much in the real world. People eat hydrogenated oil, have sex before marriage, and swear. I don't think we'd want Wikipedia to suggest these things never happen just because a book says they shouldn't. Hyacinth (talk) 00:09, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * These rules are based on observations from composition in the Common Practice Period. These rules are adhered to 99% of the time. These rules exemplify the music of Bach through Mahler...it's the way music works! This has been studied for centuries. I don't want to think that Wikipedia is all of the sudden going to be the source to spread misinformation and side with the exception. — Devin.chaloux (chat) 02:23, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not a guitarist, but a good friend of mine who is also studying music theory is a classical guitarist. I will ask him about the voice-leading in these charts and if it is standard figuration. Regardless, I would put forth a motion to replace these examples with keyboard texture (N.B. not limited to keyboard works, but also string quartets, chorales, etc.) since it dominates the repertoire. This is the pedagogical method used for over 300 years. I think it is how we should defer the discourse on this subject. I don't know your background, but with theoretical topics, I think it would be best to defer to those who have committed to studying it in the field. I've seen some ugly Wikipedia arguments. All I am trying to do is rectify this article to be correct in terms of pedagogy of the field. It's the right thing to do. — Devin.chaloux (chat) 02:30, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It doesn't seem like you care about the right thing to do. I offered an alternate example, and you ignored it. Whether it has correct voice leading or not, you don't care. You may have seen ugly arguments on Wikipedia, I've seen pretty cupcakes at bakeries. Can you stick to this conversation? Unless you think we are having an ugly argument, which we're not. If you think correcting this article is the right thing to do why are you ignoring my efforts to help you? Hyacinth (talk) 22:42, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Because you're suggesting that voice-leading rules are non applicable to any of these articles. Your example is better. I wouldn't have a problem with it being in the article. Being the first example, it's overly complicated. Whereas on its sister article Secondary leading-tone chord, there is a clear four voice example explicating the voice-leading. But you're on record as stating voice-leading is pointless - or at least, it is easily inferred by the tone you have presented. Sorry for not addressing the specific new image directly while I was more concerned over the issue of completely disregarding something that is necessary in such an article as secondary dominant. — Devin.chaloux (chat) 17:46, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * That's ridiculous. If you're going to make assumptions about my contributions to Wikipedia perhaps you should look at some first:, Seventh_(chord), File:Dominant seventh tritone resolution chords.png, Image:Diminished seventh chord resolution.png, File:Thirteenth chord voice leading.png, File:Eleventh chord voice leading.png. Hyacinth (talk) 01:46, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Then sorry to be frank, but why are you then questioning something that in comparison to those contributions is a banal subject? It's a fair question. — Devin.chaloux (chat) 01:54, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

This covers your assertion that four-part harmony was valued for hundreds of years. One may still need to make the case for relevance today and to Wikipedia (rather than composition instruction). Hyacinth (talk) 03:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "During the eighteenth century and well into the romantic period, four-part vocal writing and thorough bass were considered the prime ingredients for the beginning study of musical composition." White, John D. (1976). The Analysis of Music, p.4. ISBN 0-13-033233-X.


 * Relevance today? Simple, it's the standard pedagogical method for learning basic theory in the majority of music programs around the world. As I've been saying, all standard textbooks use this SATB texture to teach voice-leading of chords. — Devin.chaloux (chat) 02:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * If all textbooks use this technique it should be easy to demonstrate that through a few. Hyacinth (talk) 05:14, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


 * What, do you want me to reference them for you? Scan copies of the pages to demonstrate it for you? — Devin.chaloux (chat) 12:11, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

This page should be significantly rewritten
There are several reasons I think a rewrite of this article is necessary. I will cite them as follows:


 * The ordering is a little strange. History typically occurs first on Wikipedia articles and should be moved up. At the very least, it should come after the definition.
 * The definition is a little weak. Yes, secondary dominants can be triads, but are much more pervasive in the literature as seventh chords which really establishes the dominant feel of the chord. This is especially prevalent with V7/IV as V/IV is just I, and if it resolves correctly it is just a I-->IV progression, which is really not that uncommon but doesn't seemingly function that way.
 * For parallelism with its sister topic, Secondary leading-tone chord, it should include examples of voice-leading in keyboard style, clearly showing the resolution. This will help explicate the examples later in the article. Also, there should
 * Sections of the history (i.e. Secondary dominants = modulation in Bach's tme) is questionable at best and unsupported.
 * Deceptive resolutions of secondary dominants should be covered.
 * Sequences featuring secondary dominants (especially the circle of fifths) should be covered.
 * Ideally, each type of secondary dominant should have a little subsection with explanation of common uses and examples.

I have no problem with the jazz discussion. I would like to rewrite this sourcing more theoretically sound books. While the Benward book is used in a lot of schools, there are weaknesses. I think the things they say are correct, but could be explained better with sourcing from other books. In the field, it is widely recognized that the Benward book is on the lower-end of textbooks, so I think it is only appropriate and responsible to include more robust sources.

In general, I think this article is weak.

I am willing to spearhead this rewrite. If need be, I will construct this in my sandbox before applying it. — Devin.chaloux (chat) 03:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree the level can be raised, and this sounds in general like a good plan. I definitely agree about the issue of dubious perspectives that have come in from Benward's book. This note of yours reminded me to take care of something I'd been meaning to address & remove a section from blues scale that, depending solely on Benward, presents something I don't think could be supported by better sources. Wareh (talk) 13:30, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I've made some minor adjustments but much more is needed—the "definition and notation" section is very weak. Laitz's The Complete Musician, if I remember rightly, is a better (more in-depth) source on this topic than Benward/Saker (especially as regards sequential usage), but unfortunately my copy is...I don't really know where at the moment. — Mahlerlover1 ( converse ) 21:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm on Spring Break at the moment, so my Laitz book isn't with me, but I have the Roig-Francoli book which is equally as good. I'll use both for citations at some point. — Devin.chaloux (chat) 17:40, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Chromatic mediants
Chromatic mediants, for example vi is also a secondary dominant of ii (V/ii) and III is V/vi, are distinguished from secondary dominants with context and analysis revealing the distinction? Wblakesx (talk) 23:31, 29 March 2013 (UTC)