Hmmm, wouldnt III/i be Cb Major?Again, I can account for the chords by way of secondary dominants. Its the fact that they are resolving incorrectly that is confusing me. I had considered the idea that they might be resolving to borrowed chords, but that does seem to fit as the roots dont match - III/i would be Cb I believe.Is it possible that the C7 is infact a chromatic mediant, with the F and Bb being secondary dominants?Thanks for the input btw! Appreciate the help SJ
Again, I can account for the chords by way of secondary dominants. Its the fact that they are resolving incorrectly that is confusing me. I had considered the idea that they might be resolving to borrowed chords, but that does seem to fit as the roots dont match - III/i would be Cb I believe.Is it possible that the C7 is infact a chromatic mediant, with the F and Bb being secondary dominants?SJ
Everyone writes what they think sounds good don't they? Music theory tries to explain WHY it sounds good. For the Liszt:The progression IS a chain of secondary dominants. Although it's true that secondary dominants TYPICALLY resolve to their obvious tonics, it is also common that the resolution is actually the next secondary dominant (the root staying the same but the chord being major and likely having the 7th).So I would explain it just as you did:I V7/vi V7/ii V7/V V7 IEven though V7/vi would resolve to vi which is F minor, it actually goes to F major/dominant, so it's a V7/ii, etc. C7 (V7/vi) -------- F minor (vi) F7 (V7/ii)--------- Bb minor (ii) Bb7 (V7/V)---------- Eb (V)The secondary dominants are substituted for the regular resolutions.
Indeed, but I dont see that these chords are being borrowed from the relative minor mode. Both the mediant and submediants are flat in the relative minor.I interpret this as a series of short tonicizations leading upto the authentic cadence. Each secondary dominant appears to be resolving to the next, probably as a way 'pushing' the phrase along. Its an interesting technique, as I didnt know you could do that and retain somekind of tonal bearing.But secondary dom's are not borrowed from the relative minor, I dont think. They are borrowed from the tonicized key, which obviously changes as each chord progresses. For example, V7/ii borrows the dominant (F) from the ii key (Bb minor) in order to reinforce the Bbm tonic (i/ii). This is where I got confused, as I did not know that is was acceptable to resolve a seconardy dom to another secondary dom.SJ
Yeah, I don't like the borrowed idea, but that's just me. If you raise the root of the mediant or submediant, they become dimished chords, not major.
Personally, I prefer the secondary dominant method, as it adequately decribes the passage without over complicating things - in the progression of 5ths, each chord is clearly resolving the previous without need for altering roots.
if a secondart dominant resolves to another secondary dominant and you're not analyzing that the resolutions are borrowed in origin, wouldn't you also have to be modulating on every chord? Meaning... the resolutions of the secondary dominant resolutions are not diatonic to Ab Major.
Yeah, when you think about it, that progression does sound pretty familiar in the romantic rep. Id just never considered it before in all its glory. Kind of like those old jazz guys who play the most insane progressions, yet have no clue why they sound good. Im beginning to think that is probably the best way to do business - concentrate on what sounds good and leave the 'whys' to the theorists!SJ