Harmony

[quaver]

I really need help as soon as possible.  In the key of A flat major I am having trouble identifying the following:  I am going to spell out the notes:  In the bass clef the note is D natural, then in the treble clef the notes are A flat, B flat and F in that order.  I have come up with ii 65 sharpened 3.
My next chord is bass clef note D flat, treble clef G and B flat in that order.  I have come up with vii in second inversion.  This then resolves to the I chord.  I don't think a second inversion of any chord is reliable.  Any other ideas would be helpful.
By the way this is all one measure  in 3/8 time.  Thanks.

[m19834]

It depends a little bit on the actual context, but from what you describe I think the following :

In the key of A flat major (...)  In the bass clef the note is D natural, then in the treble clef the notes are A flat, B flat and F in that order.

When you see what looks like a ii 65 w/a sharpened 3, another way to think of that is what is called a secondary dominant chord, or a V7 of V (V7/V).   

In the key of Ab Major, Bb is the second scale degree, but it's also a fifth up from Eb (Eb is the fifth scale degree of Ab Major).  Sometimes a secondary dominant is used in preparation for the V chord, so you would probably see the next chord as a V chord (Eb chord).

My next chord is bass clef note D flat, treble clef G and B flat in that order.  I have come up with vii in second inversion.  This then resolves to the I chord.  I don't think a second inversion of any chord is reliable.

A vii diminished chord can be used in place of a V7 chord at a cadence, as it shares the scale's same "tendency tones" as a V7 (which are the "spice" of the resolution).  A vii diminished chord may be used in place of a V7 chord, especially if the cadence is meant to sound less final than some kind of authentic cadence.

[quaver]

Thankyou so much Karli.  There it was staring at me in the face and I didn't recognize it!  Now if I may be so bold as to ask one more question on the same Beethoven excerpt.  Still in 3/8 time and the third beat is 4- 32nd notes.  They are in the treble clef and are B flat, down a second to A natural, back up to the same B flat and then an interval of a second up to C.  These are preceded by a dominant chord so the B flat is part of that chord.(E flat)  I have spelled the A natural as an auxiliary note, B flat again is part of the V chord and then the C, I have spelled as a passing note as  the next measure starts with a D flat.  Would you agree with that.  Thanks again.

[m19834]

Well, from what you say, if I am piecing it together correctly in my mind, I would tentatively agree.  However, I would much prefer to know the actual passage if you don't mind.  There are sometimes a few ways to interpret what I think of as "embellishing" tones.  But, when it comes to neighbor tones (I am assuming this means to me what "auxiliary note" means to you) and passing tones, you can generally think of them as embellishing the harmonic tones.  What makes a difference in interpretation is which harmony is actually going with those melodic notes, not just what comes before.

[quaver]

Unfortunately all I know of this excerpt is that it is Beethoven.  It is on a trial exam paper and is only two lines long.  My progression up to the measure in question is V-I-V 4/3-I-I(6)-V(6)-I-V and then comes the four 32nd notes.(which I have assumed would be part of the V chord that precedes it.)  With only the B flat as a melody note it could belong to the V chord (of A flat) or indeed be a ii chord (however there is nothing else to support these 4 notes - only an eighth rest in the bass).  Then after those 4 notes I have IV(6)-I(6/4) V7/V-V-I(6)-vi-vii dim7-I-V.  Hope this is comprehensible.

[m19834]

(however there is nothing else to support these 4 notes - only an eighth rest in the bass). 

Well, that is what I was mainly asking.  I was picturing in my mind that the V chord which comes before it would be a quarter note, or that there was some other chord actually occuring with it.  But since it's a rest (good one, Beethoven !  ), and since the first chord of next measure is a IV chord and the melody note there being Db, then yes, back to your original question regarding these, I would agree even more whole-heartedly now  .

[m19834]

Just some food for thought, if there were a chord underneath of it which could contain, say, both A natural and C within it as part of the harmony (an F Major chord, for example -- Major VI or V/ii)), then the two Bb's could be interpreted as embellishing tones to that harmony (the first one being accented), rather than as part of the harmony, if you see what I mean.

[quaver]

Gotcha! Thanks so much.  That's only one part of the trial exam paper though.  There may be more questions to follow!!  Incidentally I am teaching myself harmony (this will not be an actual exam that I will be taking) but this is my way of learning and keeping track of my progress. I'm thinking the more papers I attempt the easier it will become and I will be more confident with it.

[m19834]

There may be more questions to follow!!

Good 

[quaver]

Still not too clear on this one.

I am back to my original question on the Ab major chord identification.  With the secondary dominant idea, it would actually be a V 65 of V.  Now you suggest it might then resolve to a V (of Eb).  The actual note Eb is not in that second chord, would you assume that the Eb note would not need to be there but would be 'understood'.  Does a V7/V have to be followed by a V chord?

Conversely if I were to go with the ii 65 #3 followed by vii 64 is this an acceptable progression.  The I chord precedes these two chords and also ends with I.

[m19834]

Still not too clear on this one.

Well, apparently that makes two of us  .  As I have said from the beginning, if I could know the actual musical text, that would be pretty helpful.  It's not actually *all* that much to go on by what you are describing, since in my mind, there could be more to it that you aren't seeing or that is not quite being communicated.

I am back to my original question on the Ab major chord identification.  With the secondary dominant idea, it would actually be a V 65 of V.

 

It's fine for the secondary V to be inverted.

Now you suggest it might then resolve to a V (of Eb).

The whole point of raising the third of the chord in the secondary dominant, from Db to D natural, is to provide a leading tone to the root of the chord it is preparing ... in this case, it would be Eb.  

The actual note Eb is not in that second chord, would you assume that the Eb note would not need to be there but would be 'understood'.

 

Well, I don't like to be "assuming" anything here  .  Sometimes a specific chord will harmonically function in an area of the phrase that is not specific to it's individual name.  For example, both the V chord and vii dim chord (can) function in a dominant context, though the diminished chord is not called the "dominant" chord (it's rather a dominant substitute), but the function is that of preparing for tonic. 

In most cases, to name a triad/chord, you need at least the root and, to have the quality of the chord be clear, the third.  If the root is not there but there are other tones, then it is most likely not the chord you think it should be (I'm sure there are exceptions though -- but unless you are doing a test from what would be considered second year theory or beyond, then I don't think this is the exception).

Does a V7/V have to be followed by a V chord?

There are exceptions, where secondary preparation chords do not lead to the chord they prepare, but I am doubting that this is meant as an example of that.

Conversely if I were to go with the ii 65 #3 followed by vii 64 is this an acceptable progression.  The I chord precedes these two chords and also ends with I.

Well, from where my perspective is at the time, I would say no.  However, I am basing my responses to you on a basic phrase model, where most of the time a cadence that ends in a tonic chord is preceded by a dominant area functioning chord (either V or vii).  Perhaps somebody else can be of more assistance to you.

[quaver]

Thankyou K for your response.  All information on anything that is relevant to Harmony is good. It gives me food for thought and I find that beneficial. Sorry I couldnt be more specific re the music excerpt I am working with.  This trial exam paper is going nowhere except on my desk, so I am going to put in two possible answers and leave it at that. Maybe a year from now when I am further into teaching myself harmony, I will look back and not be so befuddled by it. Thanks again for your support.

[m19834]

Well, it may be perfectly clear to somebody else.  Perhaps in not too long from now, what you are asking would be perfectly clear to me in a different way, I don't know.

[quaver]

Cheers

[noodleboi123]

oops.. wrong topic

[m19834]

Conversely if I were to go with the ii 65 #3 followed by vii 64 is this an acceptable progression.  The I chord precedes these two chords and also ends with I.

Okay, I'm back with at least a little more information in my own head anyway.  Now, based on what I am currently learning, I would say that this chord progression IS an acceptable progression.  And, just this morning I read about ii(7) chords with raised 3's (scale degree 4) that do NOT function as secondary dominants.  Basically, the difference is that they are not followed by V and the same voice leading guidelines don't apply (V/V needs to resolve certain ways to V).  Taking the overall progression as you describe it :

I - II65 - vii64 - I

I would classify it like this (again, based on the basic phrase model I outlined somewhere else) :

I (Tonic area) - II65 (PreDominant area) - vii64 (Dominant area) - I (Tonic area)

vii64 to I, forming a leading tone imperfect authentic cadence (IAC).

Though, if that is all happening in a single measure, it wouldn't be considered an actual phrase and the vii-I wouldn't be an official cadence.  If it is all happening in one measure, it would be a kind of "tonic expansion" or sub-phrase within the big phrase.

[keyofc]

Another way of looking at this is:
If you're in Ab -
you have a major II chord with a dominant 7th being the Bb7
then you have a rootless Eb7
and then you wrap it up with Ab
So you really do have the secondary dominant happening -
but because they played it rootless - you have the
g diminished - but the ear will hear it like you played the secondary dominant,

If you look at it backwards - Ab7/Eb7 minus the root/Bb7 you can
see the secondary dominants

Please tell me if this makes sense to you -