Need help analyzing these cadences

[tomp86]

Sorry for making a new topic I was not sure where to post this. I need to know if I have correctly analyzed the 2 cadences on these 2 separate phrases. My analyses are in red. In particular, I need help with the "ii or d7" part.



piece: Mozarts minuet in c major

[lelle]

I'm not good with roman numerals (I'm a complete nerd in another analysis system), but that's not a half cadence. He modulates to G major in bar 4-5 and then consistently uses F sharp instead of F, so we feel the first cadence as if we are in G major, and he uses the V in G major to go to the I, so it's an authentic cadence in G major. If he had stayed in C major and had done something like I -> V, it would have been a half cadence.

Do you see how the first cadence is identical to the second cadence, in terms of how the harmony functions, except it's transposed to G major and not in C major? You have analyzed the second cadence correctly. So where you have written ii to V, it's V to I, just like in the second cadence, but in G major instead of C major.

The difference between an authentic cadence and a half cadence is that in the half cadence we feel that the tonic is missing, like he didn't go all the way home. We land or stop at the V in a way that makes us feel like we have not yet arrived home, that leaves us hanging for the I. In both cadences in this example, we have a IV (first beat of the bar with the V) that goes to a V that goes to an I in a very typical pattern for authentic cadences, so we feel like we come "home" to the key of the I.

EDIT: I would like to add that there is no absolute truth behind my statements, for some thoughts around how to distinguish between a half cadence and a modulation to an authentic cadence in a new key, see this PDF I found: https://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/johnito/music_theory/Form/Form1PhrPer/ModulationTonicization.pdf

[quantum]

Half cadences, as their name implies, sound incomplete. 

What we have here in the top system, is a modulation to the V. One could also consider it a tonicization as the shift in key centre is rather brief in period.  See that F# in bar 5, it suggests a V7/V and a shift in key centre. 

As this piece is in two part harmony, a challenge arises when analyzing the piece in terms of conventional triadic harmony.  One can take the notes at face value and interpret them with sometimes awkward harmonic names (bar 11 for example), or interpret them in terms of implied triadic function. 

The non-chord tone in the RH of the cadences can also be called a Retardation, which is a term describing an upward-resolving suspension. 

I've attached one possible analysis. Always remember that analysis is akin to interpretation in performance, and therefore there could be multiple acceptable responses. 

[lelle]

Half cadences, as their name implies, sound incomplete. 

What we have here in the top system, is a modulation to the V. One could also consider it a tonicization as the shift in key centre is rather brief in period.  See that F# in bar 5, it suggests a V7/V and a shift in key centre. 

As this piece is in two part harmony, a challenge arises when analyzing the piece in terms of conventional triadic harmony.  One can take the notes at face value and interpret them with sometimes awkward harmonic names (bar 11 for example), or interpret them in terms of implied triadic function. 

The non-chord tone in the RH of the cadences can also be called a Retardation, which is a term describing an upward-resolving suspension. 

I've attached one possible analysis. Always remember that analysis is akin to interpretation in performance, and therefore there could be multiple acceptable responses.

This is what I was trying to say, and I fully agree with your analysis.

[quantum]

This is what I was trying to say, and I fully agree with your analysis.

A way of getting to understand all this theory better is looking at how different people approach a given excerpt of music.  So hopefully these different perspectives help the OP.


To the OP, keep in mind one style of theory exam question commonly only asks for analysis at the cadence point.  However, as this example illustrates, analyzing only the cadences may not provide enough information to make a fully informed analysis.  The shifts in key centre occur between the cadences.  Knowing that such key shifts exists in the piece, go a long way to both better understanding the analysis, and providing support for the argument that the piece has arrived at a different key centre once a cadence occurs. 

[tomp86]

I've attached one possible analysis. Always remember that analysis is akin to interpretation in performance, and therefore there could be multiple acceptable responses.

Thanks lelle and quantum. Fantastic answers and has resolved my question and beyond!

I didn't even consider modulation and actually forgot about this topic completely. In this example it is clear to me now he modulates to G using V7/V then modulates it back. However I have a question about how he modulates back. Sorry I'm a noob at music theory 

Illustrated in quantums notations on the 11th measure there are 2 chord names

- V7/IV
- VII53

- VII53  I can clearly see this is a d diminished triad and this would resolve nicely back to c major as it is a leading tone

- V7/IV   to me this reads the 4th chord in G (C) 's  dominant seventh chord which is G7   (not b dim)

quantum if you could can you please explain in words what V7/IV means in English. Somethings wrong in my logic


edit:

[lelle]

Thanks lelle and quantum. Fantastic answers and has resolved my question and beyond!

I didn't even consider modulation and actually forgot about this topic completely. In this example it is clear to me now he modulates to G using V7/V then modulates it back. However I have a question about how he modulates back. Sorry I'm a noob at music theory 

Illustrated in quantums notations on the 11th measure there are 2 chord names

- V7/IV
- VII53

- VII53  I can clearly see this is a d diminished triad and this would resolve nicely back to c major as it is a leading tone

- V7/IV   to me this reads the 4th chord in G (C) 's  dominant seventh chord which is C7   (not b dim)

quantum if you could can you please explain in words what V7/IV means in English. Somethings wrong in my logic

V7/IV means "The V7 if the IV chord was the I (the tonic)".

In quantum's example the IV is C major. The V7 in C major, ie if C major was the I, is G7. In bar 11 you the notes taken together fit with a G7 chord apart from that the G in the chord is not represented in that bar, so it checks out with quantum's V7/IV analysis in the G major key.

You already seem to understand the V7/V. That means the "V7 if the V chord was the tonic", in this case D7, since D7 is the V7 in G major, and G major is the V in this case.

[tomp86]

V7/IV means "The V7 if the IV chord was the I (the tonic)".

In quantum's example the IV is C major. The V7 in C major, ie if C major was the I, is G7. In bar 11 you the notes taken together fit with a G7 chord apart from that the G in the chord is not represented in that bar, so it checks out with quantum's V7/IV analysis in the G major key.

You already seem to understand the V7/V. That means the "V7 if the V chord was the tonic", in this case D7, since D7 is the V7 in G major, and G major is the V in this case.

Thanks lelle. where I typed C7 I was supposed to type G7.  I was just questioning the mismatch between the G7 and the b dim.

On further analysis and help of your explanation i see now G7 and b dim share the same notes however g7 has an additional g.

              G7          bdim
FBD        GBDF      BDF

Thanks 

[lelle]

Thanks lelle. where I typed C7 I was supposed to type G7.  I was just questioning the mismatch between the G7 and the b dim.

On further analysis and help of your explanation i see now G7 and b dim share the same notes however g7 has an additional g.

Thanks 

That's exactly right. In the analysis system I grew up with (functional analysis instead of roman numerals) dim chords are often analyzed as a dominant 7th chord or even b9 chord without the root note. It's a useful thing to be aware of, since composers often use dim chords in exactly this manner.

This is also why dim chords are useful for modulation, since you can pivot on them to go to an unexpected key. B D F Ab can function as a G7 b9 without the root note G, leading back to C major, and it can also, for example, be respelled to Cb D F Ab and function as Bb7 b9 without the root note Bb and suddenly get us to E flat major or even E flat minor and so on and so forth.

[j_tour]

That's exactly right. In the analysis system I grew up with (functional analysis instead of roman numerals) dim chords are often analyzed as a dominant 7th chord or even b9 chord without the root note. It's a useful thing to be aware of, since composers often use dim chords in exactly this manner.

Interesting.  I never quite clocked that there was any difference between functional analysis and RNA.  I suppose I must have been irenic or indifferent in using both tools without distinction.

Initially, before posting, I was going to question quantum's analysis as merely one possible solution.

However, sort of playing through in my mind's ear, I don't think there's any more doubt in my mind that the tune (upper part) is a tonicization of G, rather than a very extended preparation for the authentic cadence.  Which it also kind of is, when returning to the original key of C on the repeat (although not that unusual to start a tune on the IV chord).

It just sounds that way to me.

Also, didn't know the term Retardation....I would have just called it a suspension, but that's a good specific term to know.

Anyway.  Carry on!

[tomp86]

This is also why dim chords are useful for modulation, since you can pivot on them to go to an unexpected key. B D F Ab can function as a G7 b9 without the root note G, leading back to C major, and it can also, for example, be respelled to Cb D F Ab and function as Bb7 b9 without the root note Bb and suddenly get us to E flat major or even E flat minor and so on and so forth.

Wow thats cool

[quantum]

Thanks lelle. where I typed C7 I was supposed to type G7.  I was just questioning the mismatch between the G7 and the b dim.

On further analysis and help of your explanation i see now G7 and b dim share the same notes however g7 has an additional g.

lelle explained it well. 

But back to what I was saying about this piece being written in two parts.  When writing in two parts one does not have full access to triadic harmony, so sometimes the composer may opt to prioritize contrapuntal line rather than filling in all necessary notes of a triad.  When using roman numerals we are typically thinking in triadic harmony to do an analysis.  So the choice becomes: do we take the notes at face value, or do we consider the implied triadic harmony.  Implied harmony is actually an important topic in the study of two-part species counterpoint writing, if one wanted to go deeper into the subject. 

B dim and G7 are very similar chords, the difference being the G7 has an additional G.  B dim resolves to C nicely, but a G7 resolving to C would make a tidy cadence.  So did Mozart intend the B dim to function as a G7, while maintaining a consistent counterpoint pattern?

quantum if you could can you please explain in words what V7/IV means in English. Somethings wrong in my logic

The V7/V in bar 5 and V7/IV in bar 11 are a type of chord refereed to as secondary dominant (also applied dominant, artificial dominant, or borrowed dominant).  They are chords borrowed from another key. 

You can read "/" as "of"

You can think of it as chord x as in relation to chord y. 

V7/V (bar 5).  We would reason, the current key is C major.  The V of C major is G.  Going forward, the V7 in terms of G would be D7. 

V7/IV (bar 11). We would reason, the current key is G major.   The IV of G major is C.  The V7 in terms of C is G7. 


V/V is one of the most frequently encountered secondary dominants.  However, they can really occur on any note of the scale.  One of the most direct ways to move to a new key centre is to use a secondary dominant.  It also works very well for moving to remote keys.  Try this at the keyboard, pick a starting key and pick some random new key.  Now insert the secondary dominant before the I chord of the new random key.  Observe how it sounds and aids in the transition between keys. 

[ranjit]

That's exactly right. In the analysis system I grew up with (functional analysis instead of roman numerals) dim chords are often analyzed as a dominant 7th chord or even b9 chord without the root note. It's a useful thing to be aware of, since composers often use dim chords in exactly this manner.

This is also why dim chords are useful for modulation, since you can pivot on them to go to an unexpected key. B D F Ab can function as a G7 b9 without the root note G, leading back to C major, and it can also, for example, be respelled to Cb D F Ab and function as Bb7 b9 without the root note Bb and suddenly get us to E flat major or even E flat minor and so on and so forth.

Ah, the quick and dirty trick I use all the time. You can use a chromatically ascending group of diminished chords to get from any key to any other key.

[tomp86]

Thanks for your explanation of the quantum. It was very well written. lelle cleared up pretty much all of it but was good to read over it again to solidify these facts

V/V is one of the most frequently encountered secondary dominants.  However, they can really occur on any note of the scale.  One of the most direct ways to move to a new key centre is to use a secondary dominant.  It also works very well for moving to remote keys.  Try this at the keyboard, pick a starting key and pick some random new key.  Now insert the secondary dominant before the I chord of the new random key.  Observe how it sounds and aids in the transition between keys.

To transition from 1 key to another key using v7/v to I or vii diminished to I it would require the v7/v or vii diminished chord to be apart of the initial key's diatonic chords. Correct?

Ah, the quick and dirty trick I use all the time. You can use a chromatically ascending group of diminished chords to get from any key to any other key.

Can you do a quick example by an chance of C to E or some hard to get to key?
Do you mean you keep playing the vii (diminished) chords in a chronmatic order from initial key to the new key?   

[quantum]

To transition from 1 key to another key using v7/v to I or vii diminished to I it would require the v7/v or vii diminished chord to be apart of the initial key's diatonic chords. Correct?

Secondary dominants can be applied to any diatonic Major or Minor triad in a scale, not including the I chord (because that would be the primary dominant). 

Some special cases such as V/IV in major key, as this triad does not include an accidental (it is actually the same as the I chord).  It may be preferable in this case to have a V7/IV. 

[tomp86]

Secondary dominants can be applied to any diatonic Major or Minor triad in a scale, not including the I chord (because that would be the primary dominant). 

Some special cases such as V/IV in major key, as this triad does not include an accidental (it is actually the same as the I chord).  It may be preferable in this case to have a V7/IV.

Thanks for this quantum 

So my understanding is you can use this type of formula to modulate to different keys (using an example of the C major key as the initial key)

V/I       I chord is C Major, G major is dominant  - Cannot modulate to C Major cause we are already in C Major Scale
V/ii      ii chord is D minor, A minor is dominant   - Can modulate to D Minor using A minor chord => D minor chord
V/iii     iii chord is E minor, B diminished is dominant - Can modulate to E minor using B dim chord => E minor chord
V7/IV     IV chord is F Major, C major is dominant - Can modulate to F major using C major 7 chord => F major chord
V/V       V chord is G Major, D minor is dominant - Can modulate to G Major using D minor chord => G Major chord
V/vi      vi chord is A minor, E minor is dominant - Can modulate to A minor using E minor chord => A minor chord
V/vii d   vii d chord is B dim, F major is dominant - Can modulate to B ?? using F major chord => B dim chord

Is this correct and what type of scale does b diminished modulate to?  Also, doesnt this mean you can only modulate to the keys that are assigned to the chords ii to vii? (e.g. c major scale, d minor scale, e minor scale, f major scale, g major scale, a minor scale and b ? scale)

[lelle]

Thanks for this quantum 

So my understanding is you can use this type of formula to modulate to different keys (using an example of the C major key as the initial key)

V/I       I chord is C Major, G major is dominant  - Cannot modulate to C Major cause we are already in C Major Scale
V/ii      ii chord is D minor, A minor is dominant   - Can modulate to D Minor using A minor chord => D minor chord
V/iii     iii chord is E minor, B diminished is dominant - Can modulate to E minor using B dim chord => E minor chord
V7/IV     IV chord is F Major, C major is dominant - Can modulate to F major using C major 7 chord => F major chord
V/V       V chord is G Major, D minor is dominant - Can modulate to G Major using D minor chord => G Major chord
V/vi      vi chord is A minor, E minor is dominant - Can modulate to A minor using E minor chord => A minor chord
V/vii d   vii d chord is B dim, F major is dominant - Can modulate to B ?? using F major chord => B dim chord

The dominant is always a major chord. This is why the harmonic minor scale has the 7th step raised. In the harmonic a minor scale, G is sharpened to G sharp because you always use E major, which needs a G sharp, as the dominant.

So make all your secondary dominants into major chords and you've gotten it right. (You modulate to D minor using the A MAJOR chord, so C major => A major 7 => D minor, where A major is the secondary dominant. You can verify by checking the scale of the key you are modulating to, the harmonic d minor scale has C raised to C sharp which is needed for the A major dominant).

Capital roman numerals means the chord is a major chord. Lower case means a minor chord, which is why the ii in C major is spelled ii and not II. So capital V always means the dominant as a major chord.

Is this correct and what type of scale does b diminished modulate to?  Also, doesnt this

It depends on how you spell it. If it's spelled B D F Ab it is usually used as a dominant in C major, ie G major b9 without the root note G.

[quantum]

V/I       I chord is C Major, G major is dominant  - Cannot modulate to C Major cause we are already in C Major Scale
V/ii      ii chord is D minor, A minor is dominant   - Can modulate to D Minor using A minor chord => D minor chord
V/iii     iii chord is E minor, B diminished is dominant - Can modulate to E minor using B dim chord => E minor chord
V7/IV     IV chord is F Major, C major is dominant - Can modulate to F major using C major 7 chord => F major chord
V/V       V chord is G Major, D minor is dominant - Can modulate to G Major using D minor chord => G Major chord
V/vi      vi chord is A minor, E minor is dominant - Can modulate to A minor using E minor chord => A minor chord
V/vii d   vii d chord is B dim, F major is dominant - Can modulate to B ?? using F major chord => B dim chord

Secondary dominants are based on the V - I movement.  This movement has a very strong gravitational pull in establishing key centres within western diatonic tonality.  Basically, when we hear a V - I we can easily relate it (and surrounding material) to the key belonging to the I chord.

When using a secondary dominant we can tonicize or modulate to a different key centre because of that gravitational pull of the V - I that is leading our ear to a new key. 

As lelle pointed out above, the V chord takes the form of either a Major Triad or a Major-minor 7th. 

Also, doesnt this mean you can only modulate to the keys that are assigned to the chords ii to vii? (e.g. c major scale, d minor scale, e minor scale, f major scale, g major scale, a minor scale and b ? scale)

You can modulate to any key you want.  The secondary dominant is only one technique that can be used to get there.  You can even break the secondary dominant guidelines and use it in an unconventional way.  However, doing such will not sound "normal."  Think of these theory rules more as recipes.  If you wanted to bake Banana Bread, there are certain ingredients that need to go in for someone else to identify it as Banana Bread.  Modify those ingredients enough, and that thing may not be recognizable as Banana Bread any more, but it will become something else. 

[tomp86]

The dominant is always a major chord. This is why the harmonic minor scale has the 7th step raised. In the harmonic a minor scale, G is sharpened to G sharp because you always use E major, which needs a G sharp, as the dominant.

So make all your secondary dominants into major chords and you've gotten it right. (You modulate to D minor using the A MAJOR chord, so C major => A major 7 => D minor, where A major is the secondary dominant. You can verify by checking the scale of the key you are modulating to, the harmonic d minor scale has C raised to C sharp which is needed for the A major dominant).

Capital roman numerals means the chord is a major chord. Lower case means a minor chord, which is why the ii in C major is spelled ii and not II. So capital V always means the dominant as a major chord.

It depends on how you spell it. If it's spelled B D F Ab it is usually used as a dominant in C major, ie G major b9 without the root note G.

Thanks this was very helpful!     I mistyped my question about the b diminished. I'm sorry. I meant to ask what type of scale (major or minor) does V/vii in C major modulate to? (I only asked cause the chord is a 'diminished') I believe the answer would have to be minor (B minor)   So e.g.  F Major chord => B dim chord => Now we are in new key B Minor?

Secondary dominants are based on the V - I movement.  This movement has a very strong gravitational pull in establishing key centres within western diatonic tonality.  Basically, when we hear a V - I we can easily relate it (and surrounding material) to the key belonging to the I chord.

When using a secondary dominant we can tonicize or modulate to a different key centre because of that gravitational pull of the V - I that is leading our ear to a new key. 

As lelle pointed out above, the V chord takes the form of either a Major Triad or a Major-minor 7th. 

You can modulate to any key you want.  The secondary dominant is only one technique that can be used to get there.  You can even break the secondary dominant guidelines and use it in an unconventional way.  However, doing such will not sound "normal."  Think of these theory rules more as recipes.  If you wanted to bake Banana Bread, there are certain ingredients that need to go in for someone else to identify it as Banana Bread.  Modify those ingredients enough, and that thing may not be recognizable as Banana Bread any more, but it will become something else.

Thanks quantum. I get this concept now! 

[lelle]

Thanks this was very helpful!     I mistyped my question about the b diminished. I'm sorry. I meant to ask what type of scale (major or minor) does V/vii in C major modulate to? (I only asked cause the chord is a 'diminished') I believe the answer would have to be minor (B minor)   So e.g.  F Major chord => B dim chord => Now we are in new key B Minor?
Thanks quantum. I get this concept now! 

Notice how the vii has a 0 added to it to indicate it's a diminished chord.

EDIT Ooops I see the image looks terrible on black background, here's a direct link: https://upload.wikimedia.org/score/h/m/hmdonu4sinv7g8zk50eali27e0pmr04/hmdonu4s.png

Because of this I believe it doesn't really have a V, but my roman numeral analysis knowledge is a bit iffy so I'd love if someone could confirm/correct me on this.

At any rate F major => B dim kind of implies you are going back to C major, since B dim tends to function as the dominant without the root note, G, in C major, and F major => G major => C major is your basic Subdominant => Dominant => Tonic authentic cadence.

But you could also use it to modulate, for example F major => B dim => E major => a minor.

[tomp86]

Notice how the vii has a 0 added to it to indicate it's a diminished chord.

EDIT Ooops I see the image looks terrible on black background, here's a direct link: https://upload.wikimedia.org/score/h/m/hmdonu4sinv7g8zk50eali27e0pmr04/hmdonu4s.png

Because of this I believe it doesn't really have a V, but my roman numeral analysis knowledge is a bit iffy so I'd love if someone could confirm/correct me on this.

At any rate F major => B dim kind of implies you are going back to C major, since B dim tends to function as the dominant without the root note, G, in C major, and F major => G major => C major is your basic Subdominant => Dominant => Tonic authentic cadence.

But you could also use it to modulate, for example F major => B dim => E major => a minor.

Cool. Thanks for clearing this up. So my understanding now is vii dim does not have a dominant. Would it be safe to also say

• ii (dim) chord on the natural minor
• ii (dim) and vii (dim) chord on harmonic minor
• vi (dim) and vii (dim) chord on melodic minor

also have no dominant V chord associated with as they are all diminished?

Your roman numeral analysis is correct! The circle is diminished and a circle with a line through the center is a "half diminished".

F major => B dim => E major => a minor

Cool. I understand this as B diminished is just being used as a bridge here to get to E major. Then E major can use its V chord to get to A minor

[j_tour]

Cool. Thanks for clearing this up. So my understanding now is vii dim does not have a dominant. Would it be safe to also say

• ii (dim) chord on the natural minor
• ii (dim) and vii (dim) chord on harmonic minor
• vi (dim) and vii (dim) chord on melodic minor

also have no dominant V chord associated with as they are all diminished

Not really.  The fully diminished chord doesn't have a dominant, since it is, in effect, the V7 with the added tension of the b9.  Obviously, you can create a little cycle and prepare it from a fifth above, but it's not a "key" in itself.

You can't resolve to an unresolved "chord":  for the simple reason that it's not a tonality.  Its only reason for existing is because of the tensions inherent in it.

And one cannot resolve to a diminished or a half-diminished chord:  for the reason that it's not a tonality.

That's why there are problems in pop or rock music, or blues, where a minor 7 is sometimes added to make a given chord sound "crunchy."

But, like including the maj7 in a voicing, it's possible ones ears can adjust, as is the case with establishing a "key" with extensions to the 13 and the m7.

But it's not really a tonality: you have the tritone in the chord, and it must be resolved.

I did get quite a bit out of the following video, from here:  I can't verify, but it's pretty good information about preparing for the dominant. 

And, as you know, that very often is going to be a disguised IV chord, in the shape of a half-diminished ii, and, as one sees, it's possible to omit the V7 entirely.

That's one of the reasons that the later opera of Scriabin appears so odd and, at least for me, is tricky to sight read:  if you have a chord spelled like, C, F#, and Bb, which is meaningless, it's not any kind of "key" or tonality.  So, you have these odd spellings as in Scriabin, with no key signature at all and these odd accidentals added in an ad hoc fashion.

There may be a greater design to it, as in Scriabin, perhaps, but it's not evident when reading off the page.

/* edit, I don't actually know why Dr. Monahan analyzes what seem to me voice leading "tricks" and disguises for the plagal IV - I or IVm - I, but SM makes a good case for what one hears in music all the time, and his notation including melody and bass is convenient. 

I don't often watch youtube videos, but for me it's an exception:  good stuff. */

[lelle]

Cool. Thanks for clearing this up. So my understanding now is vii dim does not have a dominant. Would it be safe to also say

• ii (dim) chord on the natural minor
• ii (dim) and vii (dim) chord on harmonic minor
• vi (dim) and vii (dim) chord on melodic minor

also have no dominant V chord associated with as they are all diminished?

That's the part in roman numeral analysis I wasn't sure about! I wasn't sure if you could write a V/ before viio or other diminished chords. But thankfully j_tour cleared it up!

The reason I was unsure is because in functional analysis - the system I grew up with - dim chords often function as a dominant. We can easily end up in situation where the dim chord is a dominant, and then we use a secondary dominant right before the dominant, ie it will be a dominant to the dominant. For example in the progression E major 7 => Edim (spelled E G Bb C#, so in reality an inverted C# dim) => D major, we would analyze the E major 7 as a secondary dominant to the E dim, which is viewed as an A major 7 with a b9 missing its root note A, which is the dominant to the D major chord.

[/quote]
 Cool. I understand this as B diminished is just being used as a bridge here to get to E major. Then E major can use its V chord to get to A minor

Exactly. In functional analysis this B dim could in this case be viewed as the iv in a minor with the fifth removed and the sixth added: D F B. Then we get a neat iv => V => i cadence.

[tomp86]

Not really.  The fully diminished chord doesn't have a dominant, since it is, in effect, the V7 with the added tension of the b9.  Obviously, you can create a little cycle and prepare it from a fifth above, but it's not a "key" in itself.

You can't resolve to an unresolved "chord":  for the simple reason that it's not a tonality.  Its only reason for existing is because of the tensions inherent in it.

And one cannot resolve to a diminished or a half-diminished chord:  for the reason that it's not a tonality.

That's why there are problems in pop or rock music, or blues, where a minor 7 is sometimes added to make a given chord sound "crunchy."

But, like including the maj7 in a voicing, it's possible ones ears can adjust, as is the case with establishing a "key" with extensions to the 13 and the m7.

But it's not really a tonality: you have the tritone in the chord, and it must be resolved.

I did get quite a bit out of the following video, from here:  I can't verify, but it's pretty good information about preparing for the dominant. 

And, as you know, that very often is going to be a disguised IV chord, in the shape of a half-diminished ii, and, as one sees, it's possible to omit the V7 entirely.

That's one of the reasons that the later opera of Scriabin appears so odd and, at least for me, is tricky to sight read:  if you have a chord spelled like, C, F#, and Bb, which is meaningless, it's not any kind of "key" or tonality.  So, you have these odd spellings as in Scriabin, with no key signature at all and these odd accidentals added in an ad hoc fashion.

There may be a greater design to it, as in Scriabin, perhaps, but it's not evident when reading off the page.

/* edit, I don't actually know why Dr. Monahan analyzes what seem to me voice leading "tricks" and disguises for the plagal IV - I or IVm - I, but SM makes a good case for what one hears in music all the time, and his notation including melody and bass is convenient. 

I don't often watch youtube videos, but for me it's an exception:  good stuff. */

Thanks j_tour.  You have cleared up many things for me. There are still some things I did testing and I'm watching the video seminars you recommended to see if it can build up some more basics for me. Thanks very much! 

That's the part in roman numeral analysis I wasn't sure about! I wasn't sure if you could write a V/ before viio or other diminished chords. But thankfully j_tour cleared it up!

The reason I was unsure is because in functional analysis - the system I grew up with - dim chords often function as a dominant. We can easily end up in situation where the dim chord is a dominant, and then we use a secondary dominant right before the dominant, ie it will be a dominant to the dominant. For example in the progression E major 7 => Edim (spelled E G Bb C#, so in reality an inverted C# dim) => D major, we would analyze the E major 7 as a secondary dominant to the E dim, which is viewed as an A major 7 with a b9 missing its root note A, which is the dominant to the D major chord.

Hi lelle. I get the E dim (inverted c#dim) => D major part and just trying to figure out how E major can be used to mimic A maj7 for the sub dominant tones.

A maj7    A   C♯   E   G♯
E maj7      E   G♯   B   D♯

Am i correct in saying you would need to leave out the B and D# voicings?

[j_tour]

Thanks j_tour.  You have cleared up many things for me. There are still some things I did testing and I'm watching the video seminars you recommended to see if it can build up some more basics for me. Thanks very much! 

Anytime.  I don't think I expressed myself very clearly, though.  I wouldn't want you to come away with the idea that you can't "prepare," say, diminished or half-diminished chord, especially if you envision a fully diminished chord as a "disguised" V7 with the added tension of the b9 (which is very tempting, many times) .  Using a secondary dominant, say, or by some other means.

It's just that it's such an unstable chord that you likely won't be staying on the chord for long at all.

I'm sure there's counter-examples out there, but just as a general rule, you know.  At a very basic level.

[lelle]

Thanks j_tour.  You have cleared up many things for me. There are still some things I did testing and I'm watching the video seminars you recommended to see if it can build up some more basics for me. Thanks very much! 
Hi lelle. I get the E dim (inverted c#dim) => D major part and just trying to figure out how E major can be used to mimic A maj7 for the sub dominant tones.

A maj7    A   C♯   E   G♯
E maj7      E   G♯   B   D♯

Am i correct in saying you would need to leave out the B and D# voicings?

Sorry, I was maybe unclear. I did not mean Emaj7 but just a normal E7. I was trying to describe the following progression:



The bass clef shows the implied root note of the chords. If you remove the root note from the A7b9 chord you get the Edim (inverted C# dim) that functions as the dominant to D major that I was talking about.

If you interpret the dim chord as an A major chord without the root note, can you see how the E7 serves as the dominant to the dim chord in this case? (E7 is the dominant to A)

[keypeg]

I'm late to the question, and did not read all the way down.   I stopped a bit after Lelle's first responding post.

I sight-sang the music.  It does not modulate to G major.  At the end it very clearly settles into C, and has the feeling of "coming home" to the original Tonic (C).  The F#'s are part of a D7 chord: D7 strongly moves to G, which is the V of C major, and a phrase ending on V creates that "foot in the air - question preceding the answer" kind of feel.  The "classical" thing we learn is a call-answer thing of about 8 measures of 4 + 4  - going to the question (I-V, etc.), then going home (V-I etc.)  If it's totally the end of the music, that ending is usually very final, with the melody note landing firmly on the Tonic saying "the end, we've arrived".  Other times it might be on the 3rd degree, for example, so as to say "there's more coming" or "the arrival isn't quite that final in its feel".  The final arrival thing is your "authentic cadence".  Since different traditions, different countries, different systems, may use slightly different terminology, names like "authentic cadence" aren't set in stone either.

The important thing in analysis is that it becomes useful for you in understanding the music you play, or if you want to write music and need some idea of structure to help you.

[keypeg]

Your non-harmonic are sort of lingering from the previous chord: the F# is lingering over from the D7 chord, suspended as it were.  It's like the the music is gradually melting into the cadence, rather than an abrupt plonk.

[tomp86]

Sorry, I was maybe unclear. I did not mean Emaj7 but just a normal E7. I was trying to describe the following progression:



The bass clef shows the implied root note of the chords. If you remove the root note from the A7b9 chord you get the Edim (inverted C# dim) that functions as the dominant to D major that I was talking about.

If you interpret the dim chord as an A major chord without the root note, can you see how the E7 serves as the dominant to the dim chord in this case? (E7 is the dominant to A)

Yes I see what you mean lelle as E7 is dominant of A ​major.  I think I am not ready for some of this theory just yet. I'll take it in at a slower pace

The "classical" thing we learn is a call-answer thing of about 8 measures of 4 + 4  - going to the question (I-V, etc.), then going home (V-I etc.)

Hi Keypeg.  This is exactly how I analyzed the piece both lelle and quantum have pointed out the extended use of the F sharp indicated there was a modulation to the G major scale. There is also evidence of a V7/V = I then later V7/IV => I pattern (returning back to C on bar 11). If you could have a look at quantumn's detailed analysis he uploaded in the third post 

[lelle]

Yes I see what you mean lelle as E7 is dominant of A ​major.  I think I am not ready for some of this theory just yet. I'll take it in at a slower pace

Sorry I'm such a geek on this topic and get excited sometimes 

[keypeg]

Hi Keypeg.  This is exactly how I analyzed the piece both lelle and quantum have pointed out the extended use of the F sharp indicated there was a modulation to the G major scale. There is also evidence of a V7/V = I then later V7/IV => I pattern (returning back to C on bar 11). If you could have a look at quantumn's detailed analysis he uploaded in the third post

It is not a modulation.  I did read both analyses.  Modulations bring music into a new key (not scale) and you have to feel you are in a new key.  That does not happen in a single measure.  The new key has to be established.  It stays firmly in the key of C, but you have a secondary dominant chord, D7 going to G. D7 has an F# in it.

[keypeg]

I'm not good with roman numerals (I'm a complete nerd in another analysis system), but that's not a half cadence. He modulates to G major in bar 4-5 and then consistently uses F sharp instead of F, so we feel the first cadence as if we are in G major, and he uses the V in G major to go to the I, so it's an authentic cadence in G major. If he had stayed in C major and had done something like I -> V, it would have been a half cadence.

It is, in fact, a half cadence.  It does not "modulate" to G major - that is not enough bars to create a modulation.  Part of the problem is the different systems taught in different places and countries.   In basic early traditional theory, you get a cadence going to V, which is the "call" or "question" part, and then a completing cadence going to I, or the "answer" part.  That first phrase goes to V = half cadence.  Instead of I-ii-V, you have I-II-V, or I-V/V-V if you will.  That's a very typical half cadence.

[tomp86]

Anytime.  I don't think I expressed myself very clearly, though.  I wouldn't want you to come away with the idea that you can't "prepare," say, diminished or half-diminished chord, especially if you envision a fully diminished chord as a "disguised" V7 with the added tension of the b9 (which is very tempting, many times) .  Using a secondary dominant, say, or by some other means.

It's just that it's such an unstable chord that you likely won't be staying on the chord for long at all.

I'm sure there's counter-examples out there, but just as a general rule, you know.  At a very basic level.

Yes I understand Its not a chord you stay on too long as its not stable ground. Thanks!

Sorry I'm such a geek on this topic and get excited sometimes 

That's cool. Thank you for all the advice though!

It is not a modulation.  I did read both analyses.  Modulations bring music into a new key (not scale) and you have to feel you are in a new key.  That does not happen in a single measure.  The new key has to be established.  It stays firmly in the key of C, but you have a secondary dominant chord, D7 going to G. D7 has an F# in it.

If this is the case keypeg my original analysis is correct. My skill level on music theory is way below all you guys so i really have no idea