Why the Dominant chord is called dominant?

[keypeg]

It is a very simple question.

It was not a question.  When something is "asked" where the person already has their own answer in mind, that is not a question.  A lot of us participate to help each other, or to get help, and time is precious.

I suggest complete revamp of the system. 12 syllables with suitable to sing vowels and 12 distinctive consonants and map them to piano or any tuning on instrument of choice. 

You should start this as a new thread.  I don't think your thread was ever really about the Dominant chord; nor was the previous one about A.  That's why the topics have gone lopsided.

That said, my concern is that you are proposing things to be done in music, when you say you don't play music or work with music.  That's kind of like designing tool sets and carpentry procedures for carpenters without ever having worked with the tools and materials, or created anything with one's hands.  Unless you have worked with music in some way but haven't shared it yet.

[keypeg]

I'm thinking it would be good for the OP to start a new thread on his ideas of a revised theory system / basis since that seems to be the actual topic.  .

[balabolka]

I show what is not in the textbooks.
It does not exist there.
But it should.
It is my own opinion on nomenclature.
I criticise the way it is presented, in fact that it is not presented. The problem that no questions are asked or do not even come to the minds of the students.
Put on top of that the piano and it's problems.

It is a lot. But I like asking questions, to which I also reserve the right to give an answer or offer for debate.

Music is not formulas to follow such as T-S-D resolve to T. This is a style, method.

The ancients did it correctly for the most part. The monks and such from 1000 years ago ruined it all. It got into education. Including the development of organ\piano playing.

Official institutions have their heads in the clouds. As one of them said to me:
"Everything about the piano and Music has been done and well established."

It hasn't.
Or mostly it was in the wrong… direction (pun intended, if you at all understand piano design)

So, here we are.

[keypeg]

Again, balaboika - Start a new thread.   This is no longer about the Dominant chord.  It probably never was.

...  let students, musicians know .....

At this point, you do not know the position that musicians or students who are not beginners hold toward music theory - therefore what they know.  We are talking about "how music works".  The first knowledge of how music works comes from working with the music. For those who read music, that will have as a great component, written music.   For jazz players, for example, they hold a great deal of this knowledge in their heads which they implement real-time.    The FIRST reality of the musician is this practical experience with music.  How they relate to book theory will be coloured by the practical experience.  You do not yet know what that understanding is.  Nor whether they swallow everything in the books verbatim hook, line, and sinker. 

Meanwhile, while you are trying to be unique and innovative, you have latched onto some singular definitions from those books and in a sense you are tied to what is written in those books.  You have not had a conversation with practicing musicians about how they perceive the broader area of going from and back into a tonal center, and rather there is a hangup about how "dominant" is defined in those books - and then you're trying for workarounds, but that are still basing themselves on those definitions.

In the least start a new thread since what you really want to talk about are your new ideas for configuring theory.  Then anyone who wants to talk about the Dominant chord can talk about that chord and the name here.

[balabolka]

You have not had a conversation with practicing musicians about how they perceive about how "dominant" is defined in those books.

In the least start a new thread since what you really want to talk about are your new ideas for configuring theory.

I have tried. For decades. There is only one person who did not mind publish my ideas (just two of many more for now). After almost 30 years (well, not constantly as I have a "normal life" not related to Music).
I do not like the term 'Music theory'. It is misleading. There are music styles and methods\forms, or tricks, if you will.

All topics I have opened across forums led to… a ban. It is not worth it.
I am creating a new paradigm for notation (in essence it is a well forgotten past) and also keyboard instrument. Current musicians won't be able to comprehend unfortunately. It has been around 1000 years now. Many attempts failed. And I am not in even remotely close position to Guido d'Arezzo to go and speak to the Pope about it. And I wouldn't because this is a matter for musicians not authorities. Today academies are the authority but they like it as is: career, reputation, etc.

[keypeg]

I have tried. For decades.

Does that mean you started with how the musicians saw things - the problems that the musicians identified - the solutions that the musicians came up with, and you took the time to understand what they were saying?
Or does it mean that you tried to convince the musicians of your ideas?

All topics I have opened across forums led to… a ban.

I do not see a single thread of yours on this topic, let alone any banned thread.  I am loathe to discuss or explore things that are not about the Dominant chord, in a thread that is supposed to be about the Dominant chord.

[balabolka]

The problems that the musicians identified and you took the time to understand what they were saying?

I was such student. All my friends interested in Music hated it the so called theory\solfage. That is why I did not bother with it. Sat down on some Music history books, read, analyzed, reread again and realized what really happened.
Not trying to convince anyone. I have no connection to the Pope or affiliations to Church.

It is getting too off‑topic indeed. I think it (this thread) is exhausted and should get locked. Like the other one "Why the note A is…".

[keypeg]

I was such student. All my friends interested in Music hated it the so called theory\solfage. 

Something does not compute.  You say that you play no instruments and do no music.  People who study music theory usually also do something with music.  Are you saying that you and your friends studied music theory, but played no music?

That is why I did not bother with it. Sat down on some Music history books, read, analyzed, reread again and realized what really happened.

If you only went through books, that is an incomplete and distorted picture.

It is getting too off‑topic indeed. I think it (this thread) is exhausted and should get locked.

No, your actual intended topic is your alternate theory idea, and your idea of theory being suspect.  The topic you posted, however, is about the Dominant chord.  The thread about that chord, and discussion about it, can and should go ahead.  But the real topic should be a separate thread.

[balabolka]

Are you saying that you and your friends studied music theory, but played no music?
If you only went through books, that is an incomplete and distorted picture.
No, your actual intended topic is your alternate theory idea.

I play but nothing academic or pro. My friends played piano (still do) and clarinet, cello, guitars, drums. Music is my hobby, if you will and passion, so is design and science in general.

I do not imply nor do I impose "theory". No such thing for me exist in Music (sort of inspired by Debussy's view). Unless we say temperaments (tunings) are theory. Mostly terrible nomenclature (naming things) and 'special cases' point of views. That is all.

I think Dominant chord is done. That is my own explanation. It is not in the books, it is not bound to styles or subjective pull\tension\dissonant type of description.
My explanation is as objective as it can be. You can label it a "theory" if you'd like.

I do not need approval from an institution whos methods I criticize or rather strive to explain more objectively. I think they are good in their current views as it got them an education degree, career, etc.
Same – regarding piano design.

Got banned. No explanation. If you'd like to get into the rabbit hole, please, be my guests (see attached image to scan the QR code on your mobile phone or tablet) or click here:
Articles and such

[keypeg]

I think Dominant chord is done.

If we, as a community, decide we want to discuss the concept of "Dominant" - and outside of your paradigm - it is up to us to decide whether the topic is done.  This is a forum, meaning a place where multiple people discuss a topic, and the topic is what's in the title.

I'd be happy to discuss the other topic including your links, but not in a thread entitled "dominant".  Btw, the items in your link look familiar.

[balabolka]

It is up to us to decide whether the topic is done.

I meant this thread is done from my stand point of view.
Of course, we can discuss the "dominant" from so called compositional or counterpoint, or functional point of view but since it involves terms such as tension resolution or modulation (change of root key) it will include so many permutations (alterations) and inversions of related chords, that it will deviate from the actual chord's diatonic construction.
In that regard, if we are in what is called A minor "natural" I would not call that E minor a "dominant". Maybe a tensioning (is it really?) chord or nothing at all.

Well, keypeg, I do not know who you are, as I have not spoken to many people about my ideas, which usually get me banned (here as well), so I assume you might be genuinely familiar (semi‑interested) but the admins are not and might act soon.

[keypeg]

I clearly stated why the Dominant chord is called dominant...

You have stated your own understanding of this within the parameters of what you have studied.

[keypeg]

Yes. And I acknowledged the typical "understanding" of what a Dominant chord is.....

The tone I responded to was one where you seem to assume that the members here have no understanding.  It is as if we are novices, and you are the professor giving guiding questions that will lead us to your knowledge - we have none.  You "tell" us what it is.  What you tell us is based on textbooks.  There is no room for the understanding that WE have, which is likely outside those textbook definitions.  While you reject what is traditionally taught, you then base everything on what is traditionally taught.  All your definitions and solutions are based on textbooks.  Many of us are outside textbooks with much broader views.

[keypeg]

But , please, recommend a great book on "Music Theory\Harmony" from whomever renown author to get better understanding.

The "book" is working with music, working with the better teachers among the many who themselves have experience with music.  It lies outside of any book.  If with such a teacher, you'll be exploring how music works broadly, from within the music itself.  You will be told that the word "dominant" and all the other words are poor attempts at trying to pinpoint these things we're observing in the music we're working with.  You'll get broader concepts, and the textbook definitions are just one attempt.  You will find that if you try to go "nameless" there are new problems.

With such a teacher you may also find that actual musicians were faced with the practical task of making music according to what was wanted in their era, and found practical solutions in the "doing".  Then theoreticians came along and tried to turn those musicians' "doing" into patterns.  In the course of doing so, things got lost and simplified.  Then new musicians came along, again inventing things because the rules boxed them in - found new wonderful things to do with music.  More theoreticians came along, and so on.  You will learn that there are not cut and dry formulas or definitions.  You will be outside any book or definitions.

That's the "book".

[balabolka]

Many of us are outside textbooks with much broader views.

I do not disagree, but none was expressed and is still not. I have explained and said that my understanding is:
• obvious
• simple to grasp
• objective
Implying it has nothing to do with typical explanation, yet it is bound to music elements (I mentioned it as a hint), therefore not bound to subjective feeling of music structure, arrangement, style.

You will learn that there are not cut and dry formulas or definitions.  You will be outside any book or definitions.

Certainly,
I would have preferred to see Mozart composing rather than Salieri or other 'capel maestros' they had. Similarly, Chopin, rather than some academic in his time. Music, I suggested, is not formulas.

But we are humans after all and we deal with terms, words so it is my own attempt at explaining the word Dominant (for a chord, not a note) in musical context. Although it has nothing to do with composition, counterpoint\harmony, arrangement or style.
I prefer a teacher to show me examples to play, or tricks on the instrument of choice. Like folk music traditionally was passed on to generations.

[balabolka]

Similarly, I briefly included, just mentioned, the modern, scientific if you will, connection to the 'overtone series'. Therefore suggesting that this major, the monks constructed (by clueless accident), as we call it the Mixolydian major, should be more entitled to hold the tag "natural" major.
Disappointingly though, just because from those medieval times in church chants they preferred Ionian (parallel Aeolian too for minor), so it came to be the "natural".
I speculate this is another indoctrination mark left till today as is A, B, C… or La, Ti, Do… ♮, ♭, ♯ and so on. (note: Do is actually e substitute "fix" from early 17th century and Ti as substitute for Si in 19th century).
Currently, well since 1983, we still divide the MIDI protocol note ranges according to that note known as C. Why? F#©k do I know. I mean, I know, from my own understanding but it is in my works (linked earlier).

"It just is."

if I may quote the wise among us.

That is how I see it. I do not agree with the "standard" though.

[keypeg]

I do not disagree, but none was expressed and is still not. I have explained and said that my understanding is:
• obvious
• simple to grasp
• objective

They are not good premises, and when a definition is too narrow and simplistic it obscures things.  It also kills all dialogue because people are trapped by the very premises that you are trying to go beyond.  No common understanding can be reached, because we are stuck with your singular definition.  It is the very essence of the weaknesses that you discovered in the first place.

But we are humans after all and we deal with terms, words ...

Here you are actually treading into my specialization.  I am a linguist and my work consists of rendering a message from one language to another.  We deal daily with this tricky idea of "words".  Context and meaning, what a word or a group of words are meant to represent, within the context and the venue, are paramount.

You had an argument earlier about "dominant" being an adjective "butter" being a noun (except when it's  verb ofc).  We'd need to look at "dominant note", "dominant degree", "dominant function" and as soon as you go the "dominant function as the thing that brings us back to a home note, you will also get Cdim7 going to B, or a respelled C7 (as "Caug6") going to to B ... there goes the whole notion of "5".

Your starting premise is too narrow, and the "simplicity" makes it complicated and unwieldy in the same way that the textbooks you deplore do.  A good teacher, like a good musician, do not depend on textbooks.

[balabolka]

We'd need to look at "dominant note", "dominant degree", "dominant function" and as soon as you go the "dominant function as the thing that brings us back to a home note, you will also get Cdim7 going to B, or a respelled C7 (as "Caug6") going to to B ... there goes the whole notion of "5".

Your starting premise is too narrow, and the "simplicity" makes it complicated and unwieldy in the same way that the textbooks you deplore do.  A good teacher, like a good musician, do not depend on textbooks.

Dominant note\degree is nonsense. As is nonsense the term 'semi‑tone' because a tone is also pitch, wholetone can be considered as diatonic interval. But, that's where we are at.
We could argue about Dominant function but would lead to so many possible permutations that even an abstract dissonant chord containing any "5th" note from the root of the tonality or maybe even maj7, because why wouldn't that want to "resolve" to the root (upwards), right?, so all would be put out as "dominant function" I have even read about "temporary dominant". Total misunderstanding and misuse of the term. The Dominant tag is much more simple as I have shown.

Cdim7 going to B, or a respelled C7 (as "Caug6") going to to B.

Those are just moves, modulations. The tag X7 (or Xdim7) assumes the chord might be a Dominant one (but you have to refer to the abstraction of a score to know for sure its inversion and notes included, spanned across registers too).
Xaug6 implies completely different construct but, again, score abstraction is needed to tell for sure.

I say, keep it simple. No need to overthink or bloat with additional stylistic "functions".

I am still waiting for others to give their answers. What do they think 'dominant' means and why. Tension, release only proves the Tonic is actually dominating the movement.
Also my answers gives explanation why that chord "excites" the sound spectrum in the tonality (same or new). It just says – here am I – holding all possible diatonic notes as permutations you'd like, so go there, or there, or there. "Tension" – yes, especially if modulating tonality and\or including "diminished" (terrible name, it s X^3·6) structure (it could very well). Certainly that one gives more "tension" and is like a unstable little brother, hence is not at all possible to Dominate anything, because for to be Dominant means to be governing, to have options, abundance of choice.

[keypeg]

No, I'm out.
We're still stuck on your definitions, what you consider right, your judgment.
I'm gone.

[balabolka]

No, I'm out.
We're still stuck on your definitions, what you consider right, your judgment.
I'm gone.

I am having hard time to understand your involvement in this.
Do you need a permission from me as an OP to start writing your thoughts\answers?
Just write. At the end it is your choice though.

I am sure "serious musicians" not going to chime in, because they know it all.
By the textbook and would see this topic as beginners question.

This is for the beginners, students or hobbyist (such as us). They might be asking (if smart enough to question). In fact for my almost 30 years in and out of this hobby only that guy silph in the other thread was the only one I have encountered on forums online (or youtube) who asked a good and fresh question!
Seems he disappeared though after a few posts. Banned? Lost interest due to the others failing to understand the question?

[keypeg]

This is for the beginners, students or hobbyist (such as us).

That would be especially bad because the presentation is confusing and can confuse.

[balabolka]

That would be especially bad because the presentation is confusing and can confuse.

To that I agree only because it uses the current medieval references from so called "natural" major (Ionian) to mark the following up chords.
You know, the abstract names such as Gmaj7sus2 or B13no3. Terrible but I had to include it as well, so "educated" beginners and on can have a "common ground" view.

This topic has nothing to do with composition, style or arrangement.

[keypeg]

I am not doing harm. I am asking questions.

The problem is that you are not really asking questions.  Not in the sense of any kind of open dialog and sharing of ideas.  You are asking questions in order to bring forth your particular answers and views.  Your definitions are rigid and based on books.  Since there is no consideration of the actual practice of music, the narrowness can indeed harm beginners who do not yet have the perspective of experience.  Also because the wordy presentations are overwhelming and can be confusing.  This could scare a student away, thinking music is too difficult.

Questions which came to my mind the first time I opened a textbook on Music Theory when I was 12~13 (later extended from books on "History of Music").
Indeed, I asked some music teachers but they just told me to not waste their and my time and just learn it as is written, so I can play or take exams later.

In regard to music teachers I've encountered, no, it is not familiar.  It is a poor attitude and I'm sorry that you encountered it and at that young age.  My interaction with teachers regarding theory was with two teachers.

(1) When I first expressed interest in music theory, having spied the RCM theory rudiments in a corner, saying I wanted to study theory.  For me it was just pure fun.  I studied it on my own, wanted to do the two higher exams, and that teacher got together with me on it as I went along.  On one occasion he asked why I had chosen a particular answer in a practice exam question.  When I cited a rule in the book he warned me again following rules.  He played several types of music - each suggested a different answer to the book's question.  He stressed that:
- Music came first
-  Always consider music first in a real way (like playing it) for understanding what's there
- The weak spots and blind alleys in music theory

(2) The second teacher, as I was starting harmony theory as the next step.  He warned me that this type of theory puts music in a box, and could thus put me in a box.  This teacher also looked over my shoulders as I studied these things, and pointed out weak areas in the presentation, and alternative views.

So fortunately, no, your description is not personally familiar.  In institutions like schools or classes where the teacher has to produce average high grades for the class, they would have to teach the textbook and toward exams.  Here you can get that kind of attitude.

Unfortunately I cannot share broader views here (I tried) because you are firmly entrenched in what the books you deplore say, and critique those views when they are contrary to your book definitions (you have).  That is also why your questions are not questions.  They are devices to bring people to your view and interpretation, which ironically, are a reflection of the books.

[balabolka]

The problem is that you are not really asking questions.
Your definitions are rigid and based on books… can indeed harm beginners who do not yet have the perspective of experience.

Unfortunately I cannot share broader views here (I tried).

The whole title of this thread is a very simple question.
Anyone could share their understanding, definition and why call it a "dominant" chord.
It is a free thread\topic and I am not moderating it (I am not a moderator of this forum).
The more views – the better.
My personal answer adheres to very well know elements of music – tones and intervals as chords. Why? Because it is in the title – it concerns a chord, not a single note\tone\sound.

This thread is not about arrangement of chords, stylistic moves or personal flavour of chord progressions\cadences. Any such discussion in the contrary is bound to personal taste\style\form.

You can share your view (answer) at anytime. I shared mine.