# ii-V more common than IV-V in classical music



## Bwv 1080

where did the idea get started that somehow classical music is about IV-V-I and jazz is ii-V-I? (or the minor equivalents)?

ii-V is far more common in Mozart and Bach than IV-V, (ii6 or ii6/5 really, ii in root position is less common). The style, as exemplified in the rule of the octave, tends to use root position chords only on V and I. IV in root position most commonly goes to I6, not V

see this study of chord frequencies:












https://dmitri.mycpanel.princeton.edu/mozart.pdf


----------



## Nate Miller

I think the ii-V progression in jazz is actually more a product of jazz education. In the bebop era, ii-V was often treated as just a V chord. Even on the lead sheets, and I've seen a lot of old fake books, they will just have a dominant chord for the whole measure in tunes where The Real Book will show a ii-V. That's not the only "whack" changes you'll find in The Real Book, either.

I learned to play jazz on the band stand from old bebop men before they were all gone. That is how they taught it to me. The ii-V is really just a suspension that piano players commonly used to get some more action out of the measure of V . If you look at transcribed Parker solos, many times you will find him playing off of the V chord, even over the ii part of the measure. Piano players also substitute pretty freely in jazz, and so when the students at Berkley put together The Real Book in the 1970s, they transcribed that suspension as ii-V and pretty well locked that in for the following generations of young players.

clearly, it can be argued either way, but I'm just saying that the ii-V is more a suspension in the V chord than it is subdominant to dominant

also, the way improvisation is taught, they teach "ii-V" patterns until the cows come home. So it is more a teaching device after the fact.

none of the old bebop men I ever knew thought that way.


----------



## Bwv 1080

Nate Miller said:


> I think the ii-V progression in jazz is actually more a product of jazz education. In the bebop era, ii-V was often treated as just a V chord. Even on the lead sheets, and I've seen a lot of old fake books, they will just have a dominant chord for the whole measure in tunes where The Real Book will show a ii-V. That's not the only "whack" changes you'll find in The Real Book, either.
> 
> I learned to play jazz on the band stand from old bebop men before they were all gone. That is how they taught it to me. The ii-V is really just a suspension that piano players commonly used to get some more action out of the measure of V . If you look at transcribed Parker solos, many times you will find him playing off of the V chord, even over the ii part of the measure. Piano players also substitute pretty freely in jazz, and so when the students at Berkley put together The Real Book in the 1970s, they transcribed that suspension as ii-V and pretty well locked that in for the following generations of young players.
> 
> clearly, it can be argued either way, but I'm just saying that the ii-V is more a suspension in the V chord than it is subdominant to dominant
> 
> also, the way improvisation is taught, they teach "ii-V" patterns until the cows come home. So it is more a teaching device after the fact.
> 
> none of the old bebop men I ever knew thought that way.


Yes, I know from reading some of the 'next level' jazz education like Barry Harris - they talk about playing dominant all the way through. I have no deep knowledge of Parker's solos - but you do see the ii outlined a fair amount, and I suspect the Jazz 101 ii-V-I teaching came from trying to codify what Parker did, which was more studied than his contemporaries who tended to play more by ear.


----------



## bagpipers

Classical could be "anything" V-I
IV V I
VI V I (the sixth likely an aug.6 )
Or IV I too

I remember looking at the prelude for cello suite 1
The whole piece was I V I V I V I V with exception of one A minor dim. VII


----------



## Bwv 1080

bagpipers said:


> Classical could be "anything" V-I
> IV V I
> VI V I (the sixth likely an aug.6 )
> Or IV I too
> 
> I remember looking at the prelude for cello suite 1
> The whole piece was I V I V I V I V with exception of one A minor dim. VII


Bach preludes generally change chords every bar and end with a long dominant pedal - the first cello suite prelude is very similar to the first WTC - the piece starts with a I-ii(6/5)-V-I


----------



## bagpipers

Bwv 1080 said:


> Bach preludes generally change chords every bar and end with a long dominant pedal - the first cello suite prelude is very similar to the first WTC - the piece starts with a I-ii(6/5)-V-I


No it starts with 5 consecutive G major arpeggios


----------



## Bwv 1080

bagpipers said:


> No it starts with 5 consecutive G major arpeggios


How do you figure that? Although my memory is bad, the second bar is G E B C, so a IV 4/3, not a ii 6/5 like in WTC book I. The third bar is G F# B C, which to me is a V7 over a tonic pedal given the resolution of the F#-C tritone to G-B in the following bar.


----------



## bagpipers

Bwv 1080 said:


> How do you figure that? Although my memory is bad, the second bar is G E B C, so a IV 4/3, not a ii 6/5 like in WTC book I. The third bar is G F# B C, which to me is a V7 over a tonic pedal given the resolution of the F#-C tritone to G-B in the following bar.


I think your right I must have though of another piece


----------



## Nate Miller

Bwv 1080 said:


> Yes, I know from reading some of the 'next level' jazz education like Barry Harris - they talk about playing dominant all the way through. I have no deep knowledge of Parker's solos - but you do see the ii outlined a fair amount, and I suspect the Jazz 101 ii-V-I teaching came from trying to codify what Parker did, which was more studied than his contemporaries who tended to play more by ear.


I met Barry Harris in the mid 1980s. You should listen to "The 3 Sounds". That was Barry's trio. Remember, too, that Miles Davis, Diz, Bud Powel, Monk, Al Haig ...all those guys that played with Parker were educated musicians. So Charlie really wasn't more studied than his contemporaries. All of those guys were giants

Jazz education was a way for jazz musicians to make a living after the advent of rock and roll. To get curricula approved, they had to teach something and the fastest way to get ANYBODY to sound like jazz is to teach patterns. In bop there things that are idiomatic, so I can understand teaching patterns, but "licks" players usually aren't very deep, so I guess that's the trade off.

but my point is that the ii-V progression isn't written in stone like you might think from reading jazz education materials. Jazz education came after the fact.


----------

