# Would You Consider ii7-I To Be a Cadence?



## kamalayka

I always have!

Play a ii7 chord with the seventh in the bass, and then a I chord in root position.

It sould pretty cadential to me.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Well...yeah...a cadence is pretty much just the harmony at the end of a phrase, if you end a phrase with those chords then yes that's a cadence...


----------



## Guest

kamalayka said:


> I always have!
> Play a ii7 chord with the seventh in the bass, and then a I chord in root position.
> It sould pretty cadential to me.


Yes, it sounds "Plagal", doesn't it? You can even spice up that ii7 by flattening the third.


----------



## Kopachris

No, it's not a cadence. The ii7 serves a predominant function. TalkingHead is right in that it sounds like a plagal cadence because it basically is one (predominant to tonic), but a plagal cadence is more accurately a form of tonic prolongation, usually used in a codetta. (Though a IV-I "plagal cadence" could also be analyzed as a half cadence in the subdominant key if the following music continues in the subdominant key.)



ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Well...yeah...a cadence is pretty much just the harmony at the end of a phrase, if you end a phrase with those chords then yes that's a cadence...


A phrase doesn't have to end with a cadence. For example, the first half of a sentence is a presentation phrase, which in common practice is usually just one long prolongational of some kind (usually tonic or tonic followed by dominant).


----------



## Klavierspieler

kamalayka said:


> I always have!
> 
> Play a ii7 chord with the seventh in the bass, and then a I chord in root position.
> 
> It sould pretty cadential to me.


If you work it right it is.


----------



## Mahlerian

It really just acts as a suspension on the tonic, resolving to the tonic, kind of like a I6/4-V is a suspension on the dominant.

It could easily be used both as a kind of plagal cadence, or as a half-cadence towards a modulation to the subdominant region. Take advantage of that ambiguity.


----------



## Guest

You can factor in even more ambiguity by using ♭VI before your ii7 with ♭3 (before resolving onto the tonic triad root position). Getting close to Brahms now, I think! 
In hands less celebrated than Brahms, you can get it to sound like that "fanfare" used in one of the major film studios theme tune (Paramount? MGM? 21st Century? I can't remember which one it is).


----------



## kamalayka

The whole subject of cadences seems a bit vague with some theorists.

For example, some books say that a PAC simply needs the the tonic in the uppermost voice of the I chord, while others require that AND both the V and I to be in root position.

At least one theorist doesn't even consider plagal cadences to exist. . .

I'll just consider a ii7-I to be the "retarded plagal cadence."


----------



## Klavierspieler

kamalayka said:


> For example, some books say that a PAC simply needs the the tonic in the uppermost voice of the I chord, while others require that AND both the V and I to be in root position.


WTH? If they aren't both in root position then it's an IAC.


----------



## Ramako

A PAC is where V-I are both in root position and I has the tonic note in the top part.

I think a perfect cadence = authentic cadence unless it's more specific; in slightly more informal parlance.


----------



## ricardo_jvc6

The purpose of (iim7 - I) cadence in the way you are saying it doesn't make much sense to me in classical theory, but in jazz theory I guess it can be considered as a cadence, although in classical it has it's function as predominant (before the dominant). In Jazz, you can have something like this iim7 - bVIImaj7 - Imaj7 - Gm(b9). It could work as a backdoor progression and not a cadence.. In Classical Theory, it doesn't work because you need a chord to resolve to the tonic and that chord needs to be IV or V. That's why we call Plagal Cadence or Dominant Cadence, you need to go past these 2 to go tonic.
Offtopic about cadence: In the minor scale, it's something completely diferent, you follow the same rules as a major, but you are forgeting that the bVI (Superdominant or Submediant) is major, this way in romanticism you hear that harmony i - bVI - iv6- V7 - bVI.


----------



## Mahlerian

ricardo_jvc6 said:


> In Classical Theory, it doesn't work because you need a chord to resolve to the tonic and that chord needs to be IV or V.


Although in general you're right, other kinds of cadences can be found in the literature, especially in Wagner and post-Wagnerian Romanticism. The finale of Bruckner's Symphony No. 4, for example, concludes with a flII-I cadence.

Of course, when you get to impressionism and early 20th century, traditional function disappears or becomes blurred, and anything goes, more or less.


----------



## millionrainbows

kamalayka said:


> I always have!
> 
> Play a ii7 chord with the seventh in the bass, and then a I chord in root position.
> 
> It sould pretty cadential to me.


I question your chord analysis. Ricardo_jv6 is absolutely correct.

In the key of C, it's a major VII-I sequence. The major chord on VII (rather than vii dim) is more characteristic of blues and jazz, or black gospel.

If you play D-F-A, which could be mistaken in a classical context for a ii in the key of C, with its "7th" (C) in the bass, then resolve to I (C-E-G), what you've really done is placed a _pedal tone_ (C) under both chords.

The D-F-A is really not functioning as a ii; it's actually the upper extension of a Bb Major seventh chord (Bb-D-F-A):

...D is the 3rd, F is the 5th, and A is the major seventh of this Bb Maj7 chord. The pedal tone (C) under this BbM7 could be considered the ninth, but I see it as functioning as a pedal tone. Maybe it's both; a BbM7 add 9.

An example in rock music is the opening pedal-tone sequence of Bloodrock's_ Lucky In The Morning_ from Bloodrock 2.

I'll post that Bloodrock YouTube clip over on the non-classical current listening thread so you can hear it.


----------



## PetrB

Whatever satisfies your ear, and the ears of other listeners, as analogous to a:
*,

;

:

.

-

...*

or

*....*

is perceived as some sort of 'cadence.'

all the various numbered, labeled, variously spelled or ordered variants can / could / are considered 'legitimate' in one or more quarters, dependent upon the genre, period, and what the theoretic function of those was determined to be, all extracted from some actual scores and practice most have considered 'convincing.'

I suggest earnestly looking at and considering all of them.

As a friend of mine who taught drawing 101 to freshman art students used to tell them,
*"There are hundreds of ways to draw. All of them are correct. It is to your advantage to know and be able to do as many of them as possible."*

I would add that of any craft, music is certainly one at the top of the heap as being a 'game of contexts,' 'clear ambiguities,' and that must be thrown into the mix as well.


----------



## millionrainbows

The OP made these assertions:

1. Begin with a ii7 chord.

2. Put the seventh in the bass.

3. Proceed to a I chord in root position.

4. This is a cadence.

Of course, every note can be placed in 12 different contexts; but we are talking about _two chords_ in a relationship, with specified notes in the bass. The OP limited it to these parameters, not me. I'm all for "possibilities" and "games of context," but not at the expense of good musical logic.

Analyzing this as a "ii-I" cadence is not a credible possibility, for good reasons. I'm asserting that _that particular analysis_ is wrong.

I agree with Mahlerian that this could be considered a suspension of C, a suspended C13, but that's not a "ii-I "cadence."

If the D-F-A/C bass to C (I) is to beanalyzed as a cadence, then C must be recognized as a pedal tone, not a "7th" of a D-F-A ii minor. Sevenths must always _resolve_ down.

It could be analyzed as a plagal cadence of F to C, but that's a IV-I, not a "ii-I." In this context, the D-F-A could be seen as an F6 or F13, but not a D minor.

The opening post even alludes to it as sounding "cadential," and I think this is due to mistaking the D-F-A as a D minor, not as an F6.

The OP needs to consider other possibilities, not us. Apparently, some teacher or some statement in a book was at odds with the "ii-I" analysis, and this was the motivation behind the posting to begin with.

Students need to be receptive, rather than making flawed pronouncements of "ii-I" cadences, and others who know better should not encourage and defend such pronouncements.



> ...all the various numbered, labeled, variously spelled or ordered variants can / could / are considered 'legitimate' in one or more quarters, dependent upon the genre, period, and what the theoretic function of those was determined to be, all extracted from some actual scores and practice most have considered 'convincing.'


One more possibility which was not included: sometimes an analysis makes no good sense, period.


----------



## Ramako

..............


----------



## millionrainbows

beep...beep...beep...beep....


----------



## juergen

Questions like these show a quite stereotyped thinking. Perhaps after 95 posts the answer is found whether this is a cadence or not. But that won't help you in any way.


----------



## millionrainbows

I agree; I plan on learning until I die, and this means admitting that one doesn't know everything.


----------



## ricardo_jvc6

This topic should be considered a "good topic". I have to agree with millionrainbows and mahlarian since they got the general idea of this topic completely. ii - I, cannot be considered a cadence depending on the bass. If you go for posth-Modern music, you hear a lot of it, most composers break the idea of the music having in general with harmonc progression of I - IV - V - I. In spite of, Composers (now) use that idea of greek modes for Jazz. Dorian, Locrian, Jonian, Aeolian, etc... and they seem to catch me interest too . I love music in general it's like a puzzle and you try to blend pieces together while they make sense. That is why I love Music Theory .


----------



## Mich

A ii7d is a vii7 with a suspended bass (I think 4 3 suspension), which is like a v9 so it is more like a perfect cadence.


----------



## millionrainbows

Yes, since diminished seventh chords are recursive, then D-F-G# (not D-F-A) could be an inversion of a B-D-F-G# dim 7, but the A doesn't fit; plus, C in the bass must still be considered a pedal tone, because it's not a component of the D dim7, nor is it a "seventh" of any chord rooted on D. (in my opinion). Nice try, though.


----------



## kamalayka

I was thinking of Bach's Prelude in C:

http://lukedahn.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/bachcmajorpreludeb.jpg

If you go back to the first measure after the second, it has a cadential sound. (At least to me it does.)

I think this is probably part of a bigger philosophical problem in music:

Say a teacher wants to check his student's composition for errors (like parallel 5th and stuff), so after listening to the performance he asks to see the score.

Shouldn't he be able to tell just by listening?

And if he doesn't notice certain minor flaws in his student's music by simply listening to it, then how important can avoiding them really be?


----------



## millionrainbows

Yes, your ear should always be your guide, that is, if you've got a good ear.

If you are trying to imply that "theory" has overtaken the "ear" in this discussion, you are sadly mistaken. I have an 88-note piano by my side at all times.

If you are trying to say "D-F-A with C in the bass going to C-E-G sounds cadential,"* that's fine and dandy; *

...just don't call the D-F-A a "ii", and don't call C in the bass its "seventh."


----------



## Mahlerian

kamalayka said:


> Say a teacher wants to check his student's composition for errors (like parallel 5th and stuff), so after listening to the performance he asks to see the score.
> 
> Shouldn't he be able to tell just by listening?
> 
> And if he doesn't notice certain minor flaws in his student's music by simply listening to it, then how important can avoiding them really be?


Because sometimes weaknesses like inadvertent parallels (Debussy-style chord planing or the use of parallels for effect are perfectly acceptable) can leave a poor impression without someone knowing exactly why, and it's the teacher's job to show the student good voice leading so that it becomes instinctive later on.


----------



## kamalayka

millionrainbows said:


> Yes, your ear should always be your guide, that is, if you've got a good ear.
> 
> If you are trying to imply that "theory" has overtaken the "ear" in this discussion, you are sadly mistaken. I have an 88-note piano by my side at all times.
> 
> If you are trying to say "D-F-A with C in the bass going to C-E-G sounds cadential,"* that's fine and dandy; *
> 
> ...just don't call the D-F-A a "ii", and don't call C in the bass its "seventh."


So it's not a ii chord in third inversion? That's how it sounds to me when I play it.


----------



## millionrainbows

> So it's not a ii chord in third inversion? That's how it sounds to me when I play it.


I don't care how you hear it, as long as you don't call it a "ii" in third inversion. :lol:


----------



## millionrainbows

I can hear it in another key, G, as being a vi minor (D min7) to V7 (C7), and resolving to G, but that's a stretch; in a G context, it makes more sense to my ear to call it a IV-V7-I. The D-F-A is still the upper part of a Bb major (IV), and the C is still a pedal tone.

I think you should go ask a fence post. :lol:


----------



## Mahlerian

millionrainbows said:


> I don't care how you hear it, as long as you don't call it a "ii" in third inversion. :lol:


Hey, maybe next he'll say the 6th bar of Eine Kleine Nachtmusik is a V11 in 5th inversion!


----------



## DSCH

Hi all, newbie here.  This thread caught my attention since I'm currently analyzing the second movement of Beethoven's 7th symphony. The first six measures is i-V-i in Am, then a modulation to CM using II7 - I, so Am-E7-Am-D7-CM. The D7 to CM is similar to your ii7 to I. Way I see it, whether or not ii7-I is a cadence depends on where the chords are in a song, in other words the context. However, there is no doubt that the ii7 (with the 7th in the bass) resolves to a root position I chord. It is similar to if not exactly a cadential 6/4. One can make the argument that the ii7 is just prolonging tonic (and they would be just as correct), but the actual type of movement between the two chords is a resolution.

The other poster's analysis is also valid, just another way of looking at it. DFA=rootless Bb7; Bb7 is a backdoor dominant to CM.


----------



## DSCH

correction to previous post *DFA= rootless BbM7, now I'm rethinking that backdoor domiant interpretation. Cadential 6/4 still goes though.


----------



## millionrainbows

I'm such a fool! Of course it's cadential; it's a V7-I!

The D-F-A with "seventh" in bass, if spelled C-D-F-A is a G9 (V), with pedal tone or suspension C, resolving to a 6/4 (second inversion) C (I).

Duhhh...


----------

