A question about triads

Hi Everyone, I recently read in a book that a minor triad can resolve to any other minor triad and a major triad can resolve to any major triad. Anyway, I was thinking about this and don't really understand why it works that way, does anyone know? At first I thought it was because the chords would belong to the same key, but then why does a Cm resolve to an Em? I must be overlooking something in my total lack of knowledge, so I'm interested to hear the answer. Thanks!

Jackson

A major tried doesn't need to resolve to anything.

Within the context of a key, for example, certain tones may lead to others. And certain chord progressions are favorable, but nothing needs to "resolve" technically. 7 chords naturally evolved out of suspensions, and just became harmonic tones. Things can get complex quickly if you don't lay down some context.

You can do what you want. Here's a good example of something you were getting at

Want to hear a big chromatic mediant? Just listen to The Canyon by Philip Glass.

A major tried doesn't need to resolve to anything.

Within the context of a key, for example, certain tones may lead to others. And certain chord progressions are favorable, but nothing needs to "resolve" technically. 7 chords naturally evolved out of suspensions, and just became harmonic tones. Things can get complex quickly if you don't lay down some context.

I only got 6 hours sleep the night before and was up late, I meant modulate, not resolve. Thanks for the replies so far, I'm finding music theory to be very deep and very interesting, it's amazing just how complex it is!

A major triad can MOVE to a minor triad just as a minor can move to a major. The mode of the triad doesn't always dictate the mode of other chords you move to in a harmonic progression.

Just out of curiosity, what book is it that includes this little bit of information?

It's called "Composing Music: A New Approach" by William Russo. It starts out very basic, which is where I am at the moment. I bought it thinking it was about composing classical music, but I think it's kind of a mix between popular and classical. By the way, I listened to The Canyon, that's one awesome piece! I didn't think I liked Philip Glass but now I'm tempted to pick up a recording of it.

I first thought you were thinking of diminished 7th chords and augmented triads, which indeed have the interesting property of being resolvable to any minor and major triad (if you choose the right inversion/enharmonic spelling).

Yeah, this whole triad rule is really subjective, depending on what kind of style you're using and what you're trying to do. There's nothing to really prevent you from moving from a major harmony to a minor harmony interchangably, not that I think the book's author is really saying anything to that effect.

The voice leading rules pertain more to voice direction than harmonic content, so to say all Major chords go to other Major and all Minor to other Minor doesn't really say much. If it said no Major Chords move to Minor or whatever, my eyebrows would rise. Seems this little blurp in the book you're reading is a bit misleading when it's really saying very little at all.

I have another question about triads, and I didn't want to dedicate an entire topic to it because this is a beginner's question, but when they say parallel fifths are discouraged does that mean an interval of a fifth with no notes in between or does that include parallel triads as well?

I'm pretty sure it includes parallel triads as well, considering that reason why the rule discourages parallel fifths is because they reduce the sense of independence between voices. Parallel triads reduce this sense of independence as well, so it would make sense for them to be banned under strict counterpoint.

Yeah, it doesn't matter whether there are any notes inbetween that fifth. If two voices form a fifth and move to new notes that again form a fifth, that's a parallel fifth, no matter what the other voices are doing. However, this only really applies when you are dealing with actual voices that move independantly otherwise, and not chords as whole blocks. Also, in practice, it depends a bit on whether the voices are more "hidden" in the middle, or whether they are exposed (for example if they are the soprano and bass voice), which makes it more problematic.

The Parallel Fifths 'rule' (which isn't really a 'rule' anymore... more like a suggestion at this point) really only applies to common practice, classical music. Even the early 20th Century composers still adhered to this rule in their music only when it concerned voice leading (as opposed to 'dissonance'). There's also an incredibly detailed explanation concerning the tuning systems that plays into this whole discussion as well.

Let's just say that by the 20th Century, a lot of these rules have diminished themselves down to a casual suggestion in terms of compositional method. For instance, planing (4, 5, and 6-note chords with extensions [7ths, 9ths, etc.]) was used very effectively in Debussy's music. The thick harmonic texture created a much different sound. Had Debussy attempted using this method 300 years earlier, the results would have sounded... well, probably awful or at the very least vastly different from anything else. The tuning systems and other factors (instrument design, materials used, etc) would have played the biggest role in why his music would have sounded so much different.

Common tones.

Anyway, I think you're asking the wrong question. A book tells you that something "works" and your question is "why?" Instead, why dont you start by asking for examples and seeing whether or not you agree that it "works"?