Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner Inversions of the Dominant Seventh Cord

Hello all.I have read all my theory books,but still do'nt understand how to analyze the quality of the first inversion,second inversion,third inversion of the V seventh chord.How do you arrive at the numbers:V 6,5,3,V 6,4,3,and V 6,4,2?Do regular 3 note triads have this same analysis for the first and second inversions?Thank you.

Its just figured bass, ie the notes above the bass note. A first inversion dominant 7th chord has the 3rd, the 5th and the 6th above the bass note. An example being a first inversion of C dominant 7 has the bass note E, then the notes G, Bb and C above that, which is the 3rd the 5th and the 6th.

In practice they are written as 7 6,5 4,3 and 2, which makes it easy to remember.

First you have to understand the basis of the figured bass. The numbers begin with the bottom note of the chord as 1 (no mater what inversion you are dealing with). From there, you simply count notes up from that bottom note and assign each note of the chord that number. So for example, with the following notes (the numbering only applies to chords with C as their bottom note):

Bb-7
A-6
G-5
F-4
E-3
D-2
C-1

A C major chord in root position would be a C(531), because the G and the E are the 5th and 3rd note above the automatically assigned 1 for the C at the bottom of the chord. However, in common practice, it's just a C chord, because the 531 configuration, otherwise known as root position, is the default (that's why I put the 531 in parenthesis - you never see them written). Likewise, a C seventh chord would be C7(531) for the Bb, G, and E that are 7, 5 and 3 notes above the C which gets a 1 since it's the bottom of the chord. Again, I put the 531 in parenthesis because you only ever see the 7 written. This an important basic idea, because you can see that a major C chord and a C7 chord share almost the same figured bass numbers, so the only numbers that are necessary to write are the ones that distinguish major from 7th.

In the next inversion, you would number the notes as follows:

D-7
C-6
Bb-5
A-4
G-3
F-2
E-1

A first inversion major C chord would be a C6(31), because the C is 6 notes above the E and the G is 3 notes above the E. Again, typically, you would leave out the 31, because the 6 alone is all you need to distinguish this inversion from C root position. And let me jump ahead to the second inversion of a major chord:

F-7
E-6
D-5
C-4
Bb-3
A-2
G-1

The second inversion chord would be a C64(1) chord. Notice that the 1 NEVER appears in the figured bass numbering, because it doesn't add any information - EVERY SINGLY CHORD formally has a 1 at the bottom of it's figured bass numbering, so it doesn't tell you anything special to include it.

Now that I've written the three above guides we can go back and think about other inversions of 7th chords. Looking at the middle guide I made, you can see that a first inversion C seventh chord would be C65(31) for the C, Bb, and G that are respectively 6, 5 and 3 notes above the bottom E. It might be tempting just to call this a C6 chord to keep it simple, but if you look back up at a first inversion C (non seventh) chord, that's already a C6, and we have to use numbering that makes it clear we're talking about a 7th chord. So we write C65.

For a second inversion, we'd get a C(6)43(1). This might seem a little confusing - why aren't we calling it a C64 instead, following the pattern of using the first one or two numbers for the figured bass? Again, it's because we have to choose something that is unique from the numbering for a non-seventh chord. A regular 2nd inversion C chord is already a C64, so we have to choose something unique: C43.

Finally we have one final inversion for a seventh chord, because it has 4 notes instead of 3. The numbering for the third inversion would go:

A-7
G-6
F-5
E-4
D-3
C-2
Bb-1

So a third inversion C7 chord would be a C(6)42(1). Again, we can't use C64, because that's already been used, so we call it a C42.

Despite the fact that we normally use a shorter version of the figured bass, I think it's important when you're first learning figured bass to write in ALL THE NUMBERS for yourself, so you're constantly reminded of why you're using the numbers you're using.

Finally, one remaining question might be: how do you know what numbers to assign the notes of a chord to if they're not in the key signature, like the Bb in my above example (if we're thinking in the key of C). Well, just as in other common practice period theory examples, in a given measure, there will usually only be one "type" of note. If a chord has both a Bb and a B natural, either the B natural will be spelled as a C flat or the Bb will be spelled as an A#. Even as you get a little more modern, it's a rare CHORD that has more than one "type" of note of the same letter. So you just count up from the bottom of your chord, assigning a number to each alphabetical note.

I hope that clears things up!

One final piece of advice: even if you understand figured bass now that I've explained it and perhaps others also explain it, it never hurts to go ask your teacher. Believe me, as a teacher myself, I'm never "bothered" by students coming to ask me things after class. It's part of what makes teaching exciting. And it's always good to know a student is trying and cares. It can make a difference when I am assigning final grades in class and someone's on the borderline.

Does anyone actually still use figured base?

Most organists and harpsichordists are expected to be able to use it.

(And it's bass, not base. As in the clef, not the hideout.)

It's a great system in that you don't necessarily have to think of harmonic function per se, you just play intervals above the bass line (using the key signature as your guide, this is, after all, tonal music). As it is today with improvisors who read chord symbols and those back then who read figured bass notation, varying degrees of ability can be expected; the symbols, either chord symbols or figured bass notation, supply the framework which the ability and expertise of the performer can build upon.

Those few times when I read figured bass I'm guilty of not mindlessly filling in the intervals notated (or implied) above the bass tones, but I tend to analyze harmonic function and think in terms of harmonies and harmonic function.

Playing figured bass is a different way of saying playing from charts.

Excuse me for the typo. I hope that won't get me banned.

Theorists do, its the standard system for notating tonal analysis.

I thought they used Roman numerals for that.

Roman numerals WITH figured bass.

can be somewhat illogical or conflated when you have both roman numerals and figured bass. One came from a very practical background while roman numerals which the germans really pushed has all this implied functionality associated with the symbol. I64 and V64 sounds the same but you would not use them interchangeably as the V implies a dominant function which again i mean purely from a philosophical perspective is silly. But it does make it easier to learn I suppose and if you stay within the confines of classical - romantic music, it will work.

I don't think figured bass was ever intended for analysis. It was just a quick and cheap way of charting music for players to follow.

Figured bass was intended describe harmony, harmony that hadn't been written out with notes. This makes it useful for describng harmony in general, even if that wasnt its original purpose.

Shenkerian analysis, that is roman numerals describing the root of the chord and its diatonic function plus figured bass analysis describing the type of chord and its inversion, is a very widely used (and for good reason, once you understand it it makes an awful lot of sense) way of analysing 'common practice' tonal music. Yes that might not include all music, but theorists never claimed it to.

Schenkerian analysis makes absolutely no sense. It is snake oil theory for hack academics that need to give their field or work a sense of validity. Roman numerals precede Schenker. historically relevant but absurd in terms of what it is. Sort of like the Freud of music. I have no respect for anyone that pushes that sort of hogwash on people unless it is a historical look on it.

Hahaha, well okay then.
It makes perfect sense to me and I have a great deal of respect for the academics who have taught it to me so I guess we have had different experiences in that regard.

Protip: Combination tones (i.e. frequency differences) of the triad in any inversion physically reinforce the root.

CADENTIAL V64 (Not the same as 2nd inversion of V) is the same as I64, and the figured bass there is used to show the appogiaturas resolving to 53.

you don't need to explain it to me. The issue is that they have the same numbers and that confuses people.

AS to why i hate Schenkerian Analysis, i've seen it used and abused to point of wanting to vomit. It is similar to sloppy science. Bending and shaping facts to support a theory rather than the opposite. The issue with Schenker is that the music does not support it, the way we hear music as tested in studies does not support it. It is completely void of any substance or value. Well I suppose the concept of looking at the work on a macro level is perhaps the only, and i really mean the only thing it might have added but other than that, complete nonsense. Not quite as silly as Riemann but pretty frickin close. I mean bordering on comedy.

the principles without even going into what it is should give people enough of an indication that it is quite silly. Music does not follow some natural order. V doesn't have to nor does it want to go to I. Again this has been tested in studies where they chop a piece up into small pieces and found that chord succession based on functionality is just not how we hear music. A melody doesn't have to end on the first scale degree. And the problem with Schenker is that unlike future theorists that obviously couldn't let the fact that it just doesn't work with music even from the CPE go unaccounted for , is that Schenker believed that music that did not conform with it was not music.

I think you really need to study theory beyond the practical stuff to sort of realize that music theory should not be called theory in the first place. It isn't theory. It is just a system of representation as Schoenberg claimed that represents one aesthetic. A theory can explain and predict future events. Music theory has never been able to do this. Quite the opposite really. USeful framework for the given aesthetic but a theory, not really.

Academics like it because it seems tangible. But to anyone with half a mind and a musical background, it is similar to say Freuds outlook on psychology. INteresting but completely nutters with absolutely nothing tangible to support the findings. Completely subjective yet wanting to be taken as objective.

I really do hate it and believe anyone that actively uses it a fool and like say a scientists that pushes the theory that the world is only 6000 years old , should not hold a tenured post at an academic institution.

I had never heard of Chord Inversions until I started to learn Plectrum Banjo, where they are essential.

Is it important for piano??

Thal

Buy a college theory text book and read the first three of four chapters until you know them forwards and backwards.