"Inverted" Picardy Third?

Hi guys,

I'm a huge fan of the minor mode. I absolutely love it. My composition instructor thinks I like the minor mode (and lovely fully-diminished 7th chords... and of course Vb) a little bit too much.

Of course, some people find it rather weird that I have this OCD with all things minor. They want me to lighten up and do more major stuff.

For those of you who heard my "Fantasia in F# Minor" for organ, you'll notice it ends with a Picardy Third (generic authentic cadence? i - i(6/3) - V7 - I) - a very common occurrence in church music, I believe.

I'm wondering if there is an equivalent for the major mode? If I had I - I(6/3) - V7 - i? Does that have an official name? If it doesn't have an official name, I was thinking about coining it as the "Graham Third" (on suggestion of my fellow music students, using my last name... and poking fun at my love of trying to make the major mode sound as minor-y as possible).

So... does anybody know anything about this elusive, inverted Picardy Third? A quick Google Search (that is, the first page of results) didn't really yield an official answer... not even a general consensus.

Any help is greatly appreciated,

Thanks :)

- J Graham

I do not believe that there is a name for a revers Picardy Third. I remember some one asking that (or I think it was me) in my second semester theory class and the professor saying that there is no name for a revers Picardy Third.

Haha. Maybe I'll be the first composer to utilise it on a large scale. It will be especially useful for my Requiem - the 'lighter' movements (like 'Lux Aeterna' and 'Communion') will be in a major key, but to remind people that it is still a Requiem, they will still end in minor.

It doesn't exist.

At least not in 18th Century music.

The End. :-)

P.S... if you're using traditional tonality... you might want to... write with traditional tonality. Not, "I'll add parallel 5ths and octaves because it will sound good with this otherwise good voice leading."

Nu eh.

It doesn't exist.

At least not in 18th Century music.

The End. :-)

P.S... if you're using traditional tonality... you might want to... write with traditional tonality. Not, "I'll add parallel 5ths and octaves because it will sound good with this otherwise good voice leading."

Well that information's only dated by about... 300 years :P

With all this post-modernism stuff, I would have thought somebody would have named it by now.

PPS - I only wrote in parallel fifths once, and that was for an a capella piece in organum... which is... like... really traditional (read: 'old') tonality. And actually, parallel octaves can really emphasize the tonic (read: 'hey dude, what about flutes?')

Something's only named if it actually happens. Hahahaha.

Then, "Inverted Picardy", I name thee "Graham Third". Why? Because I'm the only composer who'll use it! XD (And I'll figure out a way to use it craftily as well, in order to avoid weak endings.)

Then, "Inverted Picardy", I name thee "Graham Third". Why? Because I'm the only composer who'll use it! XD (And I'll use it craftily as well, in order to avoid weak sounding endings.)

Im pretty sure you are not the only one to use them. I have heard them quite a few times in various forms of music.

Sure, nothing wrong with that. (Btw: I'll name the note sequence C-Bb-C# after me!)

Im pretty sure you are not the only one to use them. I have heard them quite a few times in various forms of music.

Okay, I'll be the one to use it so craftily, you won't even notice it's been switched to minor!

(Btw: I'll name the note sequence C-Bb-C# after me!)

I won't stop you :)

I have another question... do you really mean I 6/3 - V7 - I? You seem to be implying a cadential six-four, which is I 6/4 - V7 - I and much more common.

I have another question... do you really mean I 6/3 - V7 - I? You seem to be implying a cadential six-four, which is I 6/4 - V7 - I and much more common.

Um... maybe. I dunno. lol. I think I have numerical dyslexia :(

i - i - ii(-7♭5) - i

Sounds fine to me. Needs correct instrumentation however.

I shall refer to it from now as a Graham Third.

Only I shall tell people it refers, for whatever reason(s) I happen to come up with whilst telling, to Graham Chapman, the Python.

No offense, good man, but I think it would help the name stick, don't you think?

There's no name for it, but...nobody uses it because it sounds stupid. The major works because a major chord is more "stable" than a minor chord. However if you're in a major key and then go to a less stable minor chord...the final chord sounds completely open-ended and the piece unfinished. It just doesn't work...hence, it's not really used, and there is no name for it.

Lol.

Good thing you know exactly how all music should be written, Nico, or we might have been in trouble! ;)

I shall refer to it from now as a Graham Third.

Only I shall tell people it refers, for whatever reason(s) I happen to come up with whilst telling, to Graham Chapman, the Python.

No offense, good man, but I think it would help the name stick, don't you think?

Fine with me. You need to make sure they know who Graham Chapman is first, though!

Ah, that is true...should be easy. "King Arthur, from Holy Grail!"

I'm a huge fan of the minor mode. I absolutely love it.

Me too, I have even dare to said sometimes "major is for little girls":D... but don't take it literally, I have written in "major" too, and like many "major" works,

It doesn't exist.

At least not in 18th Century music.

The End. :-)

P.S... if you're using traditional tonality... you might want to... write with traditional tonality. Not, "I'll add parallel 5ths and octaves because it will sound good with this otherwise good voice leading."

Nu eh.

This sort of mentality is the reason that it's hard for composers to remain tonal and still be original. Just because music has ties to music of the past does not mean that it must be restricted to the realms of past centuries.

It makes about as much sense as saying that Beethoven should have written in a Mozartian style if he was going to utilize I, IV, and V.

Do whatever you want, Chem. The results will speak for themselves.

This sort of mentality is the reason that it's hard for composers to remain tonal and still be original. Just because music has ties to music of the past does not mean that it must be restricted to the realms of past centuries.

It makes about as much sense as saying that Beethoven should have written in a Mozartian style if he was going to utilize I, IV, and V.

Do whatever you want, Chem. The results will speak for themselves.

Composers today aren't going to do what he's doing and be using their brains effectively. My mentality is fine, and open, and educated... thank you. People who actually knows how non-functional and functional harmony WORK do a lot more than people who don't... and I mean do a lot more GOOD work. You can't make general comparisons of one composer to another when this is a specific tonal topic. Anyone writing I-IV-V... well... they aren't the ones who are going to be cutting edge in ANYTHING tonal.

My theory teacher last semester called this rare occurrence the "Riker third" (Picardy being like Jean-Luc Picard)...lulz.

Composers today aren't going to do what he's doing and be using their brains effectively. My mentality is fine, and open, and educated... thank you. People who actually knows how non-functional and functional harmony WORK do a lot more than people who don't... and I mean do a lot more GOOD work. You can't make general comparisons of one composer to another when this is a specific tonal topic. Anyone writing I-IV-V... well... they aren't the ones who are going to be cutting edge in ANYTHING tonal.

The topic interested me so here are my two cents...

One point to make is that we're not only talking about "I-IV-V" here. And who is to say that you can't take something as simple as a I-IV-V cadence and make it cutting edge? Don't minimalists do even simpler things (I'm not putting them down)? And they're "cutting edge", aren't they? One more thing: new music doesn't have to be gratuitously cutting edge to be enjoyable or accepted.

You believe that the OP is not using his brain effectively...I would beg to differ. As Nicola mentioned, there's no name for this chord because no one uses it; wouldn't the OP be thinking "outside of the box", then, by suggesting it's use? And just because he suggests this chord doesn't mean that he doesn't understand harmony. I bet when Wagner first used the "Tristan chord" no one had a clue what was going on. But today, we have a name for it, and its been used by other great composers as well.

If we encourage the OP and others to not expand their horizons and try different things, even if on paper they're completely "wrong", then we won't evolve. There's no sense in simply putting down and attacking the suggestion. Why not challenge him to write a piece using it and, as Ravich said, let the results speak for themselves.

The topic interested me so here are my two cents...

One point to make is that we're not only talking about "I-IV-V" here. And who is to say that you can't take something as simple as a I-IV-V cadence and make it cutting edge? Don't minimalists do even simpler things (I'm not putting them down)? And they're "cutting edge", aren't they? One more thing: new music doesn't have to be gratuitously cutting edge to be enjoyable or accepted.

You believe that the OP is not using his brain effectively...I would beg to differ. As Nicola mentioned, there's no name for this chord because no one uses it; wouldn't the OP be thinking "outside of the box", then, by suggesting it's use? And just because he suggests this chord doesn't mean that he doesn't understand harmony. I bet when Wagner first used the "Tristan chord" no one had a clue what was going on. But today, we have a name for it, and its been used by other great composers as well.

If we encourage the OP and others to not expand their horizons and try different things, even if on paper they're completely "wrong", then we won't evolve. There's no sense in simply putting down and attacking the suggestion. Why not challenge him to write a piece using it and, as Ravich said, let the results speak for themselves.

Thank you.

The way that I have always understood it, and the semi-joking/semi-serious thing that my instructor has always told me, is:

Once you learn the rules of music, you can go ahead and break them all.

Maybe I'll come back with a piece that uses the Inverted Picardy at the end of a movement to lead into a more sullen movement and this 'oddity' will become more popular?

Or maybe I'll be the only person to really find a use for it, and everyone else will continue to say "it's ridiculous" or "hey - you can't do that!".

Thing is, you can criticize me all you want for it; I'm going to go ahead and do it anyway ;)

Are your intentions as simple as ending a piece in a major key on a minor chord, or must it be the more specific I - I(6/3) - V7 - i pattern?

I wrote a few pieces a long while back that were in major keys or at least major towards the end and spontaneously ended on a minor chord, such as this one: Op.18, No.08, Dylan Craig.mp3 - File Shared from Box.net - Free Online File Storage

Forgive the sound quality, but that's irrelevant. Is this the idea you are getting at? Or do you mean it to be more specific? I think it's a cool idea when you use it once in a blue moon for the right occasion. Very cynical.

Obviously, the minimalist of the 70's are cutting edge today...

Lack of knowledge and personal feelings = great argument and analysis.