To add a bit to the other answers, the minor dominant is fine in a minor (or major) key.
The pattern v-i does not have the same cadential effect as V-i.
Many composers use v rather than V in non-cadential progressions; one example is a repeated cycle of fifths in a minor key.
One often sees i-iv-VII-III-VI-ii0-v-i-iv-VII-III-VI-ii0-V7-i.
For that matter, most minor fugues go to the minor v and use the V chord in cadences.
Your sequence looks fine.
It's a bit like the minor version of the Romanesca (Pachelbel's Canon) sequence.
In a major key one gets I-V-vi-iii or I-V-vi-I64 or I-V-vi-I63 (the V and iii are often in first inversion so the bass line moves downward by steps.)
In a minor key, the sequence would be i-v6-VI-III6 which (to me) seems smoother as the iii chord is not that "strong" sounding in a major key.
The main point of the V or V7 (or vii0 or vii06 or inversions) in a major is to proceed to the tonic.
Using v or v6 (and VII for that matter) often sounds better (at least to me again) in non-cadential progressions (and makes the cadences stand out, if that's wanted.)
music.stackexchange.com/users/23838/ttw
Firsttly, get rid of the notion that there's a natural minor key .
There isn't.
There are minor scales , including the natural minor, but a minor key can and does have several different incarnations.
It's probably more common to have the dominant chord in a minor key as a major (or dominant seventh), but there's nothing wrong with using the minor chord in its place.
Listen to Black Magic Woman.
That's an example.
All that apart, if you think it sounds good, use it.
It won't be wrong - there really are few 'wrongs' in music - those that are usually stick out like the proverbial sore thumb.
While you're learning theory, always bear in mind it tries to explain what happens far more than trying to provide a set of 'rules'.
They really become known as 'rules' because they are heard to work well.
music.stackexchange.com/users/2808/Tim
You can use anything.
In music, all rules are made to be broken.
Analysing you chord progression, they have all 7 notes of the C Major Scale.
So, yes, it makes sense theoretically.
If you want to stay 100% on A Minor Scale, change the G notes for G#.
The chord progression will be this: Am,
E, E/G#, Dm Where E/G# is the first inversion of E Major chord.
music.stackexchange.com/users/70920/Paulo Henrique
After all that mess I made previously, guess I finally understood your doubt, Jordan.
Beg my pardon.
Let's analyse your chord progression note by note: Am:
A, C,
E Em:
E, G
, B G:
G, B, D Dm(maj7):
D, F, A, C#
As we hear chord by chord, we get an expectation that is not fullfilled on the 4th chord.
The Am and Em chords give us five notes that points towards two possibilities of Major Scales> C major or G major (it will depent if the next chord uses F or F#).
The 3rd chord, G, adds a new note, D, which belongs both to C and G major, so "there is nothing new" here.
The magic happens on the 4th chord, Dm(maj7).
Its III degree gives us the final clue we needed for which major scale the chord progression is> C major.
But, you added a note that doesn't belong to none of these scales> the C# note.
It made a change of sensations, but somehow it doesn't sound so awkward.
I'll give my 2 bets on the next reply below.
music.stackexchange.com/users/70920/Paulo Henrique
When you bring up "functional harmony" and "major dominant" in minor those are concepts from common practice style harmony, so-called "classical" music.
But these are the conventions of that particular style.
While they are normal in that style they aren't required in other styles.
A progression like i - v - VII - iv reminds me of
I V vi IV in rock music where functional dominant harmony (a true major dominant chord moving to the tonic) is deliberately avoided and part of the style.
FWIW, in such progressions where you can identify three primary chords (tonic, subdominant, dominant)
it should sound very tonally solid and you can order the chords just about any way you like.
If you are trying to work within a particular style, follow the conventions.
Otherwise do whatever you want.
Make a new style, make hybrid styles.
music.stackexchange.com/users/23919/Michael Curtis
I'm currently studing and learning about functional harmony and chord progressions.  I tried the chord progression i - v - VII - iv (A natural minor scale : Am - Em - G - Dm7/A) and get a nice and melancolic mood, for my ears.  But I don't really know if this chord progression make sense tecnically.  It's normal to use a Minor dominant in a natural minor key? Or should I use an Major dominant to turn the scale harmonic?
Can I use the chord progression i - v - VII - iv? (Am - Em - G - Dm : in A minor scale)
music.stackexchange.com
<chords><chord-progressions><functional-harmony>
music.stackexchange.com/questions/104424
music.stackexchange.com/users/71713/Jordan Zaghi
It makes sense theoretically. Analysing your chord progression, they have all 7 notes of the C Major Scale. If you want to be  precise on A Minor Scale, change the G notes for G#. In music, all rules are made to be broken
A minor key has have several different incarnations. It's probably more common to have the dominant chord in a minor key as a major (or dominant seventh) You can use anything. In music, all rules are made to be broken. So, yes, it makes sense theoretically. If you want to stay 100% on A Minor Scale, change the G notes for G#.