Basics of Chord Relationships (introduction)
Albert Silverman
by Albert Silverman
February 5, 1999
--------------------------------------------
Everyone who studies music in one of our academic institutions or music
conservatories gets a dose of what is commonly referred to as "theory."
Therefore, the first order of business is to understand both the generally
accepted meaning of "theory" and the special interpretation which Musical
Academia attaches to this word.
Webster's dictionary defines "theory" as:
"A more or less plausible or scientifically acceptable general
principle offered to explain phenomena."
It can be concluded that, in accordance with this definition,
THEORY IS SYNONYMOUS WITH *UNDERSTANDING*
For example, in the field of science, the phenomena which are explained by
different theories are such things as (in physics) the motion of bodies,
the nature of vibrations, the nature of chemical reactions, etc., etc. In
other words, the explanation which is provided by the theory helps one to
understand the nature of some particular phenomena.
For reasons which will be explained shortly, Musical Academia takes the
position that the phenomenon which is being explained (in accordance with
Webster's definition) by musical "theory" is _musical Art and History_
(which will henceforth be referred to as "Ancient Art"). This
interpretation as to what is meant by "theory" has profound and far-
reaching implications.
CHORD RELATIONSHIPS (HARMONY)
Those who have had any significant contact with music know that what is
commonly referred to as "harmony" (the major body of music theory) deals
with "chords." Considering the preoccupation with chords in teaching the
music of the common-practice period (during which harmony reached the peak
of its development), one would certainly expect that the purpose of
teaching harmonic theory is to provide the student with an UNDERSTANDING of
chord relationships.
Unfortunately, however, this is not the case. At the heart of the problem
is the dismal failure of Ancient Art to come to grips with the nature of
CHORD RELATIONSHIPS
Although the Modern view of chord relationships diverges significantly from
the view in the common-practice period, Ancient Art must necessarily
reflect the prevalent view in that period of time. Indeed, it is the
specific purpose of Musical Academia to avoid "revisionism" of musical
history, with the express purpose of preserving Ancient Art into eternity.
In a cruel joke perpetrated at the expense of theoretical comprehension,
the course in Ancient Art which is dished up to the hapless and unwary
student
UNDER THE GUISE OF "THEORY"
fails miserably to provide him/her with the understanding of basic
theoretical principles.
Compounding the problem, the unwary student is unable to make the crucial
distinction between Ancient Art and the principles of chord relationships.
Needless to say, those who are perpetuating this _theoretical fraud_ upon
students are hardly chomping at the bit to point out this fact. If the
student knew what is deliberately being hidden, he/she might have some
vigorous objections to this trickery.
Were Musical Academia to *REASONABLY* explain the principles of chord
relationships, the objection to referring to Ancient Art as "theory" would
be less strenuous. In that event, the theory would at least be devoted to
an explanation of harmonic PRINCIPLES, rather than simply being an
explanation of musical PRACTICE (how-to-do-it). However, the Ancient
"theoretical explanation" of harmony in the common-practice period is
NOT a reasonable explanation of harmonic principles. On the contrary,
Ancient Art (at least the harmonic portion of it) is a horribly complex
and virtually incomprehensible maze of irrelevance, irrationality,
inconsistency, and incoherence ("i" is a wonderful letter for beginning
a word!) This hardly serves to promote the needed understanding of chord
relationships.
In a nutshell:
Rather than to explain the principles of chord relationships, the
purpose of teaching Ancient Art (the harmonic portion of it) within
Musical Academia is to _explain how music was written_ during the
common-practice period.
What's wrong with this approach to teaching harmony? It all depends upon
one's objective in studying the subject. There is nothing wrong with this
basic philosophy IF one's purpose in studying "theory" is to learn about
the compositional STYLE of this period (ranging roughly from 1650 to 1900).
However, if one's purpose is to learn the principles of chord
relationships, then _studying Ancient Art in the hope of obtaining an
UNDERSTANDING of these important relationships is futile_. It will not
get the job done. Period.
Who NEEDS to understand chord relationships?
In the ultimate analysis, what it all boils down to in the musical wash is
whether or not Musical Academia should serve those who have a NEED to
understand the principles of chord relationships. In this regard, anyone
who
(1) composes "serious" music based upon the triad,
(2) arranges or transcribes music in the popular style,
(3) improvises in the popular style, or
(4) teaches music in the popular style
needs to understand these principles. And it should be a foregone
conclusion (but apparently it is not) that composers who do not compose
triad-based music and have no intention of doing so nevertheless NEED this
knowledge, _and need it desperately, since it is the backbone of
compositional literacy.
On the other hand, although it will probably be denied by those who resent
their status as "second-class citizens" in the academic Musical Caste
System, there is very little evidence that the instrumental performer (of
so-called "serious" music) need know much of anything about chord
relationships. All that he (or she) need do is read the notes which are set
in front of him (or her); the principles which were employed to compose the
music are of no practical importance in its performance. In other words, the
instrumental performer _who is not improvising_ can, without any
significant knowledge of chord relationships, safely navigate his/her way
through the printed score, set there as a roadmap. This fact of musical
life is proved thousands of times, day in and day out.
Following an innate law of the universe, that which is not of practical
necessity is guaranteed to fall through the cracks. Not unexpectedly,
therefore, the vast majority of music students are grist for Musical
Academia's mill. Of primary importance in Musical Academia is that the
"purity" of Art Music must not, under any conditions, be diluted by
catering to what it considers to be "heathen" popular interests. Thus it is
quite understandable that, when push comes to shove, Musical Academia will
adhere to its self-appointed charter, which is to teach Ancient Art, and
let those be damned who need something else! Musical Academia will, of
course, be glad to take their money and give them a certificate of
attendance.
Ancient Art versus Chord Relationships
Given the hypothesis that Ancient Art (1) must be preserved, and (2) does
not reasonably explain the principles of chord relationships, how can these
principles be successfully taught, assuming that there is a real desire
to teach them to everyone who "needs" them?
In principle, it is a simple matter to keep Ancient Art and chord
relationships firmly separated. Imagine, if you will, this classroom
scenario:
In this corner, folks, we have that jester, "Ancient Bunko." While he
is an aesthetic fellow who is artistically useful and is not
interested in revising musical history, he is nevertheless a ludicrous
and enigmatic clown, who will entertain us with his ridiculous
patch-and-piece efforts to conform with compositional practice.
Take a bow, AB.
Over here in this other corner, folks, we have "Chord Relationships."
While he has _excellent aural correlation_, is logical and well-
organized, and conforms with triadic compositional practice in ANY
time period, he cannot abide that insufferable prankster/conjurer,
Ancient Bunko. Lighten up, CR.
Be very sure that you keep your fighters straight, or YOU will wind up
on the floor!
What is the problem with this dual approach to teaching harmony? Contrary
to the old saying, honesty is NOT the best policy in the halls of musical
academe. On the contrary, honesty is an unpardonable sin here, wherein
three arguments can be raised against "honesty-in-chord-relationships."
(1) It casts incomprehensible Ancient Art in an unfavorable light.
(2) Eliminating the mystique and incredible confusion that are part and
parcel of musical "art" poses a grave danger to the Academic Musical
Caste System. How can the musical caste be delineated and the riff-raff
kept out of The Club, if the playing field is leveled by destroying the
"understanding barrier" that is part and parcel of Ancient Theory?
(3) Any theory which provides an UNDERSTANDING of chord relationships is
(paraphrasing the words of one typical academic representative who
teaches music theory and composition in a large Midwestern university)
"artistically useless." In other words, boys and girls, eliminate the
mystique, confusion, and absurdity from music "theory" and it is no
longer "art"!
So what is a poor academician to do, without giving away the show? The
generally accepted "solution" to this dilemma is brilliant. Simply teach
Ancient Art to all music students and claim that it is "theory," the
purpose of which is to _explain how music was written in the
STYLE of the common-practice period_.
Reflecting Musical Academia's perceived necessity to camouflage Ancient Art
as "theory," it is unconcerned about providing an understanding of chord
relationships to those whose musical interests lie in the academically-
invisible "popular" sector. The reason, of course, is that, not being
classified as "art music," this lowbrow stuff has no legitimate place
within the halls of academe.
Not only does Musical Academia generally ignore the needs of those whose
primary musical interest is not "art music," but it also sees no need to
provide an understanding of chord relationships _to non-compositional
majors_. Surely, goes the script, the non-compositional major, who has no
need for such understanding, in the eyes of Musical Academia, will be none
the worse for wear if he (or she) emerges from his course in "theory"
_believing that he understands chord relationships_, when what he (or
she) has REALLY been taught is Ancient Art/History.
On the other hand, most students who major in "serious-music" composition
will, if they persevere despite carrying the heavy baggage of Ancient
Art/History, eventually learn the principles of chord relationships; if
not directly from instruction, then by the process of osmosis.
Yet it is essential that, no matter what the circumstances, ALL (even those
who recognize its absurdity) within Musical Academia pay lip service to
Ancient Art. To prove this, after (and if) you learn the principles of
chord relationships, study the books on "theory" by very famous and well-
regarded composers/teachers. With rare exception, the lip service which
they are forced to pay to Ancient Authority will be reflected in incredibly
convoluted, tortuous, and all-but-incomprehensible
(translation: ludicrous) "explanations" of the underlying principles of
their musical craft.
Decrypting Ancient "Theory"!
Although Ancient Art purports to explain the development of "chords" during
the common-practice period, the theoretical principles of chord
relationships, several of which are lurking around somewhere in a typical
course in harmonic "theory" (or in the currently popular "whole music"
approach to teaching music), are virtually buried under a huge pile of
irrelevant and highly confusing detail. This effectively precludes their
recognition. Needless to say, if they can't be recognized, they can't be
understood. But who cares? Certainly not Musical Academia, with its own
self-serving agenda.
Hence if the object is to understand these basic principles, it is
essential that they be extracted from this Ancient Garbage Dump and exposed
to the light of day. To this end (the "decryption" of harmonic Ancient
Theory), I have written a series of articles entitled "The Basics of
Chord Relationships", currently in eight parts.
This series is archived at the webpage:
http://home.cybertron.com/~brtubb/theory.html
Departing from the accepted Ancient academic view that harmonic theory is a
description of how music was written in the common-practice period, what
will be found in this series of articles is a TRUE theoretical
exposition. As such, its purpose is to explain the principles of chord
relationships in _abstract form_; i.e., divorced from any particular
stylistic framework. Such a "scientific" type of presentation is
extremely powerful in the across-the-board insight (_independent of the
time period in which the music is composed_) which it provides.
Dynamic Function
-----------------
Although virtually obscured in the typical course in harmony (due to the
ridiculous failure of Ancient Theory to recognize the TIME-DEPENDENCY of
the harmonic process at every step of the way, "dynamic function," which is
concerned with the nature of chord relationships within a time-dependent
harmonic organization ("structure"), _is the very heart of the subject_.
In contrast with the inability of Ancient Theory to deal with (translation:
to teach) this most crucial and fundamental area of the subject of
"harmony," my series of articles on chord relationships cuts right to
the chase--and let the chips (and the chumps) fall where they may. It
provides a detailed explanation of both Ancient and Modern (mine)
harmonic structures, and provides an illuminating comparison (if
there is even anyone out there who understands the Ancient structural
role of the diatonic scale).
In a nutshell:
It cannot be over-emphasized that an understanding of dynamic
function is the essential starting point for UNDERSTANDING the role
played by chords in harmonic theory. Sorry about that.
My "Basics of Chord Relationships" discusses Modern (as opposed to Ancient)
chord construction, which is routinely carried out _without regard to
the dynamic function of the chord in a musical context_.
A basic set of four chords is derived with reference to the two
semi-tone intervals of the diatonic major scale. This chord set
provides the basis for all _dynamic chord relationships_ within the
harmonic structure.
This structurally-complete basic chord set is then expanded to include
(1) chords with a chromatically-altered fifth degree, and (2) chords with
"added" (non-essential) tones. A sensible notational system (which
conforms, for the most part, with modern "popular" notation) is also
developed and discussed in detail in part (4).
----------------
Albert Silverman
February 5, 1999
--
airfie...@my-dejanews.com
slv...@netcom.com (Albert Silverman) wrote:
> BASICS OF CHORD RELATIONSHIPS (INTRODUCTION)
> by Albert Silverman
> February 5, 1999
> --------------------------------------------
> Everyone who studies music in one of our academic institutions or music
> conservatories gets a dose of what is commonly referred to as "theory."
> Therefore, the first order of business is to understand both the generally
> accepted meaning of "theory" and the special interpretation which Musical
> Academia attaches to this word.
>
> Webster's dictionary defines "theory" as:
>
> "A more or less plausible or scientifically acceptable general
> principle offered to explain phenomena."
>
> It can be concluded that, in accordance with this definition,
>
> THEORY IS SYNONYMOUS WITH *UNDERSTANDING*
>
> You've posted your theses, I've read your articles, and all is available
to the world. You no longer have to bludgeon people with your theory. It is
not necessary to lessen the people who do not understand your theory. Your
ideas are available, and if they have merit, they will carry themselves,
they will find their way to those who will find them useful, perhaps
enlightening, and those people will promote your ideas because of the
value of your ideas, not because you have forced your theory upon them.
Best wishes, Reed
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Charlton W Wilbur
[snip an excellent discussion of the uses of theory]
> In short, I would like to defend the integrity of traditional theorists
> both before and after 1650-1900, and to emphasize the distinction between
> propounding a new theory and discounting the values for understanding of
> traditional ones.
Amen!
In fact, the "new" and "controversial" twentieth century theories that
I can think of all gained academic acceptance not because they tried
to *replace* current systems but because they tried to *augment*
current systems. Schenker, Schoenberg, Babbitt, Forte, Perle - all
these people looked at existing music and tried to explain something
that they didn't feel was adequately explained.
Rudolf Reti decided at a young age that he wanted to be able to look
at a Beethoven piano sonata, examine every note, and explain why
precisely that note was there. "It's an upper neighbor tone
prolonging the overall structural tonic" can explain it; so can "It's
part of motive A" or even "it's the third of {5}, which leads to the
root of {4} in the next measure."
Current musicologists (and this is I think what Margo was referring to
with her mention of "revisionist" theory) also look for other things:
Alban Berg and Robert Schumann in particular are notorious for a
private language of motives and gestures that recur, almost a hidden
code. When preexisting musical material is used, what does it mean to
the composer? Was there an extramusical meaning to Fanny
Mendelssohn-Hensel's use of the chorale "Das alte Jahr vergangen ist"
as the basis for a long piano work? Does this have anything to do
with her decision, made around that time, to start publishing her
compositions, the opinion of her family be damned?
I'm not sure I like the extremes that this sort of scholarship can
reach; but without the lunatic fringe, we wouldn't have the moderate
middle, and the moderate middle is where a lot of interesting work
gets done.
Charlton
--
Charlton Wilbur | "Nach seine tracht, ein Ritter!"
University of Massachusetts | -- Wolfram
cwwi...@music.umass.edu | 1832 - 1841 - 1976 - 1992 - 2001
M. Schulter
: Compounding the problem, the unwary student is unable to make the crucial
: distinction between Ancient Art and the principles of chord relationships.
: Needless to say, those who are perpetuating this _theoretical fraud_ upon
: students are hardly chomping at the bit to point out this fact. If the
: student knew what is deliberately being hidden, he/she might have some
: vigorous objections to this trickery.
Hello, there, and I'd like to focus mainly on the question of _intentions_
raised by this post. As various approaches to 20th-century analysis show,
"revisionist" approaches are not necessarily barred from academia; nor
should any proposed new approach be excluded. This newsgroup, as well as
other forums, can serve as arenas of lively debates between the many
flavors of theory.
However, I would respond to allegations of "theoretical fraud" or
"trickery" by postulating that in fact the theory of the period 1650-1900
(your dates, although for the relevant period I might prefer something
like 1680-1900 -- no big difference) is intended _as best as possible_ to
promote "understanding" of the relevant music, a statement also true of
earlier and later harmonic theory.
From my perspective, 1650 is rather at the "modern" than the "ancient" end
of the historical spectrum <grin>, which may give my following comments a
somewhat different viewpoint than that most usual.
First, it seems to me that an understanding of harmonic sonorities and
progressions -- the styles of 1680-1900 representing only one era and
approach in this area -- has always been a prime goal of Western European
and derived theories. In the 13th and early 14th centuries, for example,
writers such as Johannes de Garlandia, Franco of Cologne, and Jacobus of
Liege write of these matters in a way which I find promotes understanding
and better analysis of the music of their times. This doesn't mean that
there isn't room for new concepts and systems, although I would strive to
develop such "neo-Gothic" theories of Gothic music in a way not needlessly
inconsistent with the original theory.
Similarly, Renaissance harmonic theorists such as Vicentino, Zarlino,
Tomas de Santa Maria, Morley, and Lippius sought to explicate the practice
of their times. Zarlino, especially, seeks consistent principles by which
music may be known as a "science" comparable to medicine -- a metaphor
invoked at various points.
Around 1600, the new art of thoroughbass relied upon the principles of
16th-century harmony and counterpoint established by the authors I mention
in the previous paragraph, coupled with novel systems of notation (the
figures). Again, we have an interaction between theory and style occurring
not in a vacuum, but based on established principles and patterns _and_ on
artful innovations.
The shift from modal/triadic to key harmony around the last third to
quarter of the 17th century, similarly, reflects this process of
evolution both in composing and performing music, and in describing and
analysing it.
The same statements might apply throughout the period 1680-1900, and
indeed for 20th-century harmonic practice and theory starting roughly with
Debussy and Scriabin, etc.
Of course, as Don Randel has remarked, it is quite possible to apply the
theory of one era to the practice of another, for example analysing an
18th-century cadence in 15th-century terms, or vice-versa -- at the
analyst's risk, I might add!
Also, it is quite possible to devise new theories for older music,
something I've indulged in to an extent myself. However, the claim that
"there is another way of looking at this" is different from the claim that
"historical and contemporary theorists advocating traditional concepts are
out to trick students and deliberately to obscure the principles of
harmony."
My own impression is that 18th-19th century theory is probably the best
tool for analysing 18th-19th century music based on the triad -- just as
16th-century theory is best for 16th-century music, which I might also
regard (by 1525 or so) as "based on the triad," that is on the complete
sonority of third-plus-fifth-or-sixth. For pre-1420 or post-1900 music
(dates very rough and round) based on other kinds of complete sonorities,
we obviously need yet other flavors of theory.
One peril of overly broad systems of "harmonic principles" applied to many
eras (e.g. 1700-1999) is that in seeking a few "principles," we may demote
vital principles of practice in a given period to mere "stylistic
details." With harmonic theories, as with photographic lenses, there may
be a tradeoff between scope of view and resolution.
As has been suggested here by others, it might be possible to arrive at a
"theory of closes" including all the cadential devices of harmonic styles
from 1200, say, to the present -- but this achievement would hardly, in my
view, make more specific theories of specific periods obsolete.
For example, "a unifying principle of Western European harmony from 1200
to 1900 may be the use of cadential progressions from an unstable sonority
to a stable one involving the resolution of one or more unstable intervals
by conjunct or near-conjunct contrary motion."
This "principle" can "explain" a good deal of harmonic practice for three
or more voices from Perotin to Wagner -- but would hardly be a substitute
for period-specific theories, much less an indication that these theories
are "obscurantist" distractions of some academic confederacy of dunces out
to prevent students from learning the true foundations of the art.
In short, I would like to defend the integrity of traditional theorists
both before and after 1650-1900, and to emphasize the distinction between
propounding a new theory and discounting the values for understanding of
traditional ones.
Most respectfully,
Margo Schulter
msch...@value.net
Mark Mudgett
>
> BASICS OF CHORD RELATIONSHIPS (INTRODUCTION)
> by Albert Silverman
> February 5, 1999
> --------------------------------------------
> Everyone who studies music in one of our academic institutions or music
> conservatories gets a dose of what is commonly referred to as "theory."
> Therefore, the first order of business is to understand both the generally
> accepted meaning of "theory" and the special interpretation which Musical
> Academia attaches to this word.
>
> Webster's dictionary defines "theory" as:
>
> "A more or less plausible or scientifically acceptable general
> principle offered to explain phenomena."
>
> It can be concluded that, in accordance with this definition,
>
> THEORY IS SYNONYMOUS WITH *UNDERSTANDING*
Such a tired formula for introducing a subject does not
belong in any well-written dissertation. This hackneyed
construction pretends to cite a dictionary, when in fact
there is no single "Webster's dictionary." Dozens of
dictionaries make various references to Webster in their
titles. Well-respected dictionaries have many
definitions for many words. "Theory" is such a word.
Good dictionaries have a definition similar to the one
used above, but there are several other definitions
available. Consider "The branch of a science or art
that deals with its principles or methods as
distinguished from its practice: _music theory_"
(Random House Dictionary of the English Language, Second
Edition Unabridged). If the author can't even find an
appropriate definition to use for his junior-high level
paper, how can he be taken seriously?
After reading the article, I realize that it is in no
way anything resembling a scholarly paper. It is, rather,
an incoherent rant. Like "theory", the word "tonic", as
used in the study of music, can take on a variety of
meanings in a variety if situations. It can refer to
the first degree of a scale in a discussion of melody.
It can be a chord containing the first, third, and fifth
degrees of a scale in the context of triadic harmonic
analysis. It can refer to other, similar-sounding
structures based on other tones in the study of various
types of temporary or permanent modulations. To insist
that the word can have Only One True Meaning, and may not
be used otherwise, is to narrow the focus to the point of
tunnel vision.
Rather than rationally discuss his disagreements with other
writers, the author launches _ad hominem_ attacks on his
detractors, and invents imagined grand conspiracies of
theorists trying to defraud the music community. The newsgroup
is being hijacked by a loony who has become so narrow-minded
that he can neither see nor hear beyond the context of his
own egocentric obsession, and he is attempting to drag the
whole group down to his debased level. He demands that
others accept his decrees, and makes a fool of himself.
Like a third-rate B-grade horror film, it is simultaneously
fascinating, entertaining, hilarious, and pathetic.
--
===========================================================
Mark Mudgett mudgett.at.s...@spamkiller.org
===========================================================