PREFACE / BACKGROUND
The purpose of this preface is to put this book into context , mainly for the reader who has some familiarity with the subject and wonders why this book is needed. The reader who wishes to get directly into the subject may proceed to Chapter 1. Here I'll summarise the background in overview only - the more detailed content is included in the rest of the book and thesis sections of this website. Links are made to these throughout this preface.
It is surprising that, at the start of the 21st century, it is necessary to write a book about traditional tonal harmony or about the way tonal music is built on structures similar to language structures. But such a book is needed simply because any serious assessment of the traditional theories of tonal syntax reveals a serious gap. That is, in the way that they account for chord progressions. And it turns out that the syntax of chord progressions is the key factor in the way tonal (and some tonally influenced) music is built around phrase structures which are similar, in ways, to language structures.
Most conventional theories of structure in tonal music concentrate either totally on root progression patterns (Rameau, Riemann and Schoenberg) or totally on voice leading (Schenker). This book is the first to explain how root progression patterns and voice leading work together and how chord progressions create musical phrase structure in tonal (and tonally influenced) pieces of music. This has some similarities to the way that languages work: where a set of syntaxes work together (phonetics, word morphology, sentence syntax) rather than with just one syntax (voice leading etc). A combination of syntaxes produces a richer set of possibilities than one syntax can, on its own.
It is undeniable that an importation part of our experience of tonal music is the way that harmonic structures complement melody and the way that harmony gives structure to music.
Chord syntax and voice leading syntax are well documented. What is missing is chord progression syntax. Chord syntax and voice leading syntax alone are not sufficient to define the structure of tonal music. By chord progression syntax I mean a set of rules that define the patterns in root progression in tonal music. i.e. what chord progressions sound tonal as opposed to what don't sound tonal.
Historically, the main proponents of a syntax of chord progressions have been Rameau, Riemann and Schoenberg (but there are others). These are discussed in more detail in the introduction section of the thesis. They fail because they either merely categorise chords (in terms of their tonic, dominant and subdominant function etc.) (Riemann etc) or they just specify orders of priority for classes of root movement (rising fourth, falling fourth, rising third, etc.) (Rameau, Schoenberg, etc). To merely categorise chords as tonic, dominant, etc, says nothing about the way chords follow on from each other or relate to musical phrases and therefore does not constitute a syntax. To analyse root progressions merely in terms of their relative frequencies also says nothing about what progressions are right in certain situations and does not form a syntax. Part of the problem is that these models always ignore the importance of voice leading patterns as highlighted by Schenker. They also fail to account properly for modulation and chromatic harmony.Some people just say that it's all down to voice leading as defined by Heinrich Schenker. Schenker's theory is based mostly on 16th century contrapuntal theory combined with a 'graphic' analytical system. It's impossible to deny that many analysts find Schenker's system very useful in diagramming their analytical insights but there is a vast difference between a system which facilitates analysis and a model which adequately defines the syntax of tonal music. In reality, there is no agreement about whether it does this or is supposed to do this. The point is that Schenker's model of tonality is inclusive i.e. it can be used to represent music which is tonal but does not contain the rules which exclude what is not tonal. A simple example of this is the way chord progressions are accounted for. In Schenker's model, chord progressions are explained as arising from linear progressions in the bass part. However, this approach suggests that the progression I - III - V would be as common as the progression I - IV - V. This is certainly not the case and the ideas that people come up with to explain this away are always unsatisfactory. More on this topic in the thesis section. Schenker makes important points about prolongation of chords and about the importance of voice leading and in the process, addresses some of the weakness of traditional theory but nevertheless re-enforces a way of thinking about tonal harmony that is still focused on a single syntax - voice leading.
The analysis of chord progressions that I've carried out over a large number of pieces of tonal and tonally related pieces, reveals that once the surface voice leading patterns have been addressed, there are clear patterns in the underlying chord progressions and there are clear relationships between these progressions and musical phrases. In traditional theory, a combination of ignoring voice leading and the preoccupation of traditional 'functional analysis' with the categorisation of chords within keys causes these patterns to be missed. In a comparison with Schenker's theory the key issue is in the relationship between chord progressions and voice leading. Are chord progressions created from voice leading or does voice leading just decorate underlying chord progressions? Schenker thinks the former. Schoenberg and others do not address the issue. It is clear from my analyses the latter is the case.
My research clearly shows (validated by the comparative root progression analysis technique) that chord progressions are the dominant factor and that linear progressions and other contrapuntal formations are decorative. Schenker overstates the significance of long range voice leading. This explains the phenomenon that students, starting on Schenkerian analysis, complain of, that is, in a Schenkerian analysis it is necessary to look for long range voice leading patterns when you cannot be sure that they are really there. I plan soon to include a section summarising the differences between my theory and Schenker's view of tonality. However, the main differences should be apparent to anyone reading what is currently on this website.
A further important issue is that, by focusing on counterpoint, Schenker's theory does not explain the differences in style between deferent periods of music. It is possible to follow the rules of good counterpoint, chord construction and voice leading and still produce music that does not sound 'tonal'. If you don't believe this then just listen to music written before 1600. One difference is that this music uses 'modal' scales rather than the major/minor system but it follows largely the same rules of voice leading and counterpoint and some of the 'modes' are made (by musica ficta) similar to the major and minor keys. So what is it that makes tonal music sound so different from modal music? There has to be some difference in the use of chord progressions as the other factors are largely the same.
When patterns in chord progressions are analysed over different periods of music there is a marked change in the way chord progressions are used (what I call polarisation) on the change from modality to tonality. You can see this change of polarisation graphically in the Thesis - Historical Process section of this website.
The analyses carried out so far has focused mainly on common practice tonal pieces and pieces of 20th century classical music and 20th century popular music. Also included is a brief appendix covering a selection of popular music topics.
The best theory is the theory which gives the simplest description of all the phenomena observed. It accounts for all the patterns that normally occur and excludes ones that don't normally occur. I hope to show during the course of this website and in the book to follow that this theory of chord progressions best fits these criteria. I will show how, once voice leading patterns have been accounted for, root progressions create a variety of musical phrase structures similar, in ways, to the way that natural language grammars create a variety of sentence structures.
One criticism made of any analytical method or syntax of music is that the results just depend on the segmentation of the music. The criticism is that the the way the music is divided up can determine, for instance, which note combinations are considered to be significant and which non-significant. The approach taken here is carry out the segmentation into chords by applying well established traditional principles of voice leading (or more correctly "divisions") and not according to any arbitrary method.
Also, there is nothing "normative" in the analytic approaches taken here. The analyses of voice leading and root progression patterns are made in as open a way as possible to uncover the patterns in the music itself. There is no attempt to reduce everything to one or two predetermined patterns. (Such as I - IV - V- I or I - III - V - I, as in a Schenkerian analysis) nor are decisions made in the analysis process just to prove any theoretical point. Only by taking such an open approach is it possible to uncover what is in the music itself. For instance, this approach shows whether the music is classically tonal, modal or some variation of these. Taking such an approach helps to identify what it is in the patterns in the music that contributes to the style and the mood of the music.