PREFACE
The purpose of this preface is to put into context the ideas, 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 uses 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 plays an important role in the way tonal music emulates language structures.
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 (along with the bass part and counterpoint) gives structure to music. Lerdahl and Jackendoff and others have attempt to explain musical structures in terms of language structures. However, they merely indicate ways that components of musical syntax can be represented in language parsing structures without defining any standard structures for musical phrases.
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 boundaries of tonal music. By chord progression syntax I mean a set of rules that define what chord progressions sound tonal as opposed to what don't sound tonal. When we hear music we can tell whether it's tonal or not. There must be some rules that help us to do this.
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 all fail because they either merely categorise chords (in terms of their tonic, dominant and subdominant function etc.) (Riemann) or they specify orders of priority for classes of root movement (rising fourth, falling fourth, rising third, etc.) (Schoenberg). Most basic teaching of harmony is concerned with the categorisation of chords according to scale steps codified as roman numerals: I, II, III etc. To merely categorise chords as tonic, dominant, etc. however, 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. Finally, these models always ignore the importance of linear progressions and other contrapuntal formulations as highlighted by Schenker. They also fail to account for modulation and chromatic harmony.Some people say that it's all down to 'voice leading' as defined by Heinrich Schenker. Schenker's theory is a based 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 accurately 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 original 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 just as common as the progression I - IV - V. This is certainly not the case. More on this topic in the thesis section. Schenker makes important points about prolongation of chords and about linear progressions and addresses some of the weakness of traditional theory but nevertheless re-enforces a way of thinking about tonal harmony that is still focused mostly on voice leading.
The analysis of chord progression that I've carried out over a large number of pieces (currently around 100) reveals clear patterns in the use of chord progressions and reveals relationships between these progressions and musical phrases. The preoccupation of traditional 'functional analysis' with the categorisation of chord 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 linear progressions. Are chord progressions created from linear progressions or do linear progressions 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 (helped by the comparative root progression analysis technique) that chord progressions are the dominant factor and linear progressions and other contrapuntal formations are decorative. Schenker overstates the significance of linear progressions. This explains the phenomenon that students, starting on Schenkerian analysis, complain of, that is, in a Schenkerian analysis it is necessary to look for linear progressions 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 differences should be apparent to anyone reading through this website.
A further important issue is that, by focusing on counterpoint, Schenker's theory does not explain the change in style between modal music and later tonal 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 the same as 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 music composed between 1700 and 1900. However, I am currently extending these analyses to include 20th century classical music and 20th century popular music. I'll include some of these analyses as soon as possible.
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 root progressions create patterns that make up structures like the phrase and sentence structures in language and how the set of syntactic elements thus created combine to produce the variety of structures similar to the variations of sentence structure in language.
Ver. 2.3.1.