Do you think music has 'developed' through history?

[BasilValentine]

So you're saying the fact that pop music avoids the singular defining feature of functional tonality proves that pop music is related to functional tonality?

That isn't the singular defining feature of functional tonality (read the post to which you are referring). But, essentially, yes! They are avoiding it because it does exactly what they want to do — establish a tonal center — but it does it in a lame, stylistically outmoded way. Everyone knows it's a possibility, it's just a way modern tonal pop composers know to avoid. The fact that they all understand its function, and know to find a substitute for it, is a clear demonstration that they are thinking tonally.

[amw]

Huh? That is a perfectly good progression for establishing a tonality. Each change is thoroughly grammatical and coherent in classical theory. And I suppose if it went I-vi-IV-V you'd think that was perfectly tonal? The choice between I-V-vi-IV and I-vi-IV-V isn't the difference between modal and tonal, it's the difference between writing a dated 1950s tune and one currently considered less hackneyed and lame. They are both thoroughly tonal.

Not..... really? I'll use chord names instead of function numbers for easier comprehensibility here, but: think about the romanesca.

The romanesca was a ground bass very similar to the "four chords and the truth" ostinato: instead of C | G | a | F, it was C | G | a | E. In popular music of the 16th~ century it was used as a framework for improvisation similar to the way the chords are used in modal jazz (Blue in Green, etc). The focus was on the notes of what we now think of as the Aeolian mode; the chord pattern in itself has no direction. The same is true of "four chords and the truth". The chords C, G, a and F in that order can establish a tonality if there is a tonic cadence. There is not. In fact most of the songs I know that use this ostinato end on either the second or fourth chords: G or F. Neither one is a particularly shocking or surprising way to end such a song. Similarly, the guitar or lute player playing a romanesca could finish on C, or G, or a, or E, and it would make precisely no difference.

When composers of written-down music got hold of the romanesca on the other hand—"art music"—they made a very important change to the pattern:

C | G | a | E :||: C | G | a E | A

Now the pattern had a direction. The final two chords E-A are a tonic cadence, even though it is one put off until the very last minute. That's tonality. One could obviously do the same with the pop music pattern if one were so inclined:

C | G | a | F :||: C | G | a G | C

Then it would become a tonal pattern—but as you imply, it would be considered hackneyed. Whereas if you asked Diego Ortiz (or whoever) to end a romanesca without the tonic cadence, he would have considered that outmoded and not up-to-date enough.

Tonality doesn't mean simply something that uses "tonal harmonies" (did you possibly mean triadic harmonies?); it requires a tonal centre of gravity. Most pop music intentionally avoids establishing one of those. That's not something that was really possible to do in the tonal system except by oscillating between two (or more) tonalities, as done by Schubert and almost nobody else:

https://youtu.be/ZbJtHzaFpBQ?t=950 D minor/B-flat major with F as a passing chord. This is only possible because of the massive cadence establishing D minor that preceded it; otherwise D minor would not really be a tonality at all, just a chord that Schubert sits on for a really long time.

https://youtu.be/7H_Qwvz2u8w?t=2235 C-sharp minor/E major with F-sharp minor as a passing chord. This is only possible because eventually F-sharp minor resolves to the dominant of C-sharp minor, which in turn becomes major to prepare for the subsequent "false reprise" in F#.

Schumann used these passages as models for some complete compositions (e.g. In die wunderschönen Monat Mai) but apart from that we don't really see modal oscillations between triads with no functional relationship until the 20th century.

[Mahlerian]

Great points, amw.  I would like to add that the wide gulf between common practice tonality and the harmonic practice of popular music/jazz was at the center of a dispute that recently blew up where a musicologist who came from the popular tradition said that music theory as taught in conservatories perpetuates white supremacy.

I wouldn't go that far, but I do agree with him that there's a significant disparity between common practice tonality and the harmonic practice that's more familiar to the vast majority of people.*  When I first started listening to classical music closely after a long time away, I found it difficult to recognize the markers of harmonic closure, because they simply work differently.

In that connection, the same musicologist posted this on his blog about how "tonality" (read: modality) works for popular music:
http://www.ethanhein.com/wp/2017/philip-taggs-everyday-tonality/

It has nothing to do with the functional relationships of harmony, and everything to do with rhythmic placement and accent.  Wherever something ends, that's where it ends, and who cares what happened in-between?

* I also agree that teaching common practice harmony as normative is bad, but for nearly opposite reasons: it ignores the diverse practices of 20th century modernism and makes them seem aberrant, when they are an important and necessary part of our musical culture.  Allowing 20th century modernism in brings in people from non-European backgrounds and women as well, so it takes care of the other problem too.

[Karl Henning]

In general, V-I is just too lame to be an acceptable conclusion in most pop genres. The very fact that it is routinely avoided to the point that it is rare, along with why this is so, is in itself enough to prove a kind of tonality intimately related to the classical kind is in play.   

I do not really accept either the premise (even as a generality) that, nor the disdain implicit in, V-I is just too lame to be an acceptable conclusion in most pop genres.

http://www.youtube.com/v/DyHHC5kK6Sk

http://www.youtube.com/v/5zKM60a2k44



A kind of tonality intimately related to the classical kind is an interesting counterexample of positive exaggeration.  The mischief-maker in me wants to concede that a pale imitation is related to its model, and possibly intimately  0:)

[ComposerOfAvantGarde]

The funny thing is, the modern extended techniques have always been there. So why didn't Beethoven deploy tone clusters or instruct the pianist to pluck the strings inside the piano? At what point in history did someone just say "Screw the rules" and just go with what they wanted to hear?

There were pianos being made in Beethoven's day which were actually quite experimental, including percussive sounds and extra pedals that would most definitely be considered 'extended techniques' by today's standards.

[Karl Henning]

A Jessop sighting!

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[BasilValentine]

Not..... really? I'll use chord names instead of function numbers for easier comprehensibility here, but: think about the romanesca.

The romanesca was a ground bass very similar to the "four chords and the truth" ostinato: instead of C | G | a | F, it was C | G | a | E. In popular music of the 16th~ century it was used as a framework for improvisation similar to the way the chords are used in modal jazz (Blue in Green, etc). The focus was on the notes of what we now think of as the Aeolian mode; the chord pattern in itself has no direction. The same is true of "four chords and the truth". The chords C, G, a and F in that order can establish a tonality if there is a tonic cadence. There is not. In fact most of the songs I know that use this ostinato end on either the second or fourth chords: G or F. Neither one is a particularly shocking or surprising way to end such a song. Similarly, the guitar or lute player playing a romanesca could finish on C, or G, or a, or E, and it would make precisely no difference.

Of course there is! There is a tonic cadence from IV-I on every repetition. Moreover their is a deceptive progression from VI-vi on every repetition as well. Tonality works differently in rock than in common-practice classical. IV-I is a grammatical, key establishing resolution in this style.

[millionrainbows]

millions said: Then if you want "function" to have a narrow, academic definition, then it applies only to itself, and can't be used in a discussion to distinguish CP tonality from other music (which you called non-tonal modal and post-tonal).

Mahlerian reacted: What you just wrote is, quite literally, meaningless.  Of course something with a specific definition can be used to separate things from other things.  That's the point of a definition!

Hey, watch the language and stay on point! This points out the difference in us: I see how things are connected, and you see how they are separated. The Harvard definition of tonality is inclusive of all tone-centric music. Western CP gets no special treatment unless it is referred to specifically in that other sense.

Quote from: millionrainbows on September 18, 2017, 09:01:27 AM
It (tonal) becomes a self-serving term which is essentially meaningless in other contexts. This is counter-productive to discussion of wider areas of music. BTW, do you really understand "function" and what makes it work? If you did, you would see the underlying general principle that "function" in a general sense embodies.

Mahlerian pontificates: "You're assuming that function must apply to music outside of common practice tonality, just as you're assuming tonal must apply to other music."

Yes, that's right, and the Harvard dictionary backs me up on tonality. As far as function being a wider conceptual application, any present-day composer or jazz musician would tell you that 'function' is not exclusive to CP Western tonality.

Mahlerian declared: "The problem is that all of your arguments depend on this assumption, which is why you never prove anything."

I'll never 'prove' anything to a tight-fisted thinker like you, Mahlerian. Your defense of the abandoned fort called 'CP tonality' verges on absurdity at times, creating nonsensical axiomatic statements which tend to disappear into their own self-contained circularity. Loosen up!

[BasilValentine]

Great points, amw. 

In that connection, the same musicologist posted this on his blog about how "tonality" (read: modality) works for popular music:
http://www.ethanhein.com/wp/2017/philip-taggs-everyday-tonality/

It has nothing to do with the functional relationships of harmony, and everything to do with rhythmic placement and accent.  Wherever something ends, that's where it ends, and who cares what happened in-between?

I got through several of this author's analyses. Each of the works has a perfectly clear tonal center and a perfectly clear tonic chord. The resolution chords don't sound like tonics because of "rhythmic placement and accent," they are put in rhythmically strong positions because they are obvious tonic chords!

Re his analyses:

La Bamba: What he writes about there not being time for "a narrative progression of tension and resolution" because it goes by too fast is silly. It is a perfectly normal tonal progression repeated in short-winded fashion.

Pink Floyd: The tonic is G. It is a repeated progression of i - IV7 in G (Dorian) minor. Perfectly standard rock progression with an obvious tonal center.

Get Lucky: His claim that any chord could be the tonic is just stupid. B minor is the tonic chord and this is perfectly clear to anyone who isn't deaf. As in the Floyd, the resolution is IV-I and it uses the standard Dorian inflections of the style.

Once again, all of this music is tonal in that it has a clear central tone established by a standard cadencial progression, V-I or IV-I. Why are you guys going through mental contortions to avoid what is perfectly obvious to every competent if illiterate teenage guitarist?

[Mahlerian]

Once again, all of this music is tonal in that it has a clear central tone established by a standard cadencial progression, V-I or IV-I. Why are you guys going through mental contortions to avoid what is perfectly obvious to every competent if illiterate teenage guitarist?

You are arguing against a stance that neither I nor amw have taken.

I am not arguing that those chords are not felt as points of arrival, I'm saying that the reason they are felt as points of arrival is more or less independent of functionality.

IV-I is not a standard cadential progression in functional tonality.  Among other things, it is indistinguishable (when shorn of context) from a I-V, and so it lacks force in establishing a key.  Only context (and in this case, placement and accent) indicate which interpretation makes sense.

[Parsifal]

You are arguing against a stance that neither I nor amw have taken.

The wonderful thing is you both have your own private definitions of "tonal" so that no statement you make can be proven false. As Wolfgang Pauli once said, "it's not even wrong."

[Mahlerian]

The wonderful thing is you both have your own private definitions of "tonal" so that no statement you make can be proven false. As Wolfgang Pauli once said, "it's not even wrong."

Far from a private or idiosyncratic definition, I am using the standard definition of "tonality" to indicate the specific system of harmonic hierarchies used in the common practice period, a triadic language based on the tonic-dominant polarity.  I hope I have been consistent in doing this.

[amw]

IV-I is a half cadence, not a full cadence. A half cadence is not sufficient to establish tonality kind of by definition. The subdominant cannot be a substitute for the dominant; its nature is antithetical to the dominant. The dominant is a key of higher tension than the tonic, because it contains the scale degree ^7 which is a semitone away from the tonic degree and therefore is acoustically dissonant relative to it. Therefore the progression ^7 -> ^8 is felt as resolution, and the tonic chord is stabilised. The subdominant is a key of lower tension than the tonic, because it contains the scale degree ^4. When a subdominant chord follows a tonic chord, this degree ^4 has the same semitonal relationship with ^3 of the tonic chord, and therefore ^3 -> ^4 is felt as resolution, and ^4 essentially becomes a new localised tonic with the original tonic chord now a dissonance. Similarly, the progression ^4 -> ^3 feels like a stable chord moving to a less stable one, which is why the cadence IV-I is rarely found in classical music except when I has been conclusively established by a full cadence.

When I say the dominant is dissonant and the subdominant makes the tonic dissonant I'm not talking about subjective assessments of dissonance but about acoustics. Tonality is ultimately based on the overtone series as a means for harmonic structure (although with heavy alterations bc of equal temperament). Modality is based on the overtone series as a means for melodic organisation. In a modal structure, an F major chord can be "dissonant" relative to a C major chord if the melodic line supports a resolution to C major. This is quite different from tonality, where the melodic line may be of no importance whatsoever.

Words have meanings.

[Karl Henning]

IV-I is a half cadence, not a full cadence.

IV-I is a plagal cadence; perhaps its most famous use is at the end of the Hallelujah Chorus ... nothing halvsies about it.

A half cadence is one which rests upon the Dominant. Which is not the case in the celebrated Handel example.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[amw]

A plagal cadence is basically just a half cadence on the tonic though.... and that tonic has to be established by a full cadence.

At least that's how I learned the terms lol

[Mahlerian]

IV-I is a plagal cadence; perhaps its most famous use is at the end of the Hallelujah Chorus ... nothing halvsies about it.

A half cadence is one which rests upon the Dominant. Which is not the case in the celebrated Handel example.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

It's not used to establish the final tonic, though.  The decisive cadence is at the "and he shall reign forever and ever" with a root position V-I.  You could end it there and it would sound complete (if not as satisfying).  The rest is just an extended tonic area.

The same goes for other movements in the common practice period that end with IV-I, like the first movement of Berlioz's Symphony Fantastique.

A plagal cadence is basically just a half cadence on the tonic though.... and that tonic has to be established by a full cadence.

At least that's how I learned the terms lol

It's still how harmony is taught today.   https://www3.northern.edu/wieland/theory/harmony/cadences.htm eg

[Karl Henning]

It's not used to establish the final tonic, though.  The decisive cadence is at the "and he shall reign forever and ever" with a root position V-I.  You could end it there and it would sound complete (if not as satisfying).  The rest is just an extended tonic area.

Sure.

[Karl Henning]

A plagal cadence is basically just a half cadence on the tonic though....

Mahlerian's point that closing plagal cadences are not "establishment" of the tonic, but an "extended tonic area" is well taken.

Call it a semantic hang-up of mine, but the term half cadence to my ear implies that the harmonic arc is incomplete;  there is somewhere else we are obliged to go.  And of course, that ain't true at the end of either the Hallelujah Chorus, nor the Rêveries.

[Gurn Blanston]

No.

[millionrainbows]

I'm the first to jump to having said this particular discussion is all 'nit-picking,' but, we all have to make our own kind of fun.

The loose, general, generic use of Tonal would include pop music.
The formal, classical ~ Common Practice matrix definition includes Tonic (triad) as the tonal center of a very rigid hierarchy of triadic chords built upon the scale degrees, all of them with a very specific "Function" within that matrix.  Common Practice Tonal, in that respect, no longer includes 20th century pop music any more than it includes, say, most of the music of Debussy.

Repeating, this is all nit-picking between a loose and generic idea of 'tonal' vs. the formal (classical) meaning of "Tonal/ tonality."

Since even dodecaphonic and other serial music and set theory music is quite often tone centered (and can be and is called that), I would prefer at least some qualification added to the looser use of the term tonal to distinguish it from the formal Common-Practice definition and its meaning. 

And... at what point do we decide to transfer formal theory, tonal or otherwise, to pop music, and why and to what useful end?  So many of those songs that have the typical modulations by assertion (up a whole-step from the starting key, always used for and considered 'dramatic') often remain in that second key level and end there.  Do we want to get seriously pretentious and then start labeling this particular niche of the pop genre as "Progressive Tonality." Lol, I think not.

I agree with MC, and point out that the formal (classical) meaning of tonal/ tonality refers to a specific era of music within a certain tradition, so this is more a label or identifier than it is a more meaningful, flexible term which refers to the actual mechanics of general tone-centricity. But, ostensibly, it was derived from such real-world considerations, and was adopted as the 'final solution' to such musical concerns as 'cadences' and resting points, establishing a tonality, etc. (but only within strictly prescribed ways. Achtung!)

In light of this, it is absurd and misleading to apply a classical label-term to an open-ended discussion of 'what makes music tone centric' or, generally, tonal.

If Mahlerian is this enslaved to strict definitions, I don't think he would make a good teacher, since his students would be constantly barraging him with questions concerning music which they have encountered on the radio, records, television, and virtually anywhere there is music being played and created. Most universities have jazz studies programs now. It's a wide, diverse world out there, and such myopic and pedantic views are outmoded, as of about 1950 at least.