harmonic function

[renfroejames]

Hi,
I am currently studying classical tonal harmony from the common practice period. I am also studying jazz, blues, and popular music. I am trying to find where they meet. In my readings I come across over and over again that music from the early twentieth century “broke” with many of the structures from the common practice period and I am really trying find out what broke means.
Is there anyone who could recommend any articles or books that compare the harmonic practice from the common practice period to that of jazz, blue, and popular forms of music today (excluding atonal music)?

It seems to me that the chords and progressions used in jazz and popular forms have been heavily influenced by African rhythms and harmonic structure– an example would be the use of the “blue note“. If the blue note is applied to the common practice harmonic structure it would be a dissonant element in need of resolution whereas in blues and jazz (and pop music which has assimilated its use) it seems to be an African elaboration that is not dissonant but rather expressive, a note that is properly basic.
I hope my post isn’t too confusing.

[Bob]

I thought the harmony came from the West. 

And if it's that dissonant -- V7 land -- It doens't have to resolve.

[renfroejames]

?

[Bob]

For jazz, rhythm came from Africe.  Harmony (and form?) came from the West.  It's a blend of both.  The slave trade divided who went where -- Some slaves who had a triplet beat feel went one direction.  Ones with a staight beat went a different direction.  That's how we ended up with a swing beat and a sraighter Latin jazz.

Eventually the pure African music was blended with Western ideas -- harmony (and form I think).


For dissonance, I don't think the seventh on I IV V in jazz and blues has to resolve.  A jazz/blues theory book might do a little comparison if the author assumes the reader knows basic theory already.

[rsp1]

First, remember that "classical harmony" is an attempt to study and understand what composers did over nearly a 300 year period.  Walter Piston referred to it as the "Era of Common Practice."  Principals of harmony as presented in this study are not rules.

This common practice period covers music as diverse as Baroque composing methods with its usually quick and regular harmonic rhythm that underpins contrapuntal techniques, rhythmic pace, and its spinning out a single idea through a movement, to Classical methods that often has a slower and often assymetric harmonic rhythm that underlines primarily homophonic techniques (counterpoint was originally avoided), and incorporating several ideas, both complementary and contrasting, to Romantic period usages that among other things expanded the functional harmonic pallet as well as incorporating non-functional harmonies for color.  While Baroque usages of harmony and other elements my be perfectly normal in Romantic Period music, Romantic harmonic usages would be out of place in the Baroque.  Unfortunately, the textbooks and teaching of harmony obscure this diversity and helps to cause lots of confusion.

As far as any "breaks" in this supposed continuity of harmonic practice, one could answer a.) that it started 2 days after the concepts were resonably in place, b.) the break-down began (or at least becomes apparent) in much of Wagner with his constant deceptive changes in direction that obscures any tonal center, c.) Late Liszt,some which foreshadows techniques used by Debussy, c.) Schoenberg and his exploration into atonality.  (Note: Schoenberg's explorations in atonal chromaticism was essentially a continuation of the breakdown already forshadowed by Wagner.)

What breaks did occur with "common practice harmony" originally was primarily limited to the art music of the early 20th century and in no way represented a supplanting of one by the other.  The popular music (including early jazz and blues) was fully rooted in this "common practice" harmonic tradition.

As Bob said, jazz and blues are actually a blending of African and European musical ideas.  That is why we can claim it as "American" music.  If we look at the basic blues harmonic progression, it is simply a I IV I V I pattern  (I (x4meas)|IV (x2) I (x2)|V (x2) I(x2)||).  How much more European can you get?  As far as the "blue notes" (b7 and b3 are most common), these occured melodically over this basic European progression.  They did not begin as harmonic elements.  Over time, much like the dominant chord with the minor 7th was ultimately accepted as an independant harmony during the Baroque, the blue notes were incorporated into the harmony of the blues, creating the 7th chords of blues in which the 7th is non-functioning but rather a color tone.  These harmonies are more closely allied with mixolydian or dorian modes rather than major/minor.  (Mixolydian, with its b7 scale step is fairly common in folk music, even that of European descent.)

In the end, much of jazz harmonic practice simply represents a natural evolution of the harmonic princpals in place, just as Romantic harmonic principals are an evolution of that of Baroque and Classical practice.  It borrowed heavily from this and impressionist ideas as well as other ideas.

The main difference between 20th century harmonic practice and the "common era" practice is that while the earlier practice was in general usage in the majority of music of the time, it is no longer common practice in the 20th century.  Besides this continuance of common practice harmony, there have been numerous other branches that may or may not have its roots in the earlier harmonic practice -- serialism, non-serial atonality/chromaticism, non-functional diatonicism, and whatever else.

Granted, some jazz started to break away from this concept of tonality and explored modal harmonies and other 20th century techniques.

I hope this makes some sense.  It is difficult to write about this idea and keep it concise.

Scott

[renfroejames]

Thank you for your time. It did help. I am working through Piston's Harmony and Schoenberg's Theory of Harmony right now. They are both like a breath of fresh air for me compared to the other theory books I have read.

My immediate goal is writing popular music that I can perform because I come from an acting background and need that outlet (mainly on guitar which would be more folkish, piano rock in a couple of years after I get better at piano) and my long term goal is to compose in the tradition of Western Art music (tonal mainly) - like 15 to 20  years from now.  I love both traditions. I am trying to wrap my head around the Western tonal tradition to create higher standards in pop music - still using I-IV-V but doing at a richer level like so many great composer's from the Common Practice Era. Its really hard  to go back and forth between a tradition that seems to have such a strained relationship with dissonance and then to Jazz, Blues, and Pop Music (to a lesser degree) who embrace it ( I know that was  a huge generalization).

So far I have learned so much in regard to voice leading and the melodic considerations needed for  chord progressions that support the melody from Piston and Schoenberg.

I come from the South so blues is in my blood plus I listened to a lot of Jazz in my teens. Now I am trying to put it all into a developmental time line of sorts which was the my initial motive for the post. I would love to find a book that is at the level of Schoenberg and Piston in so far as analysis is concerned but that also embraces pop music and puts it into persective. Do you know of any?

[Bob]

There are ones for jazz.  Mark Levine, Jazz Theory I think is the title.  Look for jazz theory or his name and you'll find other ones.

[rsp1]

Though a general conceptualization of harmonic theory, check into the work by Heinrich Schenker.  He takes a substantially different view of harmonic practice and analysis that I have found helpful in a variety of music.  A lot of his thought process actually removes the numerous "exceptions" that occur in the more traditional studies that were built on Rameau and Reiman (including Piston).  Besides the "common era" tonal music for which it was devised, I have seen it used in books about the music of the Beatles.

My original introduction to Schenker was through one of his own books.  I would probably avoid that because it can be a bit of a chore to read at times and you have to wade through some mystical "voodoo" thoughts that are interspersed.

Here's a website that can lead you to some of his ideas and other sources. https://www.schenkerguide.com/

Scott

[rsp1]

I had some additional thoughts.

First you mentioned about the "strained relationship".  While it is true that much that occurs in jazz, blues, and pop music today would have problems being accepted in previous generations, the reverse is not necessarily true.  Just as certain ideas in the Romantic period of the 19th century would be quite foreign, and dare I say unacceptable in the Baroque, that which was done in the Baroque was still valid in the 19th century.

One example is the concept of "forbidden parallels" (5ths, octaves, and dissonant intervals).  Contemporary tonal harmony, with its regular use of harmonies larger than the triad (7ths, 9ths, 11ths, 13ths) not only accepts more parallels, it often requires it to maintain the harmonic system.  But, in the more modern music, haphazard, accidental parallels sound no better now than they did before.  In otherwords, there is an intentional usage that corroborates their existence, not an occasional oversight.

My second thought was concerning voice leading.  Though it often plays a major role in the study of harmony, in reality, voice leading belongs to counterpoint study, the study of two or more melodic lines moving in relation to one another.  A triad is three notes and when connecting from one to the next, each member is part of an individual melodic part (a not necessarily exciting melody) but a melody none the less.  Good voice leading is still as valid in contemporary harmony as it is in traditional harmony.  The old ideas are not gone, they have just been expanded.

Scott

[renfroejames]

Thanks so much for the added comments.

Schenker will be my next stop as far as books (and sites) go. As I was reading Schoenberg I had to look up a few things on the internet and was excited to find that Schenker had published his own theory around the same time as Schoenberg - 5 years if I recall.

The "voodoo" I feel. When I came across his works as a cross reference for Schoenberg I found his theory of tonal procreation?? which I thought was a bit strange. As a metaphor OK, but it seemed that he had a more literal procreative meaning. That could be totally wrong, it was a digression for me from Schoenberg.

What excited me though was that Schenker seemed to view tonality as an eternal law, whereas Schoenberg repeats over and over in his Theory that he is not writing eternal laws but "practical considerations". The juxtaposition of the two books is exciting so I look forward to reading his works.

Scott's post:

I agree with the "forbidden parallels" as a voice leading device that would confuse the "individuality" of each melodic line in counterpoint. I was more speaking of taking the melodic movement of bass lines that support the melody as something that still applies today in popular music.

I could write a simple melody and write a progression to support it that would sound OK - but when I use inversions and more melodic considerations for the bass line it really helps support the melody in the way that a base line in counterpoint (though it would be its own melody in counterpoint loosely speaking) would support another individual melody. In my case, as far a pop music goes, that other melody would be the only melody. I hope that made sense. Any thoughts?

[renfroejames]

and ps...

I got my spiral Mark Levine book in the mail a few days back and though I am excited about reading it, it doesn't offer the kind of analysis I am looking for in the way that Schoenberg offers. Maybe it is because jazz is relatively young. Schoenberg reads as a discussion while Levine seems to point at things instead of explain.