# What is "function?"



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I question the separation of "modal" from "diatonic," my reason being that both derive their material from "scale/indexes" of notes that are unordered sets; plus, the church modes are part of the major scale, and the major scale is itself the Ionian mode. Also, the term "diatonic" means "using the notes of the scale," which to me would include modes. I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts about this.

I'm trying to raise the cash to get a book I saw about the "tonal implications" of Schoenberg's use of his 12-tone method. He "emulated" tonal functions, and used rows/hexads which functioned as tone-centers. The Suite op. 26 is mentioned, dividing into key areas of A and Eb. This being a tritone, I see this as similar (or identical) to Bartok's thinking, of dividing the chromatic scale at the tritone. Not just Bartok's or Schoenberg's idea, this is what I call "chromatic" thinking.

Which brings me to another point: In this book I referred to, I also read that Schoenberg did not want to "reveal" his 12-tone method, and did so only because he felt he had to, in response to Hauer's publication of his 12-note book and "trope" method (tropes were like scales, unordered).

Schoenberg would have rather just continued writing music without this "system" ever being mentioned. Not out of "secrecy" or fear of misunderstanding (which turned out to be a valid fear), but for "musical" reasons: he saw his music, even the 12-tone stuff, as being a continuation of chromaticism, plain and simple. This is how he thought: as a musician, not a theorist. No wonder he felt misunderstood!

Schoenberg in fact never discussed the 12-tone method with anyone other than his "special" students, Berg & Webern, maybe a few others.

The point I'm making is that Schoenberg saw his music as continuing the "chromatic" way of thinking, a late version of tonality, which he was already using before he developed the "system." Bartok, Stravinsky, and others were already thinking this way as well. So for me this reinforces the view of Schoenberg as a tonalist.

Which brings me to my penultimate point: What is really meant by the term "chromaticism"? The gradual addition of non-diatonic notes happened anyway, so we see a direct connection to tonality. In Strauss'* Metamorphosen *and Schoenberg's *Pelleas,* we see more chromaticism, but the functional meanings of the harmonies becomes more ambiguous, or having multiple functions/meanings, or no function at all in the CP tonal sense. So "chromaticism" means not simply "more notes", but also a lack of functional clarity in a CP tonal sense.

For Schoenberg, the notion of "function" never went away. His division of the row into A and Eb areas still "functioned" as areas of tone-centricity. Is it fair, or accurate, to say that a tritone relation like this is "non-functional," since Schoenberg used it in "tonal" ways?

I'm beginning to question whether the notion of "functionality" should be the exclusive domain of CP tonality. The traditional notion of function in CP tonality is an hierarchy derived from harmonic factors of dissonance, in relation to a root chord known as "I." Thus, the others follow: ii, iii, IV, V, vi, and viiº. It simply makes the harmonic factors into horizontal functions.

But since "chromatic" thinking uses "symmetry" and structural factors rather than harmonic ones, this is still "function," because it centers the ear in certain areas, and functions horizontally through time. So in this sense, "function" is only a horizontal time-based cognitive dimension, not a "harmonic" one based on the older harmonic CP tonal model.


----------

