# About Harmony. When did this happen?



## Rowy

Classical (traditional) harmony uses upper case to describe the degrees. For instance, it's C I II III IV V IV VII. That's the traditional, North-West European way of notating degrees in C major, as it has been for hundreds of years.

The same method was used in the USA. Schoenberg used it in his book on harmony, so did Walter Piston, who taught at Harvard.

I wonder when and why musicians in the USA started to use upper and lower case to describe degrees. 'I' is still being used for the 1st degree in major, but 'ii' describes the 2nd degree. This system tries to catch the built of a chord, as in popular chord notation where 'Dm' tells you the chord is a minor chord.

Harmony isn't about the built of a chord, but about the function and it's relation to the tonic of the key. Besides, you're supposed to know, if you studied harmony, that the 2nd degree in major is a minor chord. You don't need to be told.

Is it the influence of popular music that made harmony change into a simplified version? Or is the present day student not clever enough to learn it the classical way 

You don't have to defend this version of harmony though. I just wonder when it happened and why. My guess is, people tend to choose the easy way out. That combined with a lack of knowledge, and a different culture (pop culture), is the cause of the dumbed down version.


----------



## Rowy

I just discovered that in the book 'Harmony and Voice Leading' by Aldwell, Edward and Carl Schachter, one of the best books about harmony in the USA (I think they use it at Juilliard's), the original European notation is being used. Which gives me the impression that the dumbed down version is more an internet thing, or a lack of knowledge by some teachers in the USA.

Care to comment?


----------



## BabyGiraffe

There are many ways to analyse and notate harmony. If you check some of the older and influential harmony books from 19th-20th (Fétis, Shirlaw etc) century, you will see a way of thinking that is not that similar to the current paradigm and is actually closer to the newest trends of the Neo-Riemannian analysis (check the books by Tymoczko, Lewin, Rings, Cohn). 
Aldwell's books will give you a list of all the standard practices, but you won't get any deeper knowledge.


----------



## EdwardBast

Rowy said:


> Classical (traditional) harmony uses upper case to describe the degrees. For instance, it's C I II III IV V IV VII. That's the traditional, North-West European way of notating degrees in C major, as it has been for hundreds of years.
> 
> The same method was used in the USA. Schoenberg used it in his book on harmony, so did Walter Piston, who taught at Harvard.
> 
> I wonder when and why musicians in the USA started to use upper and lower case to describe degrees. 'I' is still being used for the 1st degree in major, but 'ii' describes the 2nd degree. This system tries to catch the built of a chord, as in popular chord notation where 'Dm' tells you the chord is a minor chord.
> 
> Harmony isn't about the built of a chord, but about the function and it's relation to the tonic of the key. Besides, you're supposed to know, if you studied harmony, that the 2nd degree in major is a minor chord. You don't need to be told.
> 
> Is it the influence of popular music that made harmony change into a simplified version? Or is the present day student not clever enough to learn it the classical way
> 
> You don't have to defend this version of harmony though. I just wonder when it happened and why. My guess is, people tend to choose the easy way out. That combined with a lack of knowledge, and a different culture (pop culture), is the cause of the dumbed down version.


Roman numerals aren't used to describe degrees, they refer to triads and their tonal functions. Using lower case for minor triads isn't dumbing down, it is supplying additional information. Many good theorists use that convention. Not sure why it started, but it has nothing to do with popular music. Why do you care?


----------



## Bettina

I'm pretty sure that Gottfried Weber (1779-1839) was the first theorist who used upper and lower case Roman numerals to distinguish between major and minor chords. Here's the Wikipedia article on him: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gottfried_Weber. Also see page 274 of this book:
https://books.google.com/books?id=Q...q=gottfried weber roman numerals case&f=false


----------



## Vox Gabrieli

Bettina said:


> I'm pretty sure that Gottfried Weber (1779-1839) was the first theorist who used upper and lower case Roman numerals to distinguish between major and minor chords. Here's the Wikipedia article on him: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gottfried_Weber. Also see page 274 of this book:
> https://books.google.com/books?id=Q...q=gottfried weber roman numerals case&f=false


+1

It goes back even further!

A hint of future expressive use of major and minor is found in the music of ancient gregorian chants: Mode II, with a minor third above the keybote, for sadder texts, Mode VIII reminisces the message of easter, etc, etc. All of these ideas were estabolished in the *Middle Ages*, only to be further* expanded on* in the future, *not streamlined*.


----------



## Vox Gabrieli

Rowy said:


> I just discovered that in the book 'Harmony and Voice Leading' by Aldwell, Edward and Carl Schachter, one of the best books about harmony in the USA (I think they use it at Juilliard's), the original European notation is being used. Which gives me the impression that the dumbed down version is more an internet thing, or a lack of knowledge by some teachers in the USA.
> 
> Care to comment?


Serious students and teachers don't require a streamlined version of music theory. It would be a waste of time if you tried to wrap a Junior High child's head around counterpoint, and retrograd double diminished intervals.


----------



## millionrainbows

I think it provides needed information, especially in jazz, where we might be talking about a "ii-V-I" progression.


----------



## Sekhar

EdwardBast said:


> Roman numerals aren't used to describe degrees, they refer to triads and their tonal functions. Using lower case for minor triads isn't dumbing down, it is supplying additional information. Many good theorists use that convention. Not sure why it started, but it has nothing to do with popular music. Why do you care?


Completely agree. The case difference also makes it much easier to read analysis when there is a lot of modulation and you see all kinds of cases like say a iii and a III appearing in the same score. Without the case difference, you'll need to also check what the current key is or re-analyze the chord to understand its nature/function.


----------



## Sekhar

EdwardBast said:


> Roman numerals aren't used to describe degrees, they refer to triads and their tonal functions. Using lower case for minor triads isn't dumbing down, it is supplying additional information. Many good theorists use that convention. Not sure why it started, but it has nothing to do with popular music. Why do you care?


Completely agree. The case difference also makes it much easier to read analysis when there is a lot of modulation and you see all kinds of cases like say a iii and a III appearing in the same score. Without the case difference, you'll need to also check what the current key is or re-analyze the chord to understand its nature/function.


----------



## Larkenfield

Here's another online copy of Gottfried Weber's book on music theory that might be a little easier to read:

https://archive.org/details/theorymusicalco01warngoog


----------



## Gaspard de la Nuit

I think it's pretty convenient any way you look at it. For people who are learning maybe it will reinforce the chord structure.


----------



## Bettina

Larkenfield said:


> Here's another online copy of Gottfried Weber's book on music theory that might be a little easier to read:
> 
> https://archive.org/details/theorymusicalco01warngoog


Thanks for posting this! I had no idea that the English translation of it was in the public domain. This is much more convenient and accessible than Google books, which only gives a partial preview.


----------



## Larkenfield

Bettina said:


> Thanks for posting this! I had no idea that the English translation of it was in the public domain. This is much more convenient and accessible than Google books, which only gives a partial preview.


You're welcome, Bettina. Wishing you a lifetime full of happy modulations!


----------

