# Functional harmony - What makes a progression good or bad?



## paulc

I mean in the theoretical sense of 'good' or 'bad', not what is better or worse at moving people to tears or dance in joy.

I finished reading a University-level text book on Harmony (Robert Gauldin) many months ago. I am currently reading another book 'Double Counterpoint and Canon' by Ebezner Prout, which references a table of good, bad and poor harmonic progressions. There is no explanation from the author as to why the progressions are categorised as such*.

Assuming that I understand sharps and flats, key signatures, closely related keys, distant keys, mnemonics such as FCGDAEB, chromaticism etc.. what makes harmonic progressions from chords based on one scale degree to another less or more effective in the way that Prout describes?

I can study Bach. I can study Wagner. But aside from falling-5th (or rising-5th/9th) based sequences, I do not understand HOW composers chose progressions, or how to utilise functional harmony in my own compositions. Linear harmony (employing common-note or step-wise reached chords) has always been more intuitive to me.

Can anyone enlighten me? Knowing theory, how can one 'make use' of functional harmony? 
Thanks,


* Adding to the confusion is the section on two voices, which of course can imply but not properly articulate full chords, but let's not go into that!


----------



## paulc

I am sorry, perhaps I should have posted this in the Music Theory forum. If it's in the wrong place, it can be moved by moderators?


----------



## Art Rock

Moved it for you.


----------



## Bwv 1080

paulc said:


> I mean in the theoretical sense of 'good' or 'bad', not what is better or worse at moving people to tears or dance in joy.
> 
> I finished reading a University-level text book on Harmony (Robert Gauldin) many months ago. I am currently reading another book 'Double Counterpoint and Canon' by Ebezner Prout, which references a table of good, bad and poor harmonic progressions. There is no explanation from the author as to why the progressions are categorised as such*.
> 
> Assuming that I understand sharps and flats, key signatures, closely related keys, distant keys, mnemonics such as FCGDAEB, chromaticism etc.. what makes harmonic progressions from chords based on one scale degree to another less or more effective in the way that Prout describes?
> 
> I can study Bach. I can study Wagner. But aside from falling-5th (or rising-5th/9th) based sequences, I do not understand HOW composers chose progressions, or how to utilise functional harmony in my own compositions. Linear harmony (employing common-note or step-wise reached chords) has always been more intuitive to me.
> 
> Can anyone enlighten me? Knowing theory, how can one 'make use' of functional harmony?
> Thanks,
> 
> * Adding to the confusion is the section on two voices, which of course can imply but not properly articulate full chords, but let's not go into that!


They used a lot of stock progressions, just like jazz and pop composers do today. A recent trend in MT attempts to catalog these.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galant_Schemata

http://elliotthauser.com/openmusictheory/Schemata.html

https://www.amazon.com/Music-Galant-Style-Robert-Gjerdingen/dp/0195313712

later theorists later tried to come up with principles, but should take that with a degree of skepticism. Good or bad is of course subjective, but if you want to write music that sounds like it belongs in the 18th or 19th century, the schema are the way to go


----------



## pianozach

Sure, composers and songwriters use "stock progressions", but not necessarily on purpose. Most don't open the Stock Harmonic Progressions handbook and chose one. 

It just so happens that most progressions that get reused all the time just "work", and are arrived at independently. Like, if I were to come up with the name for a band, or a company, chances are those phrases have already been thought up, maybe last year, maybe five decades ago . . . 

Educated composers often work out their compositions in many different ways using many different methods: They may have a great sequence of notes, and find the best pleasant or edgy harmonies to with them, depending on the mood wanted. They may start with a bunch of chords, and find a melody that fits.


----------



## EdwardBast

Your prime concern seems to be how to more effectively use functional harmony in your compositions. To assess this it will help to know how you approach composing. When you start a composition, what do you start with? A melody? A series of chords? A melodic idea already embedded in a harmonic background? Independent melodic lines in counterpoint? This is crucial. If, for example, one starts with a melody, the melody will often dictate the harmonic progression. If the melody is diatonic or modal and has no urgency, that will likely mean not particularly colorful diatonic harmony. On the other hand, if it is restless, chromatic, and uses multiple keys, one is apt to need chromatic harmony of various kinds. So, if you tell me your approach, I'd be happy to make suggestions. It is possible, however, since you seem to be learning on your own with books, that what you need is just more traditional theory instruction and practice writing progressions and harmonizing melodies. In any case tell us more and we might be able to offer better advice.

Before I wrote the above I addressed a couple of your specific queries, so I might as well include that:

Examples of good and bad progressions: If you haven't done so, it's essential to listen carefully to and compare the examples until you either hear what the author was getting at or you decide they're an unreliable judge or they haven't given enough context. Prout is a very old text. I examined it when I was studying _the history of theory_ (which, along with the name Ebenezer, should tell you something), but I don't have a clear memory of it. Do the "bad progressions" have something in common you can extract?

"How composers choose progressions." The way you've stated this makes me wonder if you're elevating a secondary choice to a primary role. As noted above, melody often dictates harmonization.


----------



## EdwardBast

Paul,
Is it Prout who uses the word progression? In the counterpoint book you named? It just occurred to me that the word progression is often used in old counterpoint texts in reference to voice-leading phenomena, like the interaction of two voices. In a renaissance treatise, for example, the words "poor progression" might be used to describe parallel 5ths, two consecutive thirds of the same type, and other such blunders. Could Prout be using bad progression in that sense rather than in reference to harmonic root progression?

In any case, could you give a couple of examples of these bad progressions so we can see what you're referring to?


----------



## paulc

@Bwv 1080 - Thankyou for the information about stock progressions and Galant. I will check those links.

@EdwardBast - I appreciate the thorough replies. I was for a long-time studying Fux counterpoint, which is modal / diatonic. I am now trying to adapt what I have learned to a key-based and more modern harmonic style. Have a copy of Bach's Well-Tempered Clavier for reference, so I can study how Bach has arranged his subjects to move within the current key & modulate to different keys). I do not intend to replicate Baroque harmony, I just find it useful for study.

What I am trying to learn is how a counterpoint subject / melody dictates the harmony, by directing the strict & free counterpoint writing of the other voices. I don't necessary intend to write this way (melody first). I would probably come up with some musical idea intuitively & then try to use my knowledge of theory to decide which elements (melody, harmony, rhythm) can be "extracted" as motives and used in more than one context. Having some sort of harmonic plan I see as being essential, so:

Maybe it would be possible for me to voice some chords according to where I want the piece to go and then extract a counterpoint subject somehow from that material. But, I don't fully grasp functional harmony!  The harmony I have used previously does sound weak and I want to pay more attention to harmonic implications and "standard practice" before I write.

By good, fair, bad progressions I believe Prout is talking harmonically - not parallel 5ths, 8ths, 3rds, 6ths etc..

His table of progressions is listed on page 32 (Chapter II) of his book 'Counterpoint: Strict and Free'. If you'd like some examples, it might be easier to just download the book as a .pdf (it's now public domain) and check that page.

Thanks,


----------



## EdwardBast

The Prout was public domain before you were born. Probably. 

I've skimmed the relevant sections and examined the examples and the summary table of progressions on page 32. Prout claims to be writing about root progression in Chapter II but that's not really what he's doing. What he's doing is exhaustively evaluating the viable voice-leading options in connecting every diatonic triad in root position or first inversion to every other diatonic triad in root position or first inversion. (His system of using "a" for root position and "b" for first inversion is, AFAIK, idiosyncratic.) For someone wishing to learn about harmonic progression, using or, gods forbid, memorizing such a chart would be an insane and ultimately unproductive brute force approach.

Walter Piston, in Chapter III of his _Harmony_, has a simpler chart that directly addresses root progression:

I - is followed by IV or V, sometimes Vi, less often II of III.
II - is followed by V, sometimes VI, less often I, III, or IV
III - is followed by VI, sometimes IV, less often II or V
IV - is followed by V, sometimes I or II, Less often III or VI
V - is followed by I, sometimes VI or IV, less often III or II
VI - is followed by II or V, sometimes III or IV, less often I
VII - is followed by III, sometimes I

I'm not sure how useful this is either, but in general, if one is frequently using sequences in the "less often" category, one will have weak sounding harmony. Note that what he says about VII is weird. In my copy of the book I crossed his words out and substituted "is followed by I, sometimes III."

How much part writing have you done? Have you done much using secondary dominants and other chromatic chords?


----------



## SanAntone

> I - is followed by IV or V, sometimes Vi, less often II of III.
> II - is followed by V, sometimes VI, less often I, III, or IV
> III - is followed by VI, sometimes IV, less often II or V
> IV - is followed by V, sometimes I or II, Less often III or VI
> V - is followed by I, sometimes VI or IV, less often III or II
> VI - is followed by II or V, sometimes III or IV, less often I
> VII - is followed by III, sometimes I


All of these "less often" progressions are found in popular music, and are quite effective.  The Rolling Stones song "Wild Horses" has the progression of

iii | I | iii | I
ii | IV V | I | V IV
iii | I | iii | I
ii | IV V | I | V

ii | IV V | I flat-VII| IV
ii | IV V | I flat-VII| IV


----------



## EdwardBast

SanAntone said:


> All of these "less often" progressions are found in popular music, and are quite effective. The Rolling Stones song "Wild Horses" has the progression of
> 
> iii | I | iii | I
> ii | IV V | I | V IV
> iii | I | iii | I
> ii | IV V | I | V
> 
> ii | IV V | I flat-VII| IV
> ii | IV V | I flat-VII| IV


Sure. The OP isn't studying how to write pop music, or even British cowboy music.


----------



## pianozach

You forgot 

I - bVII - I - bVII


----------



## SanAntone

EdwardBast said:


> Sure. The OP isn't studying how to write pop music, or even British cowboy music.


It doesn't matter what the style is - chord progressions can work without conforming to the standard patterns. That chart might have described the music of the 18th century - but we are well past those conventions.


----------



## EdwardBast

SanAntone said:


> It doesn't matter what the style is - chord progressions can work without conforming to the standard patterns. That chart might have described the music of the 18th century - but we are *well past those conventions*.


Of course it matters what the style is. Those kinds of progressions seem to be exactly what the OP is intent on avoiding. And what is "past those conventions" isn't classically atypical retrogressive progressions like those you describe, but modal mixture, chromatic and enharmonic modulation, altered mediant and submediant progressions, etc. Not everyone wants to ride your hobby horse. If he wanted to learn composition from the Stones he wouldn't be studying Fux and Prout.


----------



## SanAntone

EdwardBast said:


> Of course it matters what the style is. Those kinds of progressions seem to be exactly what the OP is intent on avoiding. And what is "past those conventions" isn't classically atypical retrogressive progressions like those you describe, but modal mixture, chromatic and enharmonic modulation, altered mediant and submediant progressions, etc. Not everyone wants to ride your hobby horse.


There's plenty of judgmentalism in your post.

The title of this thread is "What makes a progression good or bad?". A progression is good if it works, i.e. provides a pleasing progression from one chord to another, and offers some surprising turns away from conventional movement. This is true whether it is the Rolling Stones or Debussy.

The chart you posted only explains what was done the majority of the time during the 18th century. While it is beneficial to learn music theory, which is a summary of what has been done, it is not enough to grasp a deeper understanding of what is musically good or bad, which generally is achieved by trial and error after listening to a wide variety of music.


----------



## Bwv 1080

EdwardBast said:


> Sure. The OP isn't studying how to write pop music, or even British cowboy music.


Wild Horses was written by an American


----------



## paulc

EdwardBast said:


> I've skimmed the relevant sections and examined the examples and the summary table of progressions on page 32. Prout claims to be writing about root progression in Chapter II but that's not really what he's doing. What he's doing is exhaustively evaluating the viable voice-leading options in connecting every diatonic triad in root position or first inversion to every other diatonic triad in root position or first inversion. (His system of using "a" for root position and "b" for first inversion is, AFAIK, idiosyncratic.) For someone wishing to learn about harmonic progression, using or, gods forbid, memorizing such a chart would be an insane and ultimately unproductive brute force approach.


I think that's a very good description of what he's doing, yes.

But, it's not the exhaustive charting of the viable voice-leading options that worries me  so much as the REASONS for the categorisation of some of the "progressions" (that is what I call them) from chord to chord as good, fair or poor. The root movement is more important than which note of a chord is in the bass or soprano, isn't it?



EdwardBast said:


> Walter Piston, in Chapter III of his Harmony, has a simpler chart that directly addresses root progression:
> 
> I - is followed by IV or V, sometimes Vi, less often II of III.
> II - is followed by V, sometimes VI, less often I, III, or IV
> III - is followed by VI, sometimes IV, less often II or V
> IV - is followed by V, sometimes I or II, Less often III or VI
> V - is followed by I, sometimes VI or IV, less often III or II
> VI - is followed by II or V, sometimes III or IV, less often I
> VII - is followed by III, sometimes I


Thanks for posting this. I wonder whether there is any cross-over between Prout and Piston, regarding what is good, fair and bad? I'll have to examine both charts. It would be really helpful to know WHY some progressions work and others do not? Is it shared tones? Is it the falling 5ths, for example (C Major):

I -> ii7 -> V7 -> I

Works very well for Bach, even though II above is one of the 'less often' chords? Is that because I -> ii7 essentially rises by a 5th twice (C -> G -> D) and then the ii7 falls a 5th to V7, then falls a 5th again to I? ii7 is sort of the setup for that falling sequence which follows?

I think it could be similar with iii? If we move from I - iii - that's not fantastic (III major might be better with vi following), but then iii (e) can fall a 5th to vi (a), which falls a 5th to ii (d), which falls a 5th to V (G), which falls a 5th to I (C) again.

Is this what functional harmony is mostly about? Only I can think of exceptions where pivot chords go off in completely different directions and other cases like:

C minor key: IV first inversion -> VI (Ab) augmented 6th -> I second inversion -> Dominant -> Tonic.

Neapolitan 6ths (bII) are also really whacky. 

I wonder if there is some set of theoretical rules we can discover to determine what's good, fair and poor without an exhaustive and hard to remember table?


----------



## hammeredklavier

SanAntone said:


> There's plenty of judgmentalism in your post.
> The title of this thread is "What makes a progression good or bad?". A progression is good if it works, i.e. provides a pleasing progression from one chord to another, and offers some surprising turns away from conventional movement. This is true whether it is the Rolling Stones or Debussy.
> The chart you posted only explains what was done the majority of the time during the 18th century. While it is beneficial to learn music theory, which is a summary of what has been done, it is not enough to grasp a deeper understanding of what is musically good or bad, which generally is achieved by trial and error after listening to a wide variety of music.


Why am I reminded of millionrainbows?



millionrainbows said:


> There's really no need for "counterpoint" as a separate category, now that _harmony_ has progressed to the point it has now. What used to be a "passing tone" B-C is now a major seventh chord.
> You polyphony guys are old hat. The study of it is really more of a historical pursuit than it is a vital, living style of music.
> Row, row, row your boat, gently into obsolescence.





millionrainbows said:


> Too much drama for me. If he studies polyphony, I suggest he do it with a more flexible musical thinker than you have been shown to be in these discussions on "diatonic" methods.
> My views are more progressive than yours, and I hope camus will seek out a flexible teacher, not someone who comes across as a nun, complete with guilt-tripping and knuckle-rapping.
> Sure, I know what polyphony is, and how it could be transformed into some conservative version of what you think it should be. Also, I think you should not teach any guitarist if your main instrument is piano. Yes, "warm chords" are nice, but from what you have said, you would not encourage free-modal thinking, and in fact discourage it, as we just heard. You prefer Wagner to Debussy, after all.
> Whatever suits your taste.
> Too much drama and guilt-tripping. You're just as bad. Stop thinking about me, and start thinking about what I have said: you need to get flexible in your thinking about music


----------



## Bwv 1080

paulc said:


> Is this what functional harmony is mostly about? Only I can think of exceptions where pivot chords go off in completely different directions and other cases like:
> 
> C minor key: IV first inversion -> VI (Ab) augmented 6th -> I second inversion -> Dominant -> Tonic.
> 
> Neapolitan 6ths (bII) are also really whacky.
> 
> I wonder if there is some set of theoretical rules we can discover to determine what's good, fair and poor without an exhaustive and hard to remember table?


Three functions tonic (I, vi, and less commonly iii) subdominant (ii,IV) and dominant (V,vii) - that is it. In CP generally avoid root position chords on degrees other than on I and V except for beginning of a phrase and cadence. It's not that complicated


----------



## EdwardBast

paulc said:


> I think that's a very good description of what he's doing, yes.
> 
> But, it's not the exhaustive charting of the viable voice-leading options that worries me  so much as the REASONS for the categorisation of some of the "progressions" (that is what I call them) from chord to chord as good, fair or poor. The root movement is more important than which note of a chord is in the bass or soprano, isn't it?
> 
> Thanks for posting this. I wonder whether there is any cross-over between Prout and Piston, regarding what is good, fair and bad? I'll have to examine both charts. It would be really helpful to know WHY some progressions work and others do not? Is it shared tones? Is it the falling 5ths, for example (C Major):
> 
> I -> ii7 -> V7 -> I
> 
> Works very well for Bach, even though II above is one of the 'less often' chords? Is that because I -> ii7 essentially rises by a 5th twice (C -> G -> D) and then the ii7 falls a 5th to V7, then falls a 5th again to I? ii7 is sort of the setup for that falling sequence which follows?


One could explain it in the terms Bwv 1080 used above (a post to which you should attend, with the understanding that it won't apply to the whole history of functional harmony). The three functions represented in the progression I-ii7-V7-I are tonic, subdominant, dominant, and back to tonic. All the functions in the "right" order, so of course it works. Less common does not necessarily mean bad. In this context it just means there are likely to be other harmonies between the I and the II.

But yes, the root movement descending in 5ths is always strong. One needn't postulate two rising 5ths to justify the II.



paulc said:


> I think it could be similar with iii? If we move from I - iii - that's not fantastic (III major might be better with vi following), but then iii (e) can fall a 5th to vi (a), which falls a 5th to ii (d), which falls a 5th to V (G), which falls a 5th to I (C) again.
> 
> Is this what functional harmony is mostly about?


All about? No. But being aware of the strength of progressions by 5th is a valuable thing to learn and apply. When I started doing undergraduate part writing assignments where we were asked to harmonize Bach chorale melodies, I found that a good way to begin was to work backward from cadences by 5ths as far as I could and then fill in the rest after. Since Bach's most common procedure was to end phrases with ii6-V-I, this had an excellent success rate. One of Schubert's favorite formulas was V/ii, ii, V, I, which is the same idea but using secondary dominants somewhere in the 5th cycle instead of the diatonic harmonies.



paulc said:


> Only I can think of exceptions where pivot chords go off in completely different directions and other cases like:
> 
> C minor key: IV first inversion -> VI (Ab) augmented 6th -> I second inversion -> Dominant -> Tonic.


There's nothing strange about this one. Functionally it's tonic, subdominant, a very strong predominant (the +6 chord) and then V (in this case the I6/4 is often really just a V with unresolved suspensions). Once again, all the functions in the standard order with a bit of spice. In this case the voice-leading is important, with the F from the IV chord rising to become the +6. Looked at in a certain light, the +6 chord disappears as no more than chromatic voice-leading.



paulc said:


> Neapolitan 6ths (bII) are also really whacky.
> 
> I wonder if there is some set of theoretical rules we can discover to determine what's good, fair and poor without an exhaustive and hard to remember table?


I don't find Neapolitans whacky. It's just a colorful predominant. As for rules, no doubt one could make a list. But I just learned strategies that worked while training my ear and judgment in the course of years of practice writing and composing. Trying out the advice Bwv 1080 gave will be a valuable learning experience as well.



SanAntone said:


> There's plenty of judgmentalism in your post.
> 
> The title of this thread is "What makes a progression good or bad?". A progression is good if it works, i.e. provides a pleasing progression from one chord to another, and offers some surprising turns away from conventional movement. This is true whether it is the Rolling Stones or Debussy.


The OP wanted clarification on the terms good and bad progression as used in specific texts he had cited. That's what I attempted to provide.


----------



## EdwardBast

Bwv 1080 said:


> Wild Horses was written by an American


And most famously performed by British cowboys.


----------



## paulc

Thanks again, Bmv 1080 & EdwardBast.

I was interested to see that you characterised the IV -> augmented 6th in the example I gave as predominant. It always puzzled me why that sequence worked, but as you say... it's sort of like: iv first inversion - V (subdominant - dominant), only with that raised 6th. I think there's a hint of tritone substitution playing a role in how that works as well? As with F7 -> B7 -> E -> a, with the second chord (B7) omitted. Although, I may be spelling chords wrong, due to enharmonic confusion...

I suppose bII does act as predominant too. bII first inversion -> i second inversion -> V dominant -> i tonic. I wonder if part of the reason it works is because it also features a falling 5th, albeit a diminished one (Db -> G).

I will continue reading, regards.


----------



## paulc

SanAntone said:


> The title of this thread is "What makes a progression good or bad?". A progression is good if it works, i.e. provides a pleasing progression from one chord to another, and offers some surprising turns away from conventional movement.


SanAntone, thankyou also for your replies. I listen to and enjoy popular music.  I am asking about 'functional harmony' which is perhaps a little more restrictive and why progressions would be considered good or bad in a 'ye-olde'  classical context (Prout).

I most enjoy tonal, but often heavily chromatic music. My musical 'gods':


----------



## SanAntone

paulc said:


> SanAntone, thankyou also for your replies. I listen to and enjoy popular music.  I am asking about 'functional harmony' which is perhaps a little more restrictive and why progressions would be considered good or bad in a 'ye-olde'  classical context (Prout).
> 
> I most enjoy tonal, but often heavily chromatic music. My musical 'gods':


Tbh, I didn't read your OP, which was a lapse on my part, and did not understand what you were really asking. Sorry for intruding with my posts, which while I stand by my comments, were not on-topic for your thread. It does appear that a couple of members did respond with information that was useful for you.


----------



## Torkelburger

> I wonder if there is some set of theoretical rules we can discover to determine what's good, fair and poor without an exhaustive and hard to remember table?


In Schoenberg's texts on traditional harmony, he placed diatonic chord progressions into three categories and, while not labelling them as "good, fair, or poor", he did recommend how _often_ they should be used (which I guess is a roundabout way of saying it):

1. Ascending Progressions-- one common tone, two tones change. Such as V - I. Root usually up a fourth, down fifth. Called these "strong".

2. Descending Progressions-- two common tones, one note changes. Such as iii - I. Intentionally never called this "weak", but said their use should be very restrictive.

3. Super-strong Progressions-- no common tones, all notes change. Such as ii - I, or V - vi, etc. It's "super strong" because the new chord is completely novel (all notes are completely new/not used in the previous chord). But he said it has too much novelty and should be used sparingly, just not as sparingly as #2.

This may be a simple "rule of thumb" you're looking for.

ETA: also you can see why #2 is "weak"...because there are 2 common tones between the chords. It's the opposite of why #3 is "super strong".


----------



## SanAntone

Torkelburger said:


> In Schoenberg's texts on traditional harmony, he placed diatonic chord progressions into three categories and, while not labelling them as "good, fair, or poor", he did recommend how _often_ they should be used (which I guess is a roundabout way of saying it):
> 
> 1. Ascending Progressions-- one common tone, two tones change. Such as V - I. Root usually up a fourth, down fifth. Called these "strong".
> 
> 2. Descending Progressions-- two common tones, one note changes. Such as iii - I. Intentionally never called this "weak", but said their use should be very restrictive.
> 
> 3. Super-strong Progressions-- no common tones, all notes change. Such as ii - I, or V - vi, etc. It's "super strong" because the new chord is completely novel (all notes are completely new/not used in the previous chord). But he said it has too much novelty and should be used sparingly, just not as sparingly as #2.
> 
> This may be a simple "rule of thumb" you're looking for.
> 
> ETA: also you can see why #2 is "weak"...because there are 2 common tones between the chords. It's the opposite of why #3 is "super strong".


I have always thought that Schoenberg's text is the best, as well as his other books on composition (I have them all). He must have been an excellent teacher. Hindemith is another. His two books on counterpoint and composition are among the best of their kind.


----------



## paulc

@Torkelburger - I have a copy of Schoenberg's 'Fundamentals of Musical Composition'. Is that the same as the text(s) on traditional harmony you cited? If not, which of his books focus on harmony?



SanAntone said:


> I have always thought that Schoenberg's text is the best, as well as his other books on composition (I have them all). He must have been an excellent teacher. Hindemith is another. His two books on counterpoint and composition are among the best of their kind.


Schoenberg's text... which one in particular?  Can you name his other books? You say Hindemith wrote some books as well on counterpoint, composition :-O. Please give some titles?

I need lots of reading materal!

Thanks again to all.


----------



## Bwv 1080

Torkelburger said:


> In Schoenberg's texts on traditional harmony, he placed diatonic chord progressions into three categories and, while not labelling them as "good, fair, or poor", he did recommend how _often_ they should be used (which I guess is a roundabout way of saying it):
> 
> 1. Ascending Progressions-- one common tone, two tones change. Such as V - I. Root usually up a fourth, down fifth. Called these "strong".
> 
> 2. Descending Progressions-- two common tones, one note changes. Such as iii - I. Intentionally never called this "weak", but said their use should be very restrictive.


Been awhile since I read Schoenberg, but this does not make sense to me. What about ubiquitous stepwise descending progressions like the Prinner or Fonte?



> 3. Super-strong Progressions-- no common tones, all notes change. Such as ii - I, or V - vi, etc. It's "super strong" because the new chord is completely novel (all notes are completely new/not used in the previous chord). But he said it has too much novelty and should be used sparingly, just not as sparingly as #2.


I-ii6 or I-ii4/2 is hardly novel


----------



## Torkelburger

> @Torkelburger - I have a copy of Schoenberg's 'Fundamentals of Musical Composition'. Is that the same as the text(s) on traditional harmony you cited? If not, which of his books focus on harmony?


For the specific topic of what I cited, the text in which he outlines it and goes into it in detail is _Structural Functions of Harmony._


----------



## paulc

Torkelburger said:


> the text in which he outlines it and goes into it in detail is _Structural Functions of Harmony_.


Noted. Thankyou.

Edit: Downloaded.


----------



## Torkelburger

Bwv 1080 said:


> Been awhile since I read Schoenberg, but this does not make sense to me. What about ubiquitous stepwise descending progressions like the Prinner or Fonte?
> 
> I-ii6 or I-ii4/2 is hardly novel


I don't understand what you mean. C-E-G to F-A-D would be introducing 3 completely different pitches that were not in the first chord. That is completely novel.


----------



## Bwv 1080

Torkelburger said:


> I don't understand what you mean. C-E-G to F-A-D would be introducing 3 completely different pitches that were not in the first chord. That is completely novel.


but not uncommon


----------



## Torkelburger

Bwv 1080 said:


> but not uncommon


Which has absolutely nothing to do with what I, or Schoenberg, was talking about. Not even inferred by my use of "novel". You're equivocating just to be argumentative.


----------



## Bwv 1080

Torkelburger said:


> Which has absolutely nothing to do with what I, or Schoenberg, was talking about. Not even inferred by my use of "novel". You're equivocating just to be argumentative.


How am I equivocating? I asked a couple of clarification questions, only one of which you addressed

This was the original


> But he said it has too much novelty and should be used sparingly, just not as sparingly as #2.


novel equates with uncommon, and I dont think I to some inversion of ii is that unusual or uncommon. Is it that I - ii without the 7th is less common?


----------



## Torkelburger

Bwv 1080 said:


> How am I equivocating? I asked a couple of clarification questions, only one of which you addressed
> 
> This was the original
> 
> novel equates with uncommon, and I dont think I to some inversion of ii is that unusual or uncommon. Is it that I - ii without the 7th is less common?


Yes, you just outlined how you equivocated. Equivocation is where a word has several meanings and in order to argue against someone, a person will use a DIFFERENT meaning than the one the other person used in order to argue against it. It is a cousin to the Strawman Fallacy.

I used "novel" to mean "all pitches of the second chord are different than the notes of the first chord". It had absolutely nothing at all to do with the progression being "uncommon" or "unusual", or any OTHER meaning attached to the word "novel".

But you put up a Strawman by introducing a new argument saying the progression is not "novel" because the progression used as an example is not unusual, not uncommon. That's 100%, classic, textbook, equivocation.

I mean, "novel" also has ANOTHER definition of being a written book of fiction, so one can just as easily say the progression isn't "novel" since it doesn't write a book of fiction. Good grief. We can equivocate all day long.

Why don't we just forget about trying to troll me and forget the word/diction entirely? Schoenberg's point is very simple and I was just trying to help the OP like everyone else.


----------



## EdwardBast

Bwv 1080 said:


> novel equates with uncommon, and I dont think I to some inversion of ii is that unusual or uncommon. Is it that I - ii without the 7th is less common?


If I'm understanding Tork's summary, Schoenberg wasn't talking about the _progression_ being novel, but was using novel in this context only to mean tones not having been in the previous harmony. In this admittedly strange usage, all the _tones_ in DAF are novel if it follows CEG. You guys don't really have any substantive dispute that I can see.


----------



## SanAntone

paulc said:


> @Torkelburger - I have a copy of Schoenberg's 'Fundamentals of Musical Composition'. Is that the same as the text(s) on traditional harmony you cited? If not, which of his books focus on harmony?
> 
> Schoenberg's text... which one in particular?  Can you name his other books? You say Hindemith wrote some books as well on counterpoint, composition :-O. Please give some titles?
> 
> I need lots of reading materal!
> 
> Thanks again to all.


Along with the one you have (Fundamentals of Musical Composition) there's Theory of Harmony, Structural Functions of Harmony, The Musical Idea and the Logic, Technique, and Art.

Hindemith's The Craft of Musical Composition (2 vols.).


----------



## Bwv 1080

Torkelburger said:


> Yes, you just outlined how you equivocated. Equivocation is where a word has several meanings and in order to argue against someone, a person will use a DIFFERENT meaning than the one the other person used in order to argue against it. It is a cousin to the Strawman Fallacy.
> 
> I used "novel" to mean "all pitches of the second chord are different than the notes of the first chord". It had absolutely nothing at all to do with the progression being "uncommon" or "unusual", or any OTHER meaning attached to the word "novel".
> 
> But you put up a Strawman by introducing a new argument saying the progression is not "novel" because the progression used as an example is not unusual, not uncommon. That's 100%, classic, textbook, equivocation.
> 
> I mean, "novel" also has ANOTHER definition of being a written book of fiction, so one can just as easily say the progression isn't "novel" since it doesn't write a book of fiction. Good grief. We can equivocate all day long.
> 
> Why don't we just forget about trying to troll me and forget the word/diction entirely? Schoenberg's point is very simple and I was just trying to help the OP like everyone else.


Not trying to troll you, just trying to understand what you/Schoenberg was trying to say. You did say "novel and should be used sparingly"


----------



## Torkelburger

Ok, I see how that could be taken out of context. I'll be more careful. "Novel" was my word, BTW. Couldn't think of anything else on the fly. Just going from memory.


----------



## Torkelburger

Paul, if I'm not mistaken, I don't think I saw a reply to EB's question:



> Have you done much using secondary dominants and other chromatic chords?


I'd also be curious about that. Do you care to discuss this subject as well? Saw a little bit about N6.


----------



## paulc

Torkelburger said:


> Paul, if I'm not mistaken, I don't think I saw a reply to EB's question:
> 
> Have you done much using secondary dominants and other chromatic chords?
> 
> I'd also be curious about that. Do you care to discuss this subject as well? Saw a little bit about N6.


As I said in my original post, I worked through most (excluding the atonal chapter) of Robert Gauldin's book, 'Harmonic Practice in Tonal Music'. It's pretty comprehensive re: harmony. If I don't reinforce this knowledge or use it constantly though, then I feel the need to review what I have already read!

I understand secondary dominants. On chromatic chords (there's a chapter dedicated to Wagner - T&I* Prelude) - I do need to remind myself how they work. Yet, I still find myself struggling to come up with a simple counterpoint subject that fits with the other parts according to CP rules WHILE ALSO going where I want it to harmonically and not sounding weak.

That's my major difficulty - understanding how a melody dictates the harmony, when choosing a counterpoint subject or theme that is intended to be accompanied by other contrapuntal parts, and not merely a homophonic series of chords.

Maybe I should determine a harmonic sequence in advance and then design a melody around that? Keeping in mind all the problems that can occur in CP writing. ?

*Correction


----------



## Torkelburger

paulc said:


> As I said in my original post, I worked through most (excluding the atonal chapter) of Robert Gauldin's book, 'Harmonic Practice in Tonal Music'. It's pretty comprehensive re: harmony. If I don't reinforce this knowledge or use it constantly though, then I feel the need to review what I have already read!
> 
> I understand secondary dominants. On chromatic chords (there's a chapter dedicated to Wagner - T&S Prelude) - I do need to remind myself how they work. Yet, I still find myself struggling to come up with a simple counterpoint subject that fits with the other parts according to CP rules WHILE ALSO going where I want it to harmonically and not sounding weak.
> 
> That's my major difficulty - understanding how a melody dictates the harmony, when choosing a counterpoint subject or theme that is intended to be accompanied by other contrapuntal parts, and not merely a homophonic series of chords.
> 
> Maybe I should determine a harmonic sequence in advance and then design a melody around that? Keeping in mind all the problems that can occur in CP writing. ?


Yes! I think that is an excellent idea. Oftentimes, students of counterpoint make the mistake of beginning counterpoint studies by starting with two or more voices at once. But I think it's best to start with ONE voice. Learn to write one line first! Then once you've learned how to write one line properly, go to two. You are very wise. I think you are headed in the right direction.


----------



## Bwv 1080

paulc said:


> As I said in my original post, I worked through most (excluding the atonal chapter) of Robert Gauldin's book, 'Harmonic Practice in Tonal Music'. It's pretty comprehensive re: harmony. If I don't reinforce this knowledge or use it constantly though, then I feel the need to review what I have already read!
> 
> I understand secondary dominants. On chromatic chords (there's a chapter dedicated to Wagner - T&S Prelude) - I do need to remind myself how they work. Yet, I still find myself struggling to come up with a simple counterpoint subject that fits with the other parts according to CP rules WHILE ALSO going where I want it to harmonically and not sounding weak.
> 
> That's my major difficulty - understanding how a melody dictates the harmony, when choosing a counterpoint subject or theme that is intended to be accompanied by other contrapuntal parts, and not merely a homophonic series of chords.
> 
> Maybe I should determine a harmonic sequence in advance and then design a melody around that? Keeping in mind all the problems that can occur in CP writing. ?


Learn the rule of the octave and some basic schema from the links I posted above, then move on to some partimento exercises. Traditional music theory is mostly worthless for learning to create actual music

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partimento


----------



## EdwardBast

Bwv 1080 said:


> Learn the rule of the octave and some basic schema from the links I posted above, then move on to some partimento exercises. *Traditional music theory is mostly worthless for learning to create actual music*
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partimento


For you perhaps. Many, many have done well arriving by different paths.


----------



## Bwv 1080

EdwardBast said:


> For you perhaps. Many, many have done well arriving by different paths.


True enough, but theory textbooks are generally poor sources for learning composition


----------



## SanAntone

Bwv 1080 said:


> True enough, but theory textbooks are generally poor sources for learning composition


I posted earlier that music theory is a summary of what has been done during a specific period. Theoretical texts describe the lowest common denominators of a style. For each composer they cite as an example of some aspect they describe, his music will also contain many exceptions and striking departures from the conventions that make up their treatise.


----------



## EdwardBast

Bwv 1080 said:


> True enough, but theory textbooks are generally poor sources for learning composition


That could well be. My most rewarding year in undergrad theory (freshman) had no text except Riemenschneider (Bach's collected chorales). It was taught by an organist. We'd get a bit of lecture on whatever new vocabulary we were studying and then go to work. We'd harmonize melodies and then see what Bach did with them. Or realize figured bass. Sometimes we took a contrapuntal approach; Given a melody and then told to write a good bass part against it, then fill in the inner voices. The TA gave us some weird assignments for fun, like taking a Hugo Wolf lied with a few measures left out and having us supply the missing measures in our best approximation of the style. It worked for me. I got the impression that a number of classmates were at sea and likely never recovered.


----------



## mikeh375

Bwv 1080 said:


> True enough, but theory textbooks are generally poor sources for learning composition


Not in my experience but I suppose it comes down to how you absorb and apply what's learnt. One needs musical imagination and intelligence to adapt the fundamentals for individual use. Composition really cannot be spoon fed to any great extent though imv, no matter the source. However the fundamentals one learns in theory texts are an invaluable stepping stone that can guide and underpin much.


----------



## EdwardBast

Imaginative play has always been at the heart of learning theory and composition for me. Like a kid playing with blocks, I enjoyed finding new materials to build with and new construction plans, no matter the source. Theory books can be an excellent source because the blocks are catalogued in convenient categories with examples of fun ways to use them, along with (obviously) scores and things one hears. I found that setting little challenges—playing games of musical solitaire—helped assimilate new vocabulary, like, for example, harmonizing ascending and descending chromatic scales, seeing how many foreign triads could be incorporated into a passage while maintaining the integrity of the key, playing with cycles of third related harmonies, generating harmonies from "synthetic scales," experimenting with canonic writing, and so on. If this sort of play is fun for you, learning theory doesn't seem as much like work.


----------



## SanAntone

EdwardBast said:


> Imaginative play has always been at the heart of learning theory and composition for me. Like a kid playing with blocks, I enjoyed finding new materials to build with and new construction plans, no matter the source. Theory books can be an excellent source because the blocks are catalogued in convenient categories with examples of fun ways to use them, along with (obviously) scores and things one hears. I found that setting little challenges-playing games of musical solitaire-helped assimilate new vocabulary, like, for example, harmonizing ascending and descending chromatic scales, seeing how many foreign triads could be incorporated into a passage while maintaining the integrity of the key, playing with cycles of third related harmonies, generating harmonies from "synthetic scales," experimenting with canonic writing, and so on. If this sort of play is fun for you, learning theory doesn't seem as much like work.


My first exposure to music theory was with my first piano teacher, who (for some students) incorporated theory and arranging exercises along with the Bach and Beethoven we were learning. He had us harmonize the song "Oh, Susanna" placing a new chord every two beats. The chord must contain the melody note on that beat, and we were limited (in the beginning) to only major and minor triads.

If you think about it each note was present in six different chords, e.g. the note "c" would appear in the C Major and C Minor chords, the F Major and F Minor chords, the A-Flat Major chord, and the A Minor chord.

I enjoyed avoiding as much as possible the chords in the key of the song, especially enjoying beginning the song with a remote chord.

This was theory made fun.


----------



## mikeh375

Edward, I've come across so many young composers who just don't get what theory is meant to do for one, preferring to think they might even lose their individuality if they go into it fully.
Your experiences are similar to my own upon encountering techniques. In fact I'm still having fun straining relationships (musical that is) and I bet you are too.


----------



## Bwv 1080

mikeh375 said:


> Not in my experience but I suppose it comes down to how you absorb and apply what's learnt. One needs musical imagination and intelligence to adapt the fundamentals for individual use. Composition really cannot be spoon fed to any great extent though imv, no matter the source. However the fundamentals one learns in theory texts are an invaluable stepping stone that can guide and underpin much.


Agree theory, broadly speaking, is essential - my issue is the recent revival of actual 18th / 19th century practice through partimento and schema is a superior pedagogy for training real musicians than the overly reductivist 1st year university theory 101 that most of us, myself included, learned


----------



## pianozach

SanAntone said:


> My first exposure to music theory was with my first piano teacher, who (for some students) incorporated theory and arranging exercises along with the Bach and Beethoven we were learning. He had us harmonize the song "Oh, Susanna" placing a new chord every two beats. The chord must contain the melody note on that beat, and we were limited (in the beginning) to only major and minor triads.
> 
> If you think about it each note was present in six different chords, e.g. the note "c" would appear in the C Major and C Minor chords, the F Major and F Minor chords, the A-Flat Major chord, and the A Minor chord.
> 
> I enjoyed avoiding as much as possible the chords in the key of the song, especially enjoying beginning the song with a remote chord.
> 
> This was theory made fun.


That's actually pretty awesome.

My present "job" is basically "pianist" (more specifically, "accompanist"), although I still work as choir director and musical director, soloist, vocal soloist. In the past I was in a professional barbershop quartet.

_Prior_ to going to college as a music major I worked mostly with only three private piano teachers: a beginning teacher, an intermediate/advanced teacher, and an advanced teacher. NONE exposed me to any music theory. [I started college Fall 1975]

In fact, the only real theory I got prior to college was because at 16 I took a guitar class, and taught myself a bit of intermediate guitar chords after that.

Music theory in college wasn't really all that great, but after they got "figured bass" out of the way, there was some basic stuff that I still use. Most theory I've learned was AFTER college, learned on-the-fly as needed.


----------



## SanAntone

I didn't think of it until now (while reading about J.S. Bach) but one of the best places to learn about chord progressions and voice-leading is from studying the Harmonized Chorales by Bach. There are 371 of them, some more than once with variety and harmonic mastery.

Online version



But this one (although much more expensive) might be the best option considering your question:

*J.S. Bach 413 Chorales: Analyzed*












> Each piece is given it's own page for easy viewing. This volume of Bach's chorales is far different from any other because it provides in depth harmonic analysis and gives countless insights into Bach's inexhaustible musical genius. The modern musician will benefit greatly from this book as the chords that Bach used are all notated in jazz type chord symbolism that is provided above the staff for ease of comprehension here. Helpful footnotes and important insights regarding J.S. Bach's thorough-bass style and unique harmonic vocabulary that were recorded by his son Carl Philip Emanuel are provided throughout the text.


----------



## pianozach

SanAntone said:


> I didn't think of it until now (while reading about J.S. Bach) but one of the best places to learn about chord progressions and voice-leading is from studying the Harmonized Chorales by Bach. There are 371 of them, some more than once with variety and harmonic mastery.
> 
> Online version
> 
> 
> 
> [/IMG]


Ah. That brings back memories.

We had to do harmonic analyses of them.


----------



## Roger Knox

........................................... .


----------

