Tonality

***

I'm not sure if this is already talked in another thread. This is quite basic though. My general question would be,

"How to establish a key after modulation?"

***

 

Another thread,  on Pluto, perhaps, where rocket science meets music. Green, Why would you consult Shoenberg if you're interest is in modulation - a tonal concept? People here have suggested many good ideas regarding V-1 cadences, which, when transposed, will eventually establish a new key.

because

***

I'm not sure if this is already talked in another thread. This is quite basic though. My general question would be,

"How to establish a key after modulation?"

***

 

Another thread,  on Pluto, perhaps, where rocket science meets music. Green, Why would you consult Shoenberg if you're interest is in modulation - a tonal concept? People here have suggested many good ideas regarding V-1 cadences, which, when transposed, will eventually establish a new key.

Because Schoenberg is one of the most respected tonal theorists of the last 100 years.

His book discusses tonality.

Of course many observations in Harmonielehre are ineresting, but sometimes his conclusions are unpractical for composing music.

Eg. when he says that chords do "not" exist, but are rather temporal "alignments" of notes. That sounds like very biased towards his own ideas.

http://www.google.es/search?q=chord+schoenberg&client=firefox-a&hs=58n&hl=ca&rls=org.mozilla:ca:official&channel=fflb&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=6-uMUYPZOqyd7gb414DoAg&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=1280&bih=861#imgrc=KEkyV2rQFrtndM%3A%3BuQBJPrZehDzDXM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fsolomonsmusic.net%252FSchoenberg_NonharmonicDenial.gif%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fsolomonsmusic.net%252FNonharm.htm%3B389%3B284

Just for the record: None of the great tonal composers from Bach to Strauss used such kind of ultra-analytic books.

Chord is only accidental in voice leading.

Chord is only accidental in voice leading.

Many tonal composers (I'd say most), would answer "wtf???".

Homophony and accompained melody are completely valid concepts. That's why chord symbols exist and work so well in many occasions.

Not everything is counterpoint.

To be more specific, I think Harmonielehre may explain why tonal music is what it is very well,

but it's somewhat unpractical to teach a beginner how to compose tonal music. And it's very long.

There are lighter texts to begin with.

btw by that time Schoenberg had discarded tonal music in his work.

Chord is more important rather than voice leading? Maybe not. Anyway, I just quoted him.

Dude, any suggestion of some simple harmony books encompassing advance tonal music? I do need one. I found Harmonielehre a bit to the fore, like he doesn't explain how to resolve chromatic really well, or He is ambiguous in explaining about modulation and intervening key which latter he changed the meaning through monotonality.

Piston's harmony book is half the length of Schoenberg's, while Rimski's is half the length of Piston's. Both are more usable and free from 'subjective' opinions.

As a harmony and counterpoint teacher with 10 years of experience I'd never advice a beginner to start with Schönberg. There are plenty of easier books to start to learn tonality and simple modulations. Some theoretical explanations are very easy to understand. 

Green, your thinking of chords being merely an accidents for polyphonic writing is wrong. Most of classical music of late 18th century established a chord as a basic thing of tonal progression. Mozart's symphony in g minor is very homophonic in nature, based on harmonic progression and little of separate independent voice leading.

Ok, thanks.

Despite of all, I realize my questions are little bit jump out of context. I mean, it's not about cadence or chromatic whatsoever. It's really about tonality. What makes tonality? I mean, I just realized that music has sentences. You end the sentence with punctuation, and that is the cadence. But what happens before the cadence? There's no tonality before the cadence? let's say I intend to write a piece 20 bars in length with a subdominant chord all the way. Then reach the cadence at bar 19. So there's no tonality before that? Equivocally you hear a Tonic not until you reach the goal. So what decides tonality? Or you don't need one? and moreover, what's the deal with this strict contrapuntal rules. If I end up with VII6 - I6 which is not cadential, what's the deal with that? am I gonna fail or something? I thought then, mentioning previous given examples, that is about pitch relation to the tonic. Is that right? So i won't give a damn thing about cadential or something, but how often the fundamental tone and its subordinate occurs in composition.

Ok, thanks.

 

Despite of all, I realize my questions are little bit jump out of context. I mean, it's not about cadence or chromatic whatsoever. It's really about tonality. What makes tonality? I mean, I just realized that music has sentences. You end the sentence with punctuation, and that is the cadence. But what happens before the cadence? There's no tonality before the cadence? let's say I intend to write a piece 20 bars in length with a subdominant chord all the way. Then reach the cadence at bar 19. So there's no tonality before that? Equivocally you hear a Tonic not until you reach the goal. So what decides tonality? Or you don't need one?

Without cadences to establish tonality how do you know what's a subdominant and what's a tonic?

Try playing a little elimination game:

F_ G C: C major (Authentic cadence)

*_ G C: "

F_ * C: C major (Plagal)

F_ G *: C major/minor (Half cadence. All of C major being present except the third)

F_ * *: Ambiguous (Diatonically: Leading tone to G flat? Submediant to A minor? Dominant to B flat? * Mediant to D minor? Supertonic to E flat? F major due to emphasis would be the likeliest guess)

*_ G *: "

*_ * C: "

and moreover, what's the deal with this strict contrapuntal rules. If I end up with VII6 - I6 which is not cadential, what's the deal with that? am I gonna fail or something? I thought then, mentioning previous given examples, that is about pitch relation to the tonic. Is that right? So i won't give a damn thing about cadential or something, but how often the fundamental tone and its subordinate occurs in composition.

 You just get a weaker cadence. It can be fixed by simply filling in a dominant tone. You can get away with weak cadences at end of phrases. The last question has been demonstrably answered by Wayne.

I mean, I just realized that music has sentences. You end the sentence with punctuation, and that is the cadence. But what happens before the cadence? There's no tonality before the cadence? let's say I intend to write a piece 20 bars in length with a subdominant chord all the way. Then reach the cadence at bar 19. So there's no tonality before that? Equivocally you hear a Tonic not until you reach the goal. So what decides tonality?

When you ask questions, and we give you answers, does your question not make sense to you until you've reached the question mark at the end? And do you stare blankly at our answers, reading through the sentences, until you've reached the periods, and then the meaning becomes clear to you? How about sentences with semicolons? Do you stop at every semicolon and assess the meaning? Or sentences with digressions within them—which I find are becoming increasingly rare nowadays—like this one? How about when you're speaking to someone, and they forget a certain word. Do you stare blankly, having no idea what they're talking about, or do you suggest what word they might be thinking of? And what are you basing this on? Could you do the same with a note, chord, &c.? What about answers we

give which are complete paragraphs? Do you need to read the whole paragraph to get any sense out of the whole thing? Or what about one word answers, like 'No'.

If you read the following sentence, who do you think it's about?

'Brahms preoccupation with motivic detail reflects the enormous technical influence that Beethoven had on him, while Wagner's sublime and quasi-orgasmic climaxes show how he was influenced by Beethoven's intensity and forcefulness of expresssion.'

What if it's in the context of an essay about Brahms? or Beethoven? or Wagner? or Beethoven's influence on Brahms and Wagner? or the relationship between the musical styles of Brahms and Wagner?

If it's the cadences which define the tonality, what key is the following phrase in:

What about the following phrase?

And the whole piece?

Or what about this opening?

Here, E-flat major could be said to be evident from the beginning, since this kind of 6/5 sonority conventionally functions as a II6/5 in common practice music; but beginning on this chord is very unusual for this time period, though this type of sonority is common in jazz; so at what point does the harmony become unequivocally common practice? And, when that point is reached, do we retrospectively see that the 6/5 of the opening was E-flat major?

Or take Chopin's last Ballade. There are cadences left, right, and center, but none in the home key of F minor, 'til the very end; yet, the piece is clearly F-centric. Or the second, F major Ballade, which opens in F major, but ends in A minor; why is this in F major rather than A minor? And how does it close convincingly in A minor?

Look at these excerpts.

Which one is more cadential? Why? How about the earlier first phrase of the Mozart example: what happens if you take away the bass? What about the basses of these examples?

Tonality, like any language, is just a set of conventions. It's not defined by any one set of things, and the conventions all rely on one another. There's no sharp gap between your neck and your chin, or a shark's fin and its body, or blue and green on the colour spectrum, but all these things exist in between what they're not, and it's the same with tonality.

When you ask questions, and we give you answers, does your question not make sense to you until you've reached the question mark at the end? And do you stare blankly at our answers, reading through the sentences, until you've reached the periods, and then the meaning becomes clear to you? How about sentences with semicolons? Do you stop at every semicolon and assess the meaning? Or sentences with digressions within them—which I find are becoming increasingly rare nowadays—like this one? How about when you're speaking to someone, and they forget a certain word. Do you stare blankly, having no idea what they're talking about, or do you suggest what word they might be thinking of? And what are you basing this on? Could you do the same with a note, chord, &c.? What about answers we

give which are complete paragraphs? Do you need to read the whole paragraph to get any sense out of the whole thing? Or what about one word answers, like 'No'.

 

 

If you read the following sentence, who do you think it's about?

 

'Brahms preoccupation with motivic detail reflects the enormous technical influence that Beethoven had on him, while Wagner's sublime and quasi-orgasmic climaxes show how he was influenced by Beethoven's intensity and forcefulness of expresssion.'

 

What if it's in the context of an essay about Brahms? or Beethoven? or Wagner? or Beethoven's influence on Brahms and Wagner? or the relationship between the musical styles of Brahms and Wagner?

 

 

If it's the cadences which define the tonality, what key is the following phrase in:

 

 

What about the following phrase?

 

 

And the whole piece?

 

 

Or what about this opening?

 

Here, E-flat major could be said to be evident from the beginning, since this kind of 6/5 sonority conventionally functions as a II6/5 in common practice music; but beginning on this chord is very unusual for this time period, though this type of sonority is common in jazz; so at what point does the harmony become unequivocally common practice? And, when that point is reached, do we retrospectively see that the 6/5 of the opening was E-flat major?

 

 

Or take Chopin's last Ballade. There are cadences left, right, and center, but none in the home key of F minor, 'til the very end; yet, the piece is clearly F-centric. Or the second, F major Ballade, which opens in F major, but ends in A minor; why is this in F major rather than A minor? And how does it close convincingly in A minor?

 

 

 

Look at these excerpts.

 

 

 

 

 

Which one is more cadential? Why? How about the earlier first phrase of the Mozart example: what happens if you take away the bass? What about the basses of these examples?

 

 

 

Tonality, like any language, is just a set of conventions. It's not defined by any one set of things, and the conventions all rely on one another. There's no sharp gap between your neck and your chin, or a shark's fin and its body, or blue and green on the colour spectrum, but all these things exist in between what they're not, and it's the same with tonality.

Great words, Wayne. I get that.

..and one more thing, I should take back to the first discussion of this thread since I just realized that Schonberg never really meant "modulation" as modulation (in Harmonielehre). What he meant is a tonicalization, for sure. Then he affirmed the elaborating cadence as the proper modulation, though he never actually said this literally. When compared to Schenker, the latter ofcourse more makes sense. Tonicalization as the first introduction of foreign tone, and the modulation is a commitment to it, a longer tonicalization. Later on another book, Schonberg changed his term to region for tonicalizaion, and modulation after firmly established region. This somehow has been confusing. If again we put the progression on the table...

C - Gm/Bb - A7 - Dm - (G7 - F/A) - Gm/Bb - F/A - G7/D - C - F

The chords in bracket occurs in the key of F as tonicalization of C major. This fleeting contrapuntal cadence could never be a proper key.  But the fleeting stuctural cadence before it has initiated the Dm to be the next proper key after C. This has confused me little bit, since Schonberg never said that every short duration of intervening key should be taken as new key. But after had some searching I found that tonicalization can be as well as a modulation. Could you explain this? My conclusion for now, modulation is very subjective, but a tonicalization with structural cadence could be effective to modulate rather than the contrapuntal one, especially 64 cadence. And I gotta to ask you, what if the contrapuntal cadence appears twice or in often? Could it be a modulation? ..and Is tonicaIization only an activity between ti and do? I hope this become my last question. After all of this longing page I may point out that my very issues are between tonicalization and modulation. Thanks for your every detail answers, Wayne.      

C - Gm/Bb - A7 - Dm - (G7 - F/A) - Gm/Bb - F/A - G7/D - C - F

 

The chords in bracket occurs in the key of F as tonicalization of C major.

Why are you saying that the chords in brackets are in the key of F? At that stage, the progression seems as though it's going back to C after a brief detour to Dm (ii in C); so the large-scale progression, up to the G7, would be I–ii–V7 in C major, with the ii elaborated by being tonicized. From about the A7 onwards, however, the progression could fit into an F major context (as opposed to, say, G major), which is why Schoenberg says that 'F major is in effect' at that point  and so it's from there on that the music moves towards F, which is then confirmed with a cadence.

This fleeting contrapuntal cadence could never be a proper key.

G7–F/A isn't a cadence: it's a deceptive cadence, which means that it sounds as if it's going to be a cadence (at the G7) but then isn't (at F/A).

 But the fleeting stuctural cadence before it has initiated the Dm to be the next proper key after C. This has confused me little bit, since Schonberg never said that every short duration of intervening key should be taken as new key. But after had some searching I found that tonicalization can be as well as a modulation. Could you explain this? My conclusion for now, modulation is very subjective, but a tonicalization with structural cadence could be effective to modulate rather than the contrapuntal one, especially 64 cadence.

The cadential progression, here, functions as an elaboration of the Dm harmony, not as a structural cadence, since it then moves on to a G7. Tonicizations are visits to key-areas or regions within a progression, while modulations are structural; so your progression starts with C, and modulates to F (since that's the key that the cadence is in, at the end of the progression), and tonicizes Dm in the middle (since it uses harmonic functions from that key in the middle of the phrase).

And I gotta to ask you, what if the contrapuntal cadence appears twice or in often? Could it be a modulation?

I'm not sure if you understand what a contrapuntal cadence actually is. It's simply using bass motion by step instead of leaping, at a cadential point; it doesn't really have the same strength as a perfect authentic cadence does, so composers use it where they don't want to have too strong a cadence. You wouldn't really use it to confirm a modulation; rather, you'd have contrapuntal cadences in an already established key, or where you don't want to fully confirm the key.

Is tonicaIization only an activity between ti and do?  

No. You could have a cadential progression where ti is implied if the harmony were full, but is absent from the texture.

Why are you saying that the chords in brackets are in the key of F? At that stage, the progression seems as though it's going back to C after a brief detour to Dm (ii in C); so the large-scale progression, up to the G7, would be I–ii–V7 in C major, with the ii elaborated by being tonicized. From about the A7 onwards, however, the progression could fit into an F major context (as opposed to, say, G major), which is why Schoenberg says that 'F major is in effect' at that point  and so it's from there on that the music moves towards F, which is then confirmed with a cadence.

Oh god, I thought 'F major is in effect' was to imply that is in the key of F. That's why it's not instead of saying 'D minor is in effect'?

The cadential progression, here, functions as an elaboration of the Dm harmony, not as a structural cadence, since it then moves on to a G7.

So a structural cadence is an elaborated cadence after tonicization, as a modulating cadence?

and a non-cadential cadence can't be regarded as tonicization?

No. You could have a cadential progression where ti is implied if the harmony were full, but is absent from the texture.

I'm not sure if I understand this. Could you elaborate little bit more?

Oh god, I thought 'F major is in effect' was to imply that is in the key of F. That's why it's not instead of saying 'D minor is in effect'?

I dunno if it's bad translation, or if he's just plain incorrect, but the progression you wrote out is certainly still C-centric at that point. Listen to it.

So a structural cadence is an elaborated cadence after tonicization, as a modulating cadence?

and a non-cadential cadence can't be regarded as tonicization?

I barely even know what you're talking about. Not every V–I is a cadence; cadences are at the ends of phrases. You can have cadential progressions in the middle of phrases, but these aren't cadences, because they're in the middle. 'Non-cadential cadence' doesn't make any sense; it's like saying 'the green red chair'. If a phrase ends with a cadence in a new key, it has modulated; if it uses an applied dominant or cadential progression in the middle, it's tonicizing.

I'm not sure if I understand this. Could you elaborate little bit more?

If you play your C–G/Bb–A7–Dm progression, but don't have a C# in the A7 (i.e., the chord would just use A, E, and G—maybe in just two or three parts), it still tonicizes D minor, because of the root progression:

Not to derail the thread, but can you have a secondary subdominant like you do in measure 1, beat 3? I was taught that you can only have secondary dominants, not secondary subdominants. 

Not to derail the thread, but can you have a secondary subdominant like you do in measure 1, beat 3? I was taught that you can only have secondary dominants, not secondary subdominants. 

Can you have secondary subdominants? I just did!

Not to head off in a totally different direction, but I seem to remember a piece where it seems to be about to resolve and instead heads into a new cadence, which seems to be about to resolve, only to head into another cadence...  after about the third one the audience gets the joke and starts laughing every time the new switch is made.  Maybe a string quartet-y type thing?  Ring any bells for anyone?  

If you want to look at some intelligent cadence-writing, that might be a good piece to look at.  If it didn't work well, it wouldn't be funny, and it goes through every possible possibility of resolution, only to swerve off-track again at the last moment.  Can't remember what it is though... PDQ Bach-ish...  (:

Can you have secondary subdominants? I just did!

See, I was taught to analyze that Bb as a borrowed tone from the parallel minor, rather than a temporary shift to ii. What makes your example (and Schumann's) a secondary subdominant, rather than a borrowed chord/tone?

See, I was taught to analyze that Bb as a borrowed tone from the parallel minor, rather than a temporary shift to ii. What makes your example (and Schumann's) a secondary subdominant, rather than a borrowed chord/tone?

How it functions.

I barely even know what you're talking about. Not every V–I is a cadence; cadences are at the ends of phrases. You can have cadential progressions in the middle of phrases, but these aren't cadences, because they're in the middle. 'Non-cadential cadence' doesn't make any sense; it's like saying 'the green red chair'. If a phrase ends with a cadence in a new key, it has modulated; if it uses an applied dominant or cadential progression in the middle, it's tonicizing.

Recap:

-Cadence> V-I or #vii-i in root position, occur at the end.

-Cadential> V-I or #vii-i in root position, occur in the middle.

-Non-cadential> those two in inversion or deceptive cadence, occur in the middle, still tonicize?

If you play your C–G/Bb–A7–Dm progression, but don't have a C# in the A7 (i.e., the chord would just use A, E, and G—maybe in just two or three parts), it still tonicizes D minor, because of the root progression:

 

I remember this one. Normally you need 7>1 resolution to tonicize, but in minor you just need 6>5 resolution like in ii-i unraised or like the example above, right? by what you meant as 'the harmony is full' is when it has enough characteristic before moving to strong root progression, i.e, the Bb to A tones already prevailed.