Applying Schoenberg's structural functions of harmony to jazz

[sambrooker]

I'm interested to hear some thoughts on how to apply some of Schoenberg's concepts of structural functions of harmony to jazz, and how it can be used to control modal organisation, and create different harmonic relationships

[GuyBoden]

"All 12 notes are thus given more or less equal importance, and the music avoids being in a key."

The 12 Tone row method is much easier using a Computer spread sheet :
I used Lotus 1-2-3, but I don't think that's still available in 2015.

Here's one:Twelve Tone Row - Matrix Calculator


But, using a calculator method to create music based on the incorrect assumption that all 12 notes are equal. Do you really think the 12 tone row is a good idea?

[Endorphins]

I'm interested to hear some thoughts on how to apply some of Schoenberg's concepts of structural functions of harmony to jazz, and how it can be used to control modal organisation, and create different harmonic relationships

Good question. I don't have an answer, but I'm interested to see if anyone here has one.

[christianm77]

Harmony is harmony, so why not - we're talking about Schoenberg's Harmonielehre here?

[JohnoL]

Here is an old thread about this. Any Schoenberg guys here? I Need help

[Takemitsu]

Ah, I could write a book here! (not that I'm specially qualified but it interest me)

Now Schoenberg tone row guy and Schoenberg harmony books (there are 2, very important!) is not absolutely related.

Schoenberg is THE ultimate self teaching dude. Really, its astounding that a guy like that existed.

The guy OWNED the tonal system. He went as far as possible with "transfigured night" and then, because he was a genius deduced that the end of the tempered tuning would be serialism.

Now all of his thinking on tonal harmony is based on the physic of sound: harmonics or partials. This is where you make a difference between FACTS and TRADITION.

So as far as jazz goes, you can already know WHY a note will sound more consonant over a root. Thats already a lot!

Most of the first book is voice leading and part writing which is based on independancy (is that a word) of voices (because parallel 5th for example could suggest a single voice with an overtone). This is not good for improvisation unless you are Ted Greene. Modulation theory has more or less value since in jazz all you need is a ii-V and you can modulate in everything.

Now in his second book (I didn't read more that 50% of it I admit and I seem to have lost it somewhere) which is la lot leaner, most of the voice leading idea is "smallest movement possible".

So here you have it in a nutshell:

harmony: Harmonics, partials for Schoenberg the ROOT is the "base", the king of the progression
(even if not in the bass)

Voiceleading: smallest movement possible

modulation (real well crafted modulations): not necessary for jazz


Now there is ton of stuff that I haven't put the time to master within his book so there is a lot of stuff that may be useful for jazz but I haven't give the time to digest it properly.


Now about tone rows:

Indeed "all 12 notes are equal"!!! is true, as long as you don't establish a tonality which is exactly what he was after with serialism.

I think there is a lot of better sources for an improvisor (practical) than Schoenberg textbooks. Allen Forte magnificent "harmony in concept and practice" for example.

[christianm77]

I learned a lot for my composing. I tend to avoid ii-V-I's for example. I think classical harmony texts can be useful for different ways of thinking. But Schoenberg was interested in large forms - e.g. modulation is a big deal if you are writing a symphony.

I read Harmonielehre quite a few years ago. I think it's influenced me, but I'm not sure I remember how... :-)

[jtizzle]

Tim Berne is really into 12 tone stuff. I'd check his music out if I were you.

But also, remember Schoenberg is not only 12 tone music. There's a lot of Schoenberg to get into that has to do with functional harmonic movement. I know Ben Monder is really into Theory of Harmony. I've skimmed through it and it has some interesting things to check out.

[Hyppolyte Bergamotte]

see my post of 11-20-2014 in Theory
cheers
HB

[bako]

https://www.jazzguitar.be/forum/theor...tml#post478351

Link to Hyppolyte Bergamotte excellent thread

[eddy b.]

You may want to check out Randy Sandke's book Metatonality.

[Doctor Jeff]

As I soon as I read the title I knew this thread was not for me...

[christianm77]

I feel the air of another planet

On second thoughts, it could just be the drains

EDIT: I actually LOVE the Second Quartet :-)

[christianm77]

Reading the other thread (but not re-reading the actual Schoenberg book, a pianist friend of mine borrowed it ages ago) I think the way I think of tonal functions, scales and secondary dominants is basically like this, so this might be the influence. That said, I always thought that was conventional classical music theory, so there you go.

[Takemitsu]

Reading the other thread (but not re-reading the actual Schoenberg book, a pianist friend of mine borrowed it ages ago) I think the way I think of tonal functions, scales and secondary dominants is basically like this, so this might be the influence. That said, I always thought that was conventional classical music theory, so there you go.

I think it IS conventional theory. Most books when they come to modulations go trough the "related keys" concepts. Maybe there is something original about Schoenberg approach. I think he got some sort of graphic representation for the related keys if I remember well.

[Reg]

Yea it is at least in the direction of conventional theory of harmony. Basically didn't work, but is fun, tries to relate every harmonic change to relationships with functional harmony. Doesn't really have anything to do with modal harmony, at least with respect to Jazz Common Practice.

But it is in the direction of thinking and hearing in a jazz style...your start with a reference.... create relationships and develop, all with an organized method of controlling the relationships and development. The problems developed from trying to control all harmonic movement with one all controlling device... Maj/Min function harmony.

[Jonah]

My idea... very-very personal... but through long period of interst to Schoenber, Webern, Berg...

Schoenberg's system was more of idealogy than music...

From this triad only Webern really tried to develope 12 - tone approach from musical point of you, and even with him it did not work as musical approach...
I would say in general his music works on the level of short/mini- chromatic scales, and in respect of form it is convemtional classics... I even made a kind of harmonic sketch over his work - not strict chords of functions, but you can definitle hear there functional harmonic fields - very vague, but they still make a form of his music...
But what was really important about him is that in most cases his series for the piece really contained all musical material for the piece... it really can be heard. It is something like theme of Bach's fugues - it contains already everything that occur in the fugue.
Though maybe one can approach his music completely out of traditional context, but to me at least now it seems that he strictly belonged to tradition, his arrangement of Bach's ricercar shows that with all his new approaches he understood tradition perfectly and it was live language for him


In case of Berg IMHO series has more symbolic literature meaning, kind of personal code he uses to create his artistic world, but musically it is not his approach, he tries to organize series tonally and then works with as if it is not series.

Well with Schoenberg it is the most controversal for me... he often sounds like 'he is mocking Brahms' - I mean almost all the essential parameters in his music are the same... but they sound diversed ot perversed

though I love some of his works string trio, violine concerto for example - he somehow represents the conroversy of this time in Europe... with years I came to an idea that he had much more talent as an ideologist, maybe philosopher, maybe social leader but it happened so that he loved music and tried to realize his ideas through music...

And his theory book was an ambitiuos continuation of it on the theory level.
His ambition was to make theory of theories... to cover functional tonality with it. Approximately like Einstein's does not exclude Newton's but just includes it on the other level.
European music has tradition in arts theory as separate discipline, even as an art itself, from middle ages there were musical theorecists who cared more about systematic calrity and cosmological perfectness of the theory than about practical representation of music. Schoenberg belonged to this tradition and just had to make a book of his own ... actually his music was just a preparation for it.

Though there are huge quantity of examples how composers used it in 20th century... but it did not make a language, it is applicable only as a speculative method. IMHO it does not work as it is ... it always leads to some other musical organization.

His two genius students gave it way in two directions: it was not Schoenberg who came to the edge of tonality but Berg, it was not Schoenberg who created serialism but Webern... but he pushed them both into it.

One of my friends called his approach once ' emancipation of intonation' and that is what connects it with jazz practice very much imho... but again on the level of approach, I cannot really see how to use it except as specualtive method.

One of the special feature of jazz practice is its 'theoretical' opennenes to any approaches... you can appoint any relations you want... actually you are even expected to do this.

[christianm77]

Well with Schoenberg it is the most controversal for me... he often sounds like 'he is mocking Brahms' - I mean almost all the essential parameters in his music are the same... but they sound diversed ot perversed

though I love some of his works string trio, violine concerto for example - he somehow represents the conroversy of this time in Europe... with years I came to an idea that he had much more talent as an ideologist, maybe philosopher, maybe social leader but it happened so that he loved music and tried to realize his ideas through music...

And his theory book was an ambitiuos continuation of it on the theory level.
His ambition was to make theory of theories... to cover functional tonality with it. Approximately like Einstein's does not exclude Newton's but just includes it on the other level.
European music has tradition in arts theory as separate discipline, even as an art itself, from middle ages there were musical theorecists who cared more about systematic calrity and cosmological perfectness of the theory than about practical representation of music. Schoenberg belonged to this tradition and just had to make a book of his own ... actually his music was just a preparation for it.

Your post is full of interesting points. Yes Schoenberg does sound like 'mocking Brahms' though to mock was obviously not the intention.

[Jonah]

Your post is full of interesting points. Yes Schoenberg does sound like 'mocking Brahms' though to mock was obviously not the intention.

Thanks, Christian!

And thanks for correction... of course it was not his intention. ( As well as my post was not 'against' Schoenberg in general...just in case)))
Actually even when I speak about intention regarding artist I judge also from their works. I do not mean 'concious intention' usually, but I mean 'intention' as representation of author's creative will in his work... and will - I believe - is much wider than concious understandings of intention of the author.

Sorry if it sounds a bit messy... just to show that even when I sound a bit critical, it is not against personality... here 'mocking Brahms' is just name to define somehow relations of Schoenberg aesthetics to previous tradition in time and culture... this is what I see now 100 years later from absolutely different prospective - not him...
(By the way Brahms himself for me is much more mocking the whole tradition than Schoenberg but more on the content level... - oops I am again getting into off-top )

[Hyppolyte Bergamotte]

One of the special feature of jazz practice is its 'theoretical' opennenes to any approaches... you can appoint any relations you want..

.

Many concepts of Schoenberg have been used in Jazz harmony.
Many modulations used in jazz are coming from his concepts of the "parallel minor Tonic and his relative major Tonality.
Ie,secondary dominants,subdominants minors,etc.

He was of course of his time and did only know the natural minor scale (and perhaps the Harmonic minor ?).
In my book,theory of Hamony,from 1922,I didn't mention the others minor scale ,Melodic Minor,Harmonic Major,Double Harmonic Major and others synthetic scales that we are using in contemporary jazz.

But one thing that I find fascinating,as composer ,is the modulation toward the parallel MAJOR regions and their relative minor regions. Let's take the exemple in Cmajor:

SCHOENBERG’S PARALLEL MAJOR REGIONS OF THE C MAJOR SCALE WITH THEIR RELATIVE MINOR REGIONS :

C scale_______ Am scale________A scale(E7) - F#min scale(C#7)
F scale________ Dm scale_______ D scale(A7) - Bmin scale(F#7)
G scale_______Em scale_________E scale(B7) - C#m scale(G#7) That's a tool who allows to go in a new direction ! cheers HB Souncloud.com/hyppolyte-bergamotte-jazz

[Jonah]

Thanks!
But that is exactly what I meant... it does not make a language but spot application is possible.

He was of course of his time and did only know the natural minor scale (and perhaps the Harmonic minor ?).
In my book,theory of Hamony,from 1922,I didn't mention the others minor scale ,Melodic Minor,Harmonic Major,Double Harmonic Major and others synthetic scales that we are using in contemporary jazz.

I think he knew the scales... at least from renaissance polyphony. Those days (and now too) counterpoint is taught on the basis of Franco-Flemish polyphonic school and it involves composition in all modes.
The other point that he probably did not consider early music as subject to harmony at all... it was quite regular those to look at this from point of view of progressive development.

By the way... the other interesting relation is tertial relation... I liked to play it without knowing it, I liked how key change sounded- that is E minor and Eb major for example... first time it was a small march I composed as a task it was not that I was seeking for somthing new or so, but the key change sounded so smoothe and at the same time sharp...

Later I came across the interview of Alfred Schnittke where he mentioned it under the name of 'tertial key realtions' and that it was much disputable issue among musicologists in 70s... he also mentioned that he heard it in Liszt music.

I think changing to parallel keys could be interesting also from semantical point of view... in classics for example: what feel it brings at the beginning of Moonlight sonata? in concluding bars of Schubert's Impromptu C-minor? In Chopin's shifts between section? and jazz modal interchange piece?

[Jonah]

Funny that the term 'parallel key' used in English for Maj/Min (Cmaj/Cmin) of the same tonic is used in many other languages (inc. German) for relative Maj/Min. (Cmaj/Amin)..

just a term, though it effects perception I believe... In English language theretical leterature there are much more specualations and concepts involving parallel (in English) key relations

[christianm77]

- oops I am again getting into off-top )

Haha, we should totally have an off tangent competition. Maybe I'll start a tangential thread...

In any case, I'm aware that Schoenberg admired Brahms deeply and saw his own music as a bridging between the (at the time) opposite camps of Brahms and Wagner in German music.

[christianm77]

.

Many concepts of Schoenberg have been used in Jazz harmony.
Many modulations used in jazz are coming from his concepts of the "parallel minor Tonic and his relative major Tonality.
Ie,secondary dominants,subdominants minors,etc.

He was of course of his time and did only know the natural minor scale (and perhaps the Harmonic minor ?).
In my book,theory of Hamony,from 1922,I didn't mention the others minor scale ,Melodic Minor,Harmonic Major,Double Harmonic Major and others synthetic scales that we are using in contemporary jazz.

Theorist/Composers such as Busoni and Messiaen deal with synthetic scales of various kinds, of course. I think the half-whole had been in use by Rimsky Korsakov IRC. If the scales you mention turn up in their work I couldn't say, they'd probably have different names (wasn't Messiaen chiefly interested in symmetric 'modes of limited transposition?)

I don't think Schoenberg was interested in these aspects. I think his main focus (correct me if I'm wrong) was the structural implications of everything he did - harmony included. That's kind of the point of the 12-tone method - he required text, sung or declaimed to structure his music, and during his free tonal period he found it hard to write extended instrumental pieces. That's why the voice comes in at the exact point as transitions into atonality in the 2nd Quartet. A singer in a string quartet? It's like Beethoven and his choir in the 9th Symphony. (I think I like Schoenberg's vocal music best.)

Let the digression commence
------------

TBH I think an interest in new scales is quite a shallow thing - I'd rather see what I can do with the standard scales and modes.

For example, I can noodle around in the A phrygian dominant and make 'Middle Eastern' sounds, but it has nothing to do with the way that music is actually organised or works. It's just the surface. I always feel that kind of thing smacks of orientalism to me. I can plink plonk around with Viennese Fourth chords and clusters and do 'atonal free improv' but in a sense it means nothing (apologies to Derek Bailey fans.) I quite enjoy doing these things though.

In 20th century music Messiaen is primarily interested in the surface, at least to my ears. I find his music less interesting as a result, beyond 'oh look some major triads related by thirds, isn't that pretty' - my wife is a tremendous fan of the 'Quartet for the End of Time', but then she's a cellist, so I'll let her off. Cellists are only interested in tunes, which is funny given they are meant to playing the bass lines. Messiaen has some big tunes, but I reckon he's the Andrew Lloyd Webber of modernism haha. ;-) (makes troll face.)

And then there's Webern whose structure is so condensed it becomes abstract and may as well by a surface - something taken up by Boulez.

Ligeti had a really interesting relationship with all of this.

Myself, I think Sibelius is one of the best composers of the 20th century, and he does little that's interesting harmonically when compared with the Big Name Modernists. But as a structure guy he is amazing! To me he is similar to Schoenberg in that respect - unites the Brahms and Wagner aspects.

[GuyBoden]

.

Many concepts of Schoenberg have been used in Jazz harmony.
Many modulations used in jazz are coming from his concepts of the "parallel minor Tonic and his relative major Tonality.
Ie,secondary dominants,subdominants minors,etc.

He was of course of his time and did only know the natural minor scale (and perhaps the Harmonic minor ?).
In my book,theory of Hamony,from 1922,I didn't mention the others minor scale ,Melodic Minor,Harmonic Major,Double Harmonic Major and others synthetic scales that we are using in contemporary jazz.

But one thing that I find fascinating,as composer ,is the modulation toward the parallel MAJOR regions and their relative minor regions. Let's take the exemple in Cmajor:

SCHOENBERG’S PARALLEL MAJOR REGIONS OF THE C MAJOR SCALE WITH THEIR RELATIVE MINOR REGIONS :

C scale_______ Am scale________A scale(E7) - F#min scale(C#7)
F scale________ Dm scale_______ D scale(A7) - Bmin scale(F#7)
G scale_______Em scale_________E scale(B7) - C#m scale(G#7) That's a tool who allows to go in a new direction ! cheers HB Souncloud.com/hyppolyte-bergamotte-jazz

The Parallel Majors is more interesting, but unfortunately Schoenberg's 12 Tone Row method lost him a lot of credibility, years ago I concluded that it was not much better than picking notes out of a hat.