Structure versus Function

[NateComp]

I had a student today who is taking a Theory class in his High School, and was asking about ‘consonance’ versus ‘dissonance’ in a chord progression. Our discussion was based on what I view to be the most important distinctions between Vertical Gravity and Horizontal Gravity (at least in relation to chord progressions, I‘ll have to make another post about melody).

Essentially we talked about framing consonance and dissonance first by STRUCTURE, and then by FUNCTION.

For me, the whole basis of the organization for Vertical Gravity is based on ‘Structural Consonance’ versus ‘Structural Dissonance’, which is really just the relationships between the individual notes of the chord, and whether they are consonant harmonic intervals or dissonant harmonic intervals. I think the whole point of learning the ‘Western Order of Tonal Gravity’ is to organize this idea: What types of CHORD BUILDING INTERVALS are available in each Tonal Order, and how many various forms of progressively ‘outgoing’ harmonic tensions can we use to build a ‘stack of notes’.

On the other hand, when it comes to Horizontal Gravity, the focus is on the relationships between each individual chord movement within a progression, and how ‘Close’ or ‘Distant’ each chord is from one to the next as far as the Lydian Tonic relationship. My student and I then spent some time exploring this one basic idea:

Within each form of Gravity, there is room for all types of contrasting variation, from ‘Very Consonant’ to ‘Very Dissonant’, and everything in between, and these two ‘forces’ can behave totally independent from each other:

Structurally Consonant (versus) Mildly Dissonant Structurally (versus) Noticeably Dissonant Structurally

Functionally Consonant (versus) Mildly Dissonant Functionally (versus) Noticeably Dissonant Functionally

For his assignment this week, I asked him ‘What would a progression sound like that uses voicings which are structurally consonant, but are noticeably dissonant functionally?’, followed by ‘Then what would a progression sound like that uses voicings which are structurally dissonant, but are very consonant functionally?’

Now we just have to talk about Rhythm lol

[chespernevins]

Great thoughts Nate!

I wonder if technically only melody can be horizontal, and not a chord progression?

But then again, who cares what we label it, if we know what we are discussing. Would love to hear what kind of things you and the student come up with.

[NateComp]

@Chesper,

As far as 'only melody can be horizontal, and not a chord progression', I would say that the closest thing to a purely 'Horizontal Progression' would be a series of PMG Chords that share the same Lydian Tonic.

Like D min 7 (with the possible addition of 9, 11 ,13) from F Lydian, as PMG VI
followed by to G 7 (also with the possible additions of 9, 11, 13) also from F Lydian, as PMG II.

(Santana's 'Oye Como Va' would be an example, with A min 7 to D 9 - PMG VI to PMG II of C Lydian).

As far as what my student came up with, we started with exactly that idea: build a sequence of chords (two is plenty) that share the same Lydian Tonic.

Then we did two-chord progressions where the Lydian Tonic from chord to chord moved one step or two steps away in the Circle of Close to Distant Relationships, either in a Flat direction or a Sharp direction.
(So much of what is normally considered 'Functional Harmony' lives within those 'One Key Away' type of 'Neighboring Key' relationships.)

THEN we did progressions where the Lydian Tonic from chord to chord moved THREE OR MORE STEPS away in the Circle of Close to Distant Relationships, once again, either in a Flat direction or a Sharp direction.

This is where some of the more interesting progressional colors really stand out - the more 'Distant' relationships - very Bill Evans or Wayne Shorter.

Throughout ALL of this, we stuck to Chord Voicings that were 'Structurally Consonant' - we purposely didn't use any 'Harmonically Tense' Voicings - that's for our NEXT lesson!

[NateComp]

One other thing, regarding 'only melody can be horizontal, and not a chord progression'.

From an interview with George in 1974:

"I think it's of the utmost importance to reveal all that The Concept can do. I don't know of any organization of musical thought that takes in Bach and Schoenberg and Ornette Coleman and John Coltrane. We can show, for example, that Bach is in a state of variable-horizontal tonal gravity with vertical tonal gravity as a sub-state. We can show that Stravinsky also is in a state of variable-horizontal tonal gravity using a somewhat outer mode, but still there."

The interviewer then asks: "Are you saying that in your system Bach and Stravinsky fall into the same category?"

"Yes, but the styles and the tonal materials used are different. The same thing happens in both musics. A succession of tonic stations are reached and dispensed with, and so that represents the same mode of behavior. All music is in one of three states: vertical, variable horizontal, or conscious tonal gravity. Conscious refers to the state where the music relates to one tonic; it includes vertical and variable horizontal in their ingoing and outgoing aspects.It's everything. It's all in there! Wagner is in that state; his melody is very chromatic, but each chord is defined in its own right so he's in the ingoing aspect of that state. Berg is in the outgoing state. The Concept allows us to categorize all those kinds of musics and show which states they're in and the ingoing or outgoing aspects of the states. We can even show what the musics could have done and didn't do."

[chespernevins]

Great stuff, Nate. Thanks for sharing. As usual, I wish I understood more about what he's referring to, but oh well, I guess.

I suppose what you are doing - experimenting with composing - is the best way to proceed!

Keep it up and let us know how it goes!

[guitarjazz]

Yes, great quote Nate. Do you mind sharing the source?
I think 'conscious tonal gravity' must be what later was referred to as 'super-vertical tonal gravity'. I'm very fond or George's terminology and it's amazing how his nomenclature changed over the years.

[NateComp]

@guitarjazz, the interview is from 'The Black Perspective in Music', Vol. 2, No. 1, published in the Spring of 1974.

I found it here a while ago:

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1214151?seq ... b_contents

(at the time I first found it, this 12 page interview/article was a free download, but it appears that isn't the case anymore)

And yeah, I have to agree with you that 'conscious tonal gravity' was what eventually became 'super-vertical tonal gravity' later on.

I'm also amazed by George's particular form of nomenclature, and his constant reworking of the terminology to make the Concept more precise and defined. I think some new readers can easily get lost with how 'thick' the language seems to be at times, but that's just part of the overall learning curve. A good grasp on the overall terminology is essential to understand what George was really getting at, and if anything, I think a lot of the developments he made with the Concept over the years actually required the creation of new terminology. More commonplace descriptions of musical behavior didn't really get to the heart of what George was trying to communicate, and I think his particular type of 'language' is totally appropriate.

[guitarjazz]

I think I have Jstor access so I'll as the librarian. Thank you.