[Smt-talk] "Neighboring" 6/4 Chords
Olli Väisälä
ovaisala at siba.fi
Tue Oct 4 00:47:14 PDT 2011
Dmitri wrote:
> I know Donna wasn't directly meaning to engage my ideas, but I just
> wanted to clarify that I am motivated by a different view. For me,
> the notion of embellishment plays no obvious, first-order role in
> explaining why certain 6/4 formations are used.
>
> Here's a simple way to understand the point:
>
> 1. Ask yourself which root progressions X-Y-X are common in
> ordinary tonal harmony, where Y is a fourth above X.
>
> 2. Ask yourself which "neighboring 6/4 progressions" are common:
> A5/3->B6/4->A5/3, where A and B share the same bass.
>
> The answer to question #1 is "I->IV->I and V->I->V".
>
> The answer to question #2 is "I->IV6/4->I and V->I6/4->V."
>
> I am struck by the similarity between the two answers, which I take
> to imply that the explanation for these common "neighboring 6/4"
> formations is harmonic rather than contrapuntal. Roughly speaking:
> these 6/4 formations are common because the underlying progressions
> are themselves very common. Certainly, it does not seem like the
> contrapuntal "neighboring" (or "embellishing") role over-rides the
> pre-existing harmonic constraints, otherwise we could expect
> progressions like ii->V6/4->ii. These are vanishingly rare in the
> literature.
But what, exactly, do you mean by stating that the explanation is
"harmonic rather than contrapuntal"? Certainly there are crucial
contrapuntal constraints for the use of 6/4 chords, the essential
reason for which is the dissonance of the fourth. Obviously we cannot
just take any common harmonic progression and arbitrarily invert
chords to 6/4s (like I–VI6/4–IV6/4–V–I6/4). The use of the fourth in
6/4 chords is regulated by similar voice-leading principles than
dissonances in general. In my view, the labels "neighboring" and
"passing" are indispensible for describing these principles, both in
scholarly discussion and elementary instruction.
It would be more plausible to state that we need both harmonic and
contrapuntal principles for explaining the use of 6/4 chords. The
dissonant fourth has to be treated according to the general norms of
dissonance treatment, that is, as a passing or neighboring tone if it
is in an unaccented position. However, as Dmitri points out, not all
6/4 progressions permitted by this principle are common in practice,
and it is plausible to propose that the explanation for this lies in
harmonic relationships. Typically, the explanation of musical
practices requires allowing for several complementary principles, and
it is often meaningless to argue which is primary or "pre-
existing" (which, of course, you did not mean in the historical
sense). In the present case, however, I would suggest a simple
thought experiment. Suppose we encountered an instance of the rarer
neighboring-6/4 formations such as II–V6/4–II or VI–II6/4–VI (in
major). While we might recognize its rarity, we would have no
difficulty in grasping its syntactic organization. On the other hand,
a formation such as I–VI6/4–IV6/4–V–I6/4 would sound simply
incoherent or incorrect syntactically. For those who share these
intuitions about syntactic coherence, there is some reason to
emphasize the contrapuntal (dissonance treatment) factor in
explaining the use of 6/4 chords.
Whether the commonness [is there such a word?] of I–IV6/4–I and V–
I6/4–V and the rarity of II–V6/4–II etc. should be explained on the
basis of harmonic relationships is another question. At least, other
factors also seem to be involved. First of all, the tonic and the
dominant are, in general, the most significant and most commonly
embellished harmonies, which suffices to explain that I–IV6/4–I and V–
I6/4–V, and the corresponding root-position progressions, occur more
frequently than other similar neighboring progressions. Second, all
these progressions involve at least one half-step neighboring motion,
which makes voice leading more effective than in II–V6/4–II or II–V–
II (which is only possible in major in the first place). Hence the
"the similarity between the two answers" to Dmitri's questions by no
means necessarily points to a purely harmonic explanation, but is
partly explained by a common underlying factor (the general
significance of I and V) and partly, it would seem, also by voice-
leading preferences.
What is written above does not help much to explain the original
question in this thread. Why does I–V6/4–I occur so rarely, even
though the progression would seem correct in both harmonic and
contrapuntal terms? The previous mails contain several valuable
points, the multitude of which helps to remind us that for questions
about compositional practice we should not expect to find simple
explanations, based on a single factor alone, since successful
compositional solutions usually combine several desirable features.
For what it's worth, however, here is a summary of the factors that I
find most crucial in this case: First, passing motion is a more
effective and fundamental way of dissonance treatment than
neighboring motion; therefore I–V6/4–I6 arises more readily than I–
V6/4–I. Second, for a bass line ^1–^2–^1 there is a very effective
harmonization in I–V4/3–I (or I–VII6–I) involving parallel tenths;
hence no need to use a neighboring V6/4 easily arises. Third,
neighboring chords involving only upper-voice motions are much less
weighty in character than those involving the bass; therefore I–IV6/4–
I arises more readily than I–V6/4–I.
Olli Väisälä
Sibelius Academy
ovaisala at siba.fi
More information about the Smt-talk
mailing list