<html><head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252"><title>re: Inception Chord Progression</title>
</head>
<body>
<font face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12pt">Having followed the discussion of the “inception progression,” I am a bit surprised to find that no one has offered an interpretation in terms of voice leading, so let me offer one.<br>
<br>
Keeping in mind that the progression is circular, we should really consider it a five-chord progression in which the first and last chords overlap. This immediately suggests it should be interpreted as a prolongation of the harmony on which it overlaps and an orientation in terms of g minor (or possibly Eb major), as several comments have noted. Viewed in g minor, the progression consists of an embellished motion from I to VI and back in which the intervening harmonies serve as chromatic passing chords that harmonize the lower neighbor, F#(Gb), the leading tone of g. Unlike the two main harmonies, which are diatonic in g, these embellishing chords are chosen because they are triadic harmonies that include the neighbor tone, are different from each other and are maximally non-diatonic to increase their coloristic effect. Because they both contain the leading tone, they could be considered some sort of dominant substitute, but since they serve a voice leading rather than harmonic function that is of relatively little significance here.<br>
<img src="cid:3364718101_4160316"><br>
Example a illustrates an interpretation of the voice leading and harmonic structure from this perspective. One can see how the tonal ambiguity is intensified by the possible interpretation of the last three chords in Eb and by the fifth motion in the bass between the second and third chords, suggesting that the second chord might be viewed as a fifth-related harmony with an added 6th in Eb and that the entire progression might better be considered in Eb major (more about this below). <br>
<img src="cid:3364718101_4171316"><br>
<br>
The status of the second harmony as the only first-inversion chord, however, suggests it might best be considered less structural than the others. Example b illustrates such an interpretation, revealing an underlying progression based on an equal division of the octave by major thirds – G-Eb-B-G. The fact that the last three chords can be viewed as a rather conventional descending-thirds progression in Eb (albeit one that includes simple mixture) reinforces an interpretation in terms of that key. Example c illustrates such an analysis, revealing a structure that is fairly common in mid and late-nineteenth century music, particularly that of Liszt. I discussed such contrapuntal progressions in an article some years ago (<i>ITO</i> 12/5-6 [1992]).<br>
<br>
<img src="cid:3364718101_4162883"> <br>
Not withstanding the possible interpretation in terms of Eb, I think most people still hear it in g, because the progression, as performed, overlaps on that harmony (hence prolongs it, rather than Eb) and because the neighbor tone in the soprano is the leading tone in that key. Its relationship to 19th century practice is certainly relevant regardless. I would be interested in knowing if anyone else hears it this way.<br>
<br>
Howard Cinnamon<br>
Associate Professor and Coordinator of Music Theory<br>
Hofstra University<br>
<br>
</span></font>
</body>
</html>