Not seeing the difference

Hi Art,

I studied this subject many years ago when I was studying musical composition. Let me see if I am able to help you.
The functional theory represented by Riemann’s thought says that there are only three harmonic functions: Tonic, subdominant, and dominant (I, IV, and V). All other chords are grouped into these three functions, which in a certain way means that they don’t have a individual function or tendency of movement.

On the other hand, the theory of degrees says that each chord has its own function which can be understood by the type of chord progression is presented in a excerpt of the song. The cycle of fifths may be seen as a tendency a chord has to go a fifth down.
We could say for example that the most natural sequence for the chords would be:

I – IV – vii – iii – vi – ii – V – I

According to this example, we can say that the “natural” movement of the vii degree is to go to the iii degree. Thus, contradicting the other point of view where the vii has dominant function and, due to this, it should move to the I. Summarizing, the chord progression is more important to define a function than the type of chord. I know my explanation is simple, but this is not a easy subject to talk about. I have to dust off my books of theory and resume my studies.

By the way, what book this quote is from?
Tell me what you think of all this.

Renato.

In guitar practice it may be easier to visualise this as “4 up” bass movement, rather than “5 down” (the same thing, really).
In terms of chord movement, the strongest and most natural transition to our ears tends to be the circle of 5ths movement.

To understand the example better, you need to know that there are 2 different circle of 5ths: The “perfect” and the “natural”.
The “perfect” Circle of 5th contains only perfect 5ths, e.g.. c-f-Bb-Eb-Ab etc. Each bass movement is precisely the same number of semitones.

However, the natural cicrle of 5th will only skip to the notes that are part of a particular scale (Key). So, for the C major scale, this looks like : c-f-b-e-a-d-g-c.
Given this, notice that one of the 5ths will be “imperfect” sized. In this case F-B is a diminished 5th (or augmented 4th, the same thing).
When we are talking about circle of 5ths chord root movement, it is usually the natural circle of 5ths what we mean.

If we use a different scale, the natural circle of 5ths will be laid out according to the note inventory of that particular scale.
The point is, the natural circle of 5ths is always asscociated with a scale/key.

Now, not all chordal motion will be circle of 5ths root motion. There are other common phrases that are clearly not. For example sequential ascending or descending chord motion. But, the most logical and strongest motions which come up in lots of chord progressions are “natural 4 up”. You could say these type of chord changes are the “bones” of a chord progression. II-V-I or II-V chordal motions are the most common chord sequences in western music, and those are absolutely circle of 4th movements.

One more thing, if a proper circle of 5ths root motion is not possible, a circle of 5th Bass motion is “almost as good”. Being aware of this helps with the use of chord inversions. For example the I-IV-V-I common phrase in classical music contains mostly circle of 5ths chordal root motion, except for the IV-V (e.g: in the key of C, Fmaj7-G7). Here the chord roots are a whole note apart. If we use the root note as bass, the bass movement will be a whole note up. In the example I used 4 voice chords, for the heck of it… I could have said F and G, and the example would be eqaually valid. Now, if you put the B note in the bass of the G7 (or G), instead of the root note G, you get F -> B bass motion which is a natural Circle-of-5th motion. So you do not have circle-of-5ths root motion, but you end up with circle-of-5ths _Bass_ motion through the miracle of chord inversion. Thus we can improve the bass motion and make it more stisfying by using a different note from the chord as the bass.

Keep in mind that music theory is codified by analyzing the existing music of great composers.The greats follow their own genius, and we follow the rules the theoreticians came up with. Fairly “modern” techniques, such as secondary dominants were already used by reneissance composers such as Palestrina in the 1550-s. Although he probably did not call it that, it probably just sounded good to him. These have not been written up and turned into formal theory until much later.

It seems like a lot of what we practice today, exploded into the music scene with the “3rd interval” revolution, which transformed western music as we know it. Interestingly, this started in England, sometimes in the 13th century.

Just re-read Renato’s explanation.

In Jazz, chord quality is a “simplifying” concept to to make it easier to memorize and use the zillion possible fingerings and chord alterations.
It says, that any chord can be classified into one of 3 possible categories: Major, minor or dominant.
Major quiality chords tend to be “resting” or resolution chords. Dominant qality chords are tension chords, and strongly strive towards some type of resolutiuon. c Minor chords are more ambiguous, they may me resting, tension or transient chords, depending on the context.

In Jazz theory, the cord classification does not necessarily prescribe the exact type of resolution that must be used, usually there are a multiplicity of resolution poaths are said to be possible. There is usually a preferred resolution, a “true” resolution, and very often this is circle of 5th based. But, a plethora of other, surprising resolutions are possible, these are are called “deceptive” cadences, they are less obvious, and often more surprising. A deceptive cadence tends to have an “aha” factor sort of a delightful surprise. Sort of like an interesting twist in a story. “Aha the butler did it!. Who woudl have thunk..”.