Music Theory Online

The Online Journal of the Society for Music Theory

Volume 2.3:

Eytan Agmon*

Conventional Harmonic Wisdom and the Scope of Schenkerian Theory: A Reply to

John Rothgeb

KEYWORDS: functional harmony, Riemann, Schenker, context, Stufe,

Auskomponierung, Ursatz

ABSTRACT: The essay consists of three parts. (1) A response to John Rothgeb's
objections to the modified version of Riemann's functional harmonic theory proposed in
Eytan Agmon's Music Theory Spectrum article, "Functional Harmony Revisited." (2) A
discussion of the conflict between the type of "conventional harmonic wisdom" that
(modified) functionalism represents and Schenker's view of tonality. (3) A discussion of
what this conflict implies as far as the scope of Schenkerian theory is concerned.

[1] In "Functional Harmony Revisited: A Prototype- Theoretic Approach" (henceforth,

FHR), I have proposed a modified version of Hugo Riemann's functional harmonic
theory.{1} John Rothgeb, in a recent MTO contribution, objects to the (modified) theory
on two main counts. First, given an approach to tonal pitch-structure (such as Heinrich
Schenker's) that emphasizes context in general and voice leading in particular,
(modified) functionalism is superfluous or trivial at best, if not downright pernicious;
second, the theory leads to a deplorable intellectual regression, since it negates such
remarkable theoretical achievements as Schenker's notions of "scale- step" (Stufe) and
"composing-out" (Auskomponierung).{2}

[2] I shall begin the present essay by responding to Rothgeb's objections; neither, I hope
to demonstrate, stands up under scrutiny. However, I believe that Rothgeb is nonetheless
correct in sensing that a serious conflict indeed exists between "conventional [harmonic]
wisdom," of which functionalism is apparently an important ingredient, and certain
tenets of Schenker's theory.{3} In the second part of this essay, therefore, I shall attempt
to isolate the source of this conflict; I shall conclude the essay by considering the
conflict's implications as far as the scope of Schenkerian theory is concerned.{4}

[3] Rothgeb purports to establish the superfluousness of functional theory, vis a vis an
approach that emphasizes context and voice leading, by analyzing the concluding bars
of Schumann's "Am Kamin" from Kinderszenen (see Example 1); he concentrates in
particular on the "vertical event" marked "X." For present purposes, Rothgeb's argument
may be reduced to three essential claims: "strong horizontalism," "weak horizontalism,"
and "contextualism."

Example 1. Schumann, "Am Kamin," mm. 29-32

Midi file of Example 1

[4] Strong horizontalism. According to strong horizontalism, X is a more-or-less

accidental result of linear motion; in particular, the note a ". . . serves as. . . an escape
tone or an incomplete upper neighbor, . . . [or better yet] an anticipation of the third of
the coming tonic harmony" (par. 6). It follows that "the note a in no sense functions as a
harmonic root here. The chord under discussion is not an inversion of an a-minor triad"
(par. 8).

[5] For all that Schenker would have us believe that linear motion in tonal music--
apparently by some divine miracle--tends to yield precisely triads and seventh chords as
vertical sonorities, strong horizontalism is a patently absurd position. In Example 2
Schumann's X is replaced by an impostor vertical event *X (Schumann's concluding
tonic is also slightly altered in the example: it now features ^3^ in the soprano rather
than ^1^). In voice-leading terms, X and *X are exactly analogous (the f in *X is also an
escape tone or anticipation of the coming tonic harmony); yet *X is plainly
unacceptable.

Example 2. "Am Kamin," recomposed

Midi file of Example 2

[6] In view of Ex. 2 one might concede that X is not totally unconstrained as a vertical
event (although it nonetheless falls short of being a triad); X, one might propose, is
consonant. However, Example 3a, where Schumann's cadence is transposed to minor,
exposes the uselessness of such a move. The relationship between X' and *X' in Exx. 3a
and 3b is exactly analogous to the relationship between X and *X in Exx. 1 and 2, even
though X' is dissonant. Moreover, when it comes to seventh chords, the consonance
criterion must in any event be abandoned. In paragraph 8 Rothgeb explains "the origin
of Schumann's II[6/5] as a result of extending the bass of IV and letting the treble
anticipate the fifth of the coming V." Would Rothgeb be willing to accept on equal terms
a IV chord that similarly anticipates the third of the coming V?

Example 3. a) The "Am Kamin" cadence, transposed to minor; b) recomposition of a.

[7] Once one concedes that X is a triad (rather than some accidental collection of
pitches), one must also concede that X is an a-minor triad in first inversion, that is, a III6
chord. To be sure, the function of X is not specified by the III6 label; the purpose of
(modified) functionalism is precisely to fill-in this theoretical void. According to
(modified) functionalism, X "has dominant function"; X, in other words, is a member of
a set of triads--a category--whose prototype is V. The relationship between X and V,
moreover, is one of maximal similarity, that is, the two triads have two tones in
common.

[8] As it happens, Rothgeb also sees a relationship between X and a hypothetical V:

"people who hear musically will have a strong predilection to hear this final [falling]
fifth [in the bass] as representing V-I even though its penultimate member does not bear
the 5/3 sonority which alone would provide full congruence between scale-degree
meaning and vertical chord" (par. 8). Indeed, given this statement (together with
Rothgeb's earlier concession that I, IV, and V "are indeed primary in some meaningful
sense"), one begins to wonder what the dispute is all about. Nonetheless, from his
discussion of the IV/II relationship (see especially par. 8, as well as par. 16 and n. 14),
one suspects that Rothgeb would object to seeing the V/III relationship in terms of
common tones; rather, for Rothgeb the V/III relationship is once again a matter of voice
leading.

[9] Weak horizontalism. Weak horizontalism concedes that X is a triad (thus X is a III6
chord--no "shudder-quotes" required); moreover, weak horizontalism sees an essential
relationship between X and a hypothetical V chord. However, unlike functionalism, that
sees the V/III relationship in terms of common tones, weak horizontalism prefers to see
a 5-6 linear exchange (Example 4).

Example 4. The V/III relationship: a) according to functionalism; b) according to weak

horizontalism
[10] Unlike strong horizontalism, weak horizontalism is by no means an absurd position.
Indeed, it appears that no convincing counter-argument to weak horizontalism existed
prior to my 1991 paper entitled "Linear Transformations Between Cyclically Generated
Chords," where it was pointed out that our ability to describe chordal relationships in
tonal music both "harmonically" and "linearly"--as in Ex. 4--cannot be taken for
granted.{5} For example, within a 7-note cyclic set the triad and seventh chord are the
only generated chords that form linear connections in any pairwise combination (that is,
any triad or seventh chord can connect linearly to any other triad or seventh chord),
assuming that the linear connections satisfy a certain "efficiency" constraint. The
essential idea involved is illustrated (for triads only) in Example 5. The article
mentioned proceeds to propose definitions for "triad" and "seventh chord" based on this
linear criterion.

Example 5. Fig. 2 from Eytan Agmon, "Linear Transformations Between Cyclically

Generated Chords" (Musikometrika 3, 1991)

[11] Once "triad" and "seventh chord" are defined on the basis of voice-leading
considerations, the pernicious harmony/voice-leading dichotomy loses much of its force.
In particular, to say that III is related to V by virtue of two common tones, and to say that
III(6) is related to V by virtue of a 5-6 linear exchange, is to make two logically
equivalent statements.{6} All the same, to base a functional harmonic theory on voice
leading would be a poor choice indeed. In a "deceptive cadence" V-VI, for example, it
makes little sense to say that the VI is related to a hypothetical I by virtue of a 5-6 linear
exchange; yet in terms of common tones, the case is exactly analogous to the V/III
relationship initially discussed. In other words, the common-tone relationship between a
"secondary" triad and a "primary" one is theoretically more general than the (logically
equivalent) voice-leading relationship, which seems to play a more restricted, context-
related role.

[12] Contextualism. One may agree that X is a III6 chord with a strong "aura" of V, yet
nonetheless disagree with functionalism concerning a necessary, a-priori relationship
between the two chords. The V/III relationship, one may argue, is purely contextual, and
can be replaced by any "X/Y" relationship whatsoever.

[13] The doctrine of contextualism is with us at least since 1934, when Oswald Jonas
has stated that functionalism "had to fail, because it neglected the fact that two
occurrences of the same chord could be worlds apart in meaning, and that everything
depended on context."{7} Rothgeb echoes the idea in paragraph 9 of his commentary:

When I say that in this case [i.e., Schumann's "Am Kamin"] "III" means V,
the word means may be explicated as "constitutes, or is included within, a
harmonic expression of." "III" may equally mean I; "II" may mean IV;
indeed, instances of "X" meaning Y are legion in the repertoire of tonal
 music, and virtually no a-priori limits can be set on the ranges of "X" and
"Y".{8}

[14] Although Rothgeb concedes in a footnote that "certain limits would probably stand
up under scrutiny," his statement is surely a gross misrepresentation of musical reality.
Can "III" mean IV? Can "II" mean I? Can "IV" mean V? In fact, the examples of "X
meaning Y" that Rothgeb cites are exactly those which functional theory allows.

[15] Since Rothgeb proceeds in the next paragraph to consider Schenker's notion of
"scale-step," I suspect that when he speaks of no a-priori constraints on "X meaning Y"
he has in mind hierarchical subordination rather than functional significance. In
Schenker's theory, III (for example) may participate in prolonging IV, as IV may
participate in prolonging V. And indeed, when it comes to hierarchy, functionalism
seems to suffer badly in comparison to Schenker's theory, which introduced the
profound idea of structural levels (recursive embedding) to tonal theory. However, in
FHR I have claimed that (modified) functionalism "is compatible with a hierarchical
approach" (p. 203); I should now like to make good this claim.

[16] Functional Auskomponierung.{9} Fig. 1a reproduces Figure 2c from FHR. Note

that the figure is drawn from the vantage point of the tonic triad, whose referential status
is assumed a priori. This means that Fig. 1a would generate--in conjunction with a
theory of chord progression--functionally interpreted progressions that prolong I (e.g., I-
IV-V-I), and only I; thus Fig. 1a may be termed a I-Stufe functional diagram.

Figure 1a The I-Stufe functional diagram (FHR, Fig. 2c)

Figure 1b The V-Stufe functional diagram

[17] Figure 1a may be analyzed in terms of two independent components: a circle of

third-related triads, and a "functional grid" by which the seven triads are divided into
three categories, and where, for each category, a specific triad is selected as prototype.
Suppose now that one rotates the circle of triads in Fig. 1a--but not the underlying
functional grid!--in such a way that V occupies the former position of I (Figure 1b); we
now have a V- Stufe functional diagram. In conjunction with the same theory of chord
progression, Fig. 1b generates functionally interpreted progressions that prolong V, e.g.
V-I-V (T-S-T), V-IV-V (T-D-T), V-II-V (T-D-T), etc. In a similar fashion, any of the
seven harmonic degrees may assume a Stufe role. To create a functional hierarchy one
begins by generating a I-Stufe progression (say, I-II-V-I) at the highest level. One then
selects any harmonic degree from this progression--say, II--as a lower-level Stufe, and
(using the appropriate functional diagram) generates a hierarchically subordinate,
functionally interpreted progression (say, II-I-II); in a recursive fashion, one may create
functionally interpreted progressions embedded to any arbitrary hierarchical depth.
[18] Example 6 illustrates a typical progression generated by the theory of functional
Auskomponierung. Carl Schachter, who invented the progression, views the II and V
chords in mm. 2-3 as prolonged or composed-out (Auskomponiert) entities.{10} It is
important to realize that even though voice leading plays a crucial role in the
Auskomponierung process (note the voice exchanges), other factors (such as rhythm and
meter) are equally involved. In FHR I have drawn a clear distinction between the
functional potential of a given triad, which is given a priori, and the realization of that
potential, which is context-dependent (p. 206). For example, the potential of I to assume
dominant function in a II-Stufe progression (such as II-I-II) is given a-priori in
(modified) functional theory; to bring this potential into musical fruition, however, may
require a coordination among several compositional variables, as Ex. 6 illustrates.
Schenker has made a lasting contribution to tonal theory in emphasizing the crucial
contextual role of voice leading. However, Schenker also believed that voice leading can
be promoted above and beyond any other principle as the basis for a theory of tonal
structure; this latter belief is the source of some serious conflicts with the type of
"conventional harmonic wisdom" that (modified) functionalism represents.

Example 6. After Carl Schachter, "Analysis by Key: Another Look at Modulation"

(Music Analysis 6:3, 1987), Example 3

II

[19] In the preceding section I have presented arguments which I believe set to rest
Rothgeb's objections to (modified) functionalism. In particular, strong horizontalism,
weak horizontalism, and contextualism have been shown to be either plainly
unacceptable or irrelevant doctrines, which leaves Rothgeb's claims concerning the
superfluousness of (modified) functionalism without support. Moreover, the idea of
functional Auskomponierung renders Rothgeb's complaint concerning the intellectual
poverty of functionalism (relative to Schenker's theory) no longer valid. Indeed,
(modified) functionalism agrees with the Schenkerian approach on two important points:
(1) tonal pitch structure is hierarchical in nature; (2) voice leading plays a crucial role in
rendering the assumed hierarchy cognitively accessible. Nonetheless, it would be wrong
to pretend that a serious conflict between the two theories does not exist. In the present
section I should like to isolate the source of this conflict.

[20] For Schenker, all tonal structure is ultimately referable to the Ursatz a theoretic
construct whose rationale is essentially linear-contrapuntal: a dissonant passing-tone in
the top voice is rendered consonant by means of a bass-arpeggiation. How does the
Ursatz conflict with conventional harmonic wisdom? One conflict is immediately
apparent. As far as the Ursatz is concerned, there are only two basic harmonic states,
"tonic" and "dominant"; a third harmonic state (say, "subdominant") does not exist, or if
it does, its status within the tonal hierarchy is, by definition, inferior.
[21] Even in terms of Schenker's own theory, the idea that IV or II6 represent some sort
of "leaping passing-tone" configuration in the bass surely leaves much to be desired.
Moreover, Schenker's account forces an uncomfortable analogy between the functions of
IV and II6, on the one hand, and III (and even I6), on the other. However, I believe that
Schenker's cavalier attitude towards the subdominant is problematic at a more basic,
intuitive level. For while the subdominant may be the only component of a T-S-D-T
progression whose removal does not violate a certain sense of progressional syntax, by
conventional harmonic wisdom the difference between T-D-T and T-S-D-T is
nonetheless crucial. Perhaps a linguistic analogy could help clarify this point. Consider
the phrase "He ate his heart out." Although the deletion of "his heart out" yields a
syntactically acceptable expression, something essential is surely lost in "reducing" "He
ate his heart out" to "He ate." I have often heard the complaint that a musical phrase is
robbed of its essence once the "structural subdominant" is removed; I believe such a
complaint--even when it comes from an undergraduate student--deserves to be treated
with respect.

[22] Schenker's Ursatz is at odds with conventional harmonic wisdom not only
concerning the status of the subdominant; an even more severe conflict, I believe,
concerns the dominant. By conventional harmonic wisdom, I- V(7)-I is one of the least
contextually constrained progressions; the progression retains its functional sense as T-
D-T in countless possible realizations, which may vary considerably in terms of voice
leading, bass progression, or registration. In Schenker's Ursatz, on the other hand, I-V-I
is conceived in terms of severe a- priori contextual constraints. Note, for example, that
even such a simple deviation from the Ursatz-model where the bass, rather than leaping
up a fifth from I to V, leaps down a fourth, is something to be accounted for. This
hopeless "contextualization of the dominant" (together with the "a-priorization of voice
leading") ultimately leads to the utterly absurd position where I- V6-I (say) is seen as
more closely related to (say) I- IV6/4-I than to I-V-I.

III

[23] Lest I should be once again accused of inciting intellectual regress, let me hasten to
point out that my critique of Schenker's Ursatz applies only in so far as the construct is
claimed to constitute a theory of tonality, a theory by which conventional harmonic
wisdom is condescendingly dismissed. I have no objection whatsoever to a more limited
interpretation of what the Ursatz stands for, for example, that the Ursatz (or some
Ursatz-like configuration) is an analytic construct, hypothesized to describe the
structure of some specific piece of music (or possibly a group of pieces); as such, the
Ursatz may be seen as a contextualized harmonic progression, situated at some
(possibly deep) level of compositional structure. Indeed, as a contextualized I-V-I
progression Schenker's Ursatz makes much compositional sense, for it lends the
progression, from the linear point of view, a clear sense of purpose and direction.
[24] I am well aware that for some readers, giving up Schenker's grand vision of tonality
as an unfolding in time of the Chord of Nature may seem an exceedingly dear price to
pay. But I also believe that for many others, who--like myself--deeply cherish the
analytic insights that Schenker's approach has to offer, and yet are unable to turn their
backs on conventional harmonic wisdom, there is simply no other choice. As someone
whose involvement with the Schenkerian approach over the years has been more than
casual, I know how difficult it can be to admit that Schenker delivers less than he
promises. Nonetheless, I believe it is essential that the scope of Schenkerian theory be
seriously reassessed. For if, as Rothgeb would have us believe, there is simply no way in
which the ideas of Heinrich Schenker and Hugo Riemann may be reconciled, tonal
theory is a very small town indeed.

EYTAN AGMON
Bar-Ilan University
Department of Musicology
52900 Ramat-Gan
Israel
agmone@ashur.cc.biu.ac.il

Return to beginning of article

References
1. Music Theory Spectrum 17:2 (1995), 196-214.
Return to text

2. John Rothgeb, "Re: Eytan Agmon on Functional Theory," Music Theory Online 2.1
(1996).
Return to text

3. The expression "conventional [harmonic] wisdom" appears in n. 12 of Rothgeb's

commentary. The condescending tone in which this expression is used recurs in
Rothgeb's reference to "the language of the completely conventional harmony textbook"
in par. 11, and his reference to "most undergraduate students" in par. 14.
Return to text
4. At least two of Rothgeb's grievances seem to reflect plain miscomprehension of my
text. His discussion in paragraphs 14-15 of "II as IV" is totally beside the point in view
of the category/chord distinction on which modified functionalism so crucially depends
(see especially FHR, p. 204). Similarly, one of Rothgeb's central lines of attack on FHR,
concerning the role of context in harmonic theory (of which more shall be said
subsequently), seems oblivious of the important distinction on p. 206 between the
functional potential of a given chord, which the theory proposed in FHR sets out to
describe, and the realization of that potential in context (which, strictly speaking, lies
outside the scope of the proposed theory). To be sure, for someone who does not believe
in harmonic functions in the first place, my claim that a certain functional potential
(specifically, the subdominant function of VII) can hardly ever be realized, is an easy
target for critique, especially since that claim is supported in part by an appeal to a
hypothetical theory of chord progression. However, in terms of discrediting the theory as
a whole the effect of such critique is negligible.
Return to text

5. Eytan Agmon, "Linear Transformations Between Cyclically Generated Chords,"

Musikometrika 3 (1991), 15-40.
Return to text

6. See "Linear Transformations," pp. 22-3. In n. 14 Rothgeb refers to the "equivocality

of the 6/3 chord, in which the 6 may in principle represent either a linear element or the
root of an inverted chord."
Return to text

7. Oswald Jonas, Introduction to the Theory of Heinrich Schenker, trans. and ed. John
Rothgeb (New York: Longman, 1982), 127 (emphasis added).
Return to text

8. I have added emphasis to Rothgeb's "virtually no a- priori limits."

Return to text

9. Only the bare outlines of the theory are sketched here; I hope to flesh-out the details
in a separate study.
Return to text

10. Carl Schachter, "Analysis by Key: Another Look at Modulation," Music Analysis 6:3
(1987), 292. In light of the present discussion, Auskomponierung may seem to apply
only to functionally interpreted progressions that begin and end on the same chord (e.g.,
II-I-II). However, any functionally interpreted progression referable to a given scale
degree may be said to prolong or compose- out that degree. For example, I-V-VI, as a I-
Stufe progression, may be said to prolong I.
Return to text
 Return to Beginning

Copyright Statement

Copyright © 1996 by the Society for Music Theory.

All rights reserved.
[1] Copyrights for individual items published in Music Theory Online (MTO) are held
by their authors.
Items appearing in MTO may be saved and stored in electronic or paper form, and may
be shared among individuals for purposes of scholarly research or discussion, but may
not be republished in any form, electronic or print, without prior, written permission
from the author(s), and advance notification of the editors of MTO.

[2] Any redistributed form of items published in MTO must include the following
information in a form appropriate to the medium in which the items are to appear:

This item appeared in Music Theory Online

in [VOLUME #, ISSUE #] on [DAY/MONTH/YEAR].
It was authored by [FULL NAME, EMAIL ADDRESS],
with whose written permission it is reprinted
here.

[3] Libraries may archive issues of MTO in electronic or paper form for public access so
long as each issue is stored in its entirety, and no access fee is charged. Exceptions to
these requirements must be approved in writing by the editors of MTO, who will act in
accordance with the decisions of the Society for Music Theory.

This document and all portions thereof are protected by U.S. and international copyright
laws. Material contained herein may be copied and/or distributed for research purposes
only.

prepared by
Robert Judd, MTO Manager
3/15/96