|
Comparison with Traditional Analysis
Traditional harmonic analysis tends to divide the world of music into "chord tones" and "non-chord tones",
often presenting "non-chord tones" as "decorations" of the chords. In some older texts non-chord tones are
even giving the highly derogatory name "unessential notes".
In this work I am suggesting that it is more fruitful to separate music into "archetypal patterns" and
"decorations". The two approaches often produce similar analysis, but they can produce significantly
different results. To illustrate we will use a phrase ending from Mozart's sonata K. 330.
Traditional analysis will result in a labelling of the chords, and the non-chord notes. For example, F and E
at the end of the first measure would be labelled as passing notes. The C-sharp at the start of the next
measure is an appoggiatura. The following D, F and A all belong to the II chord and thus do not
require any special labelling.
Mozart, Sonata K. 330, II
If we look for the archetypal line in the music, we find the traditional falling line leading to the cadence. In
this falling line the F and E are important structural notes, even though they are not chord notes. In the next
measure the D is part of the basic pattern, but the F and A are not. They are chord notes, but they are also
decorations of the underlining structure.
Mozart, Sonata K. 330, II
Of course, the designation of some notes as decorations does not diminish their importance. The architypal
patterns give the music coherence. The decorations give it character. Both are "essential".
© 2005 Andrew Hodgson
| 
- Click on this icon to hear the musical examples!
