12/10/2017 theory - Triangle Tonnetz vs.

Hexagon Tonnetz - Music: Practice & Theory Stack Exchange

_
Music: Practice & Theory Stack Here's how it works:
Exchange is a question and answer
site for musicians, students, and
enthusiasts. Join them; it only takes a
minute:
The best answers are
Sign up Anybody can ask Anybody can voted up and rise to the
a question answer top

Triangle Tonnetz vs. Hexagon Tonnetz

I have just started to learn about Tonnetz and I've run across two very representations of the same information in different types of Tonnetz.

In the rst one shown below the triangles represent a chord while the points represent a note:

In the second one shown below the hexagons represent a note while the points represent a chord:

It seems like they both state the same exact information, but in different ways. Is there a reason to use/prefer one over the other or is there a
situation where one is more appropriate then the other?

theory tonnetz

asked Apr 24 '15 at 2:50

Dom
31.2k 12 83 185

3 Answers

These two diagrams form what mathematicians might call a dual graph, in that they are sort of
mirror images of each other. I'll describe this briey for the benet of others.

In the rst image, the nodes represent pitches (well, pitch classes), while in the second image,
the nodes represent chords. To construct the second image from the rst, place a point in the
center of each triangle, label it with the name of the chord formed by the surrounding three pitches,
and connect it to the centers of the three neighboring triangles. To construct the rst image from
the second, simply repeat this process: place a point in the center of each hexagon, label it with
the name of the pitch that is common to the six surrounding chords, and connect it to the centers of
the six neighboring hexagons. For example, the hexagon (c-C-a-F-f-A) represents the pitch C,
and if you go one hexagon above it (g-G-e-C-c-E) this represents the pitch G. The line connecting
these two hexagons is the same as the edge C-G in the rst image.

Thus all of the intervalic relationships in the rst diagram exist in the second diagram, but in a
slightly less easy-to-see form (lines between centers of shapes rather than edges). Similarly, in
the second diagram, the edges represent transitions between two chords that share two notes in

https://music.stackexchange.com/questions/31925/triangle-tonnetz-vs-hexagon-tonnetz 1/4
12/10/2017 theory - Triangle Tonnetz vs. Hexagon Tonnetz - Music: Practice & Theory Stack Exchange
common. But this same information can be seen in the rst diagram by crossing an edge from
one triangle to an adjacent one.

You might think that, since the second diagram focuses more on chords (by making them be the
nodes), it would be better-suited for analyzing chord progressions. However, here we see the
downside of the second diagram: not all chords are represented in the diagram, only major and
minor triads. There are no diminished or augmented chords, much less suspensions, or
sevenths, or other combinations. Furthermore, if you look at any pair of adjacent nodes as being
a chord progression, they are always chords that differ by a single note.

On the other hand the rst diagram is capable of displaying any possible combination of tones,
regardless of whether it is a major or minor triad. However, chord progressions do become
rather abstract, as one shape morphs into another.

To summarize:

Triangles

Nodes: All pitch classes

Edges: Intervals, but only consonant ones (m3/M6, M3/m6, P4/P5)
Shapes: Chords (any possible combination of nodes)

Hexagons

Nodes: Chords, but only major/minor triads.

Edges: Chord progressions, but only if they share two common tones.
Shapes: Pitch classes (common tone of surrounding chords).

Given the clear limitations of the hexagon based diagram (which are easily overcome in the
triangle diagram) I'm not sure why someone would choose it over the triangle diagram, given the
choice (historically, I think it was developed rst, though). Honestly, I'm having a hard time
thinking of any cases where you can clearly and easily do something on the hex grid that you
absolutely can't do on the triangle.

This agrees with the fact that it's more natural to think of a chord as a combination of multiple
pitches, rather than to think of a pitch as the overlapping of multiple chords.

edited Apr 24 '15 at 16:54 answered Apr 24 '15 at 5:25

Caleb Hines
14.8k 1 26 79

To expand on Caleb's and N1hk's excellent answers, I would just like to add my picture of the two
tonnetze superimposed and rotated to show their relationship.

Interestingly, the hexagonal tonnetz as drawn in the question, has an enharmonic change of
spelling which in my opinion further limits its usefulness since it obfuscates harmonic motion
and chord progression analysis.

If a chord tonnetz is required I much prefer the 'chord lattice' of W.A. Mathieu

https://music.stackexchange.com/questions/31925/triangle-tonnetz-vs-hexagon-tonnetz 2/4
12/10/2017 theory - Triangle Tonnetz vs. Hexagon Tonnetz - Music: Practice & Theory Stack Exchange

It shares some similarities with the hexagonal tonnetz while retaining the horizontal
fths/vertical thirds orientation of the triangular one, which in my opinion makes it easier to
read.

I would also like to mention the 've-limit lattice' which is more or less identical to the 'triangular'
tonnetz but with a different orientation: drawn on a system of staves it has a slight slant to it but
more importantly it is upside down.

My experience with lattices/tonnetze is mostly limited to simple harmonic analysis and singing
practise over a drone. For these applications I've only ever used the ve-limit lattice/triangular
tonnetz.

(Image source: Harmonic Experience: Tonal Harmony from Its Natural Origins to Its Modern
Expression, W.A. Mathieu)

answered Dec 25 '15 at 21:58

Johannes
1,184 5 11

I've never seen before the sort of Tonnetz you've provided with your second example! The rst
Tonnetz, however, is the kind I've encountered most often.

My immediate impression is that the rst is much more navigable. The intervallic relationships
are easily apparent: bottom-left to top-right are minor thirds, top-left to bottom-right are major
thirds, and horizontally are the perfect intervals.

The second example obfuscates this intriguing logic with its edges: the intervals are either
alternating between major and minor thirds or unisons. The consequence of these unisons is
that there is a lot of redundancy, something the rst example has much less of. Its
enharmonicism also eliminates the potential for an innite web of pitches with successively
more accidentals, which the rst example would do were it more expansive. With respect to the
rst example, you're right: there doesn't seem to be any reason to prefer the second one.

Slight digression: Hexagons are semantically relevant to study of transformational theory, which
Tonnetze are a large part of. But the hexagons of the second example have little to do with the
hexagonal "hexatonic systems" proposed by Richard Cohn in his landmark article "Maximally
Smooth Cycles, Hexatonic Systems, and the Analysis of Late-Romantic Triadic Progressions"
(1996).

edited Apr 24 '15 at 4:08 answered Apr 24 '15 at 3:58

N1hk
289 1 4

https://music.stackexchange.com/questions/31925/triangle-tonnetz-vs-hexagon-tonnetz 3/4
12/10/2017 theory - Triangle Tonnetz vs. Hexagon Tonnetz - Music: Practice & Theory Stack Exchange

https://music.stackexchange.com/questions/31925/triangle-tonnetz-vs-hexagon-tonnetz 4/4