Dialogue Concerning the Three Chief Tone Systems:

the Diatonic, the Triadic and the Chromatic

Interlocutors: Mathematician = Ma, Music Theorist = Mu, Philosopher = Phi,

and Simplicio (special guest) = Simp

Phi: We agree that the chromatic music of the nineteenth century provides a
fascinating subject for theoretical explanation. But how is this subject embedded
into the more general domain of harmonic tonality? Recently we resolved to meet
today and discuss the character and the efficacy of the theoretical approaches
which up to present have been put forth by the partisans of more traditional
Schenkerian or Riemannian positions on the one hand, who explain chromatic
music as an elaboration of diatonic and triadic structures and by innovative theorists
on the other, who reconstruct certain aspects of these traditional theories within a
twelve-tone universe. In the light of new observations in these twelve-tone models
some scholars tend to attribute an autonomous status to chromatic tonality. Our
controversy of today centers around the interpretation of the status of this
autonomy. Do these theoretical worlds correspond to musical worlds which coexist
as autonomous strands in the musical mentality of the nineteenth century? Or
should we still believe in the idea of harmonic tonality as a unifying theoretical basis
of one diachronically evolving universe? Our guest Simplicio - who posed this
problem to us – is obviously in favor of a "one tonal world" hypothesis.

Mu: Traditionally, followers of a one-world-hypothesis tend to interpret their

theoretical problems as a crisis in the musical world, rather than in their own
theoretical picture of this world. I therefore agree with the attitude of the innovators
to localize the problem in the theory and to partition the domain of investigation into
diatonic and chromatic approaches. But of course, we should distinguish between
partitions of the theoretical picture of the music and partitions of the musical world.

Ma: Strictly speaking, the only way to support a two-world hypothesis would be a
falsification of the one-word hypothsis.

Phi: But how urgent is the determination of this number of musical worlds as a
theoretical problem? Admittedly, in the philosophy of the mind we spend much
energy on one-world versus two-world debates. Furthermore, the success of
modern physics and recent progress in the measurement of brain activity are fueling
the speculative fires of the physicalism debate. These old ontological questions are
indeed serious as we meditate about the unity of existence in its totality. I don't feel
quite the same intellectual pressure for the understanding of harmonic tonality as
one world. I may - abstractly - imagine a hybrid constitution of musical mentality with
diatonic and chromatic strands, while it is harder to imagine a hybrid world
consisting of physical and mental strands.

Simp: Philosophers will hardly find the key to a unified picture of physics and the
mind as long as they do not understand the mind as such. Is there a plausible
working theory of the mind comparable to those that physicists enjoy to have
developed for their field? Music perfectly exemplifies self-conscious mental activity
and a precise understanding of the subtleties of tonal music is likely to help you to
solve your ontological problems of the mind. Exactly at the time when Schubert and
Chopin made their revolutionary musical discoveries the philosopher Johann
Friedrich Herbart became convinced that a mathematical theory of musical
imaginations would be the point of departure for scientific psychology. Herbart had a
fruitful indirect impact on the emergence of this discipline, but his central ideas
about the kinematics and dynamics of the mind are seldom recognized.

Mu: Probably you have been impressed by the successes of mathematical

investigations into physics and you naively believe that this should work in a similar
way in the study of the mind. But you cannot compare music theory with physics.
Generally, in music theory we have to be rather cautious with the evaluation of
theoretical ideas, as they are masked by the hybrid nature of music-theory itself.
Some disciplines, like the empirical sciences, spend considerable methodological
effort in order to distinguish sharply between their presently accepted knowledge in
terms of productive working ideas on the one hand, and their philological knowledge
about the connectivity of historic ideas in their field on the other hand. For good
reasons we resist to merely imitate the methodological machinery of experimental
psychology. But many of us also resist the postulate of some colleagues, namely to
consider our field as pure philology. In the evaluation of theoretical ideas we access
our subject also through introspection and intuitively trust in our musical experience
- notwithstanding the methodological vulnerability of this habit in the view of
empirical sciences. This gives us a rich treasure of trustworthy pieces of knowledge
and prevents us from "throwing out the baby with the bath water". At the same time,
however, it is difficult to connect single working ideas with another.

Ma: In that case mathematics comes into play. Pure mathematics is an

experimental philology with a strong tradition in connecting ideas. Historical
philology traces the genealogy of intellectual buildings - not necessarily regarding
their consistence. Mathematics as an experimental philology tests intellectual
buildings with regard to their consistence. Music theory as a pure philology should
work fine if both types of philology work together hand in hand. Hence we do not
need Simplicio's adventurous speculations on music and the mind in order to
engage ourselves in mathematical music theory. Let us look concretely at some of
these ideas in the "music-theoretical bath water" and discuss to which degree single
ideas on diatonism, networks of triads, and chromatism connect to each other.

Mu: A unified theory of harmonic tonality must get at least three main components
into a single picture: firstly, diatonic scales and their alterations, secondly, triads and
quadriads (seventh chords) with their kinship relations and thirdly, the twelve-tone
chromatic system with its inner transformations. Depending from which component
we depart, we may consider the other ones as derivatives while loosing some
genuine characteristics. The triads and quadriads form the most exciting and
problematic component, as they have different interesting properties and relations in
all three regards: diatonically, autonomously and chromatically. Let me – for our
discussion of today – just mention one interesting and central point of consideration.
It involves - on the one hand - the celebrated controversy between Schenkerians
and Rameauians about the analytical importance of the fundamental bass
progressions between inverted triads or quadriads aside from their contrapuntal
connections. On the other hand it is connected to recent Neo-Riemannian ideas on
parsimonious connections between certain triads in the twelve-tone universe.
To begin with, there is a good theoretical reason to take both positions of the
fundamental bass controversy seriously, as the possibility for this very controversy
is based on a special property of the diatonic triads and quadriads. They form
parsimonious cycles with regard to diatonic third transposition. A similar special
property holds for major and minor triads in the twelve-tone system. They form
parsimonious hexatonic cycles with regard to inversions along their fifths and minor
thirds. The parallelism between these two kinds of double-relation is a challenging
and interesting point of departure for a unified theory of diatonism and chromatism.
Now the problem: in the context of Riemannian triadic theory we distinguish
between the leading-tone relation (it applies to a Bb-major triad in relation to a D-
minor triad) and modal parallelism (such as between a Gb-major and a Gb-minor
triad). This difference remains traceable in the diatonic reading as a qualitative
difference between the associated parsimonious voice-leading connections, namely
Bb-A versus Bb - Bbb. In the twelve-tone reading there is no such difference. What
if the music seems to live in both worlds at the same time?

Phi: This seems to be a nice concrete problem for us, indeed. Can we illustrate that
by a convincing musical example? I mean, is there a relevant nineteenth-century
piece where hexatonic progressions provide a coherent reading within the twelve-
tone system, and where we - at the same time - are forced to postulate a salient
diatonic difference between leading-tone relations and modal parallelism?

Mu: I propose to consider the first movement of Franz Schubert's late Bb-Major
sonata (D 960). Traditional diatonic analyses are faced with complex enharmonic
paradoxes, which can be seen as an argument in favor of diatonic analyses as well
as an argument against them. Richard Cohn (1999) in his article "As Wonderful as
Star Clusters: Instruments for Gazing at Tonality in Schubert" analyzes significant
harmonic motions in a transformational triadic framework, which liberates these
triads from the commitment to particular diatonic contexts. While attributing abstract
tonal meaning to the hexatonic subsystems he achieves a coherent reading by a-
priorily assuming a twelve-tone context. Consequently there is no conceptual
distinction between the leading-tone exchange Bb - A and the alteration Bb - Bbb.
However, another point of view sheds interesting light especially on this difference.
Linking analysis in the sense of Daniel Harrison would nicely show that Schubert's
choice of this particular harmonic path very effectively supports a confrontation of
these two different diatonic meanings of the same abstract pitch classes.

Phi: In other words, your linking argument adds a motivational aspect to Cohn's
transformational analysis. I observed that many harmonic analyses are concerned
with contiguity only: How can one move from X to Y on a controlled pathway? But
we may ask as well: Why should one move so? Schubert deliberately chooses a
harmonic path which allows him to subvert the prominent leading tone meaning in
Bb and to confront it with a major-minor alteration in Gb. He subverts the openness
of the diatonic goal directedness of harmonic motion in favor of a hidden magic
trick. In such a case a detailed harmonic path analysis is like explaining the details
of a magic trick without telling what to marvel at. This metaphor sheds an interesting
light on our problem as it presupposes the involvement of traditional diatonic means
to the end of a "synchromatic" trick. Is this the kind of argument we are looking for?
Should we speak of diatonic reality and chromatic illusion and/or vice versa?

Ma: Your hocus-pocus metaphor obviously puts our guest Simplicio in a fever of
excitement. But let me clarify an important point first. Does your last argument really
support traditional diatonic theory? Many scholars – including Harrison – favor a
set-theoretic embedding of diatonic scales into the twelve-tone universe. Cohn's
and Harrison's accounts share the twelve-tone system as a common ambient
space. There is a remarkable complementarity in their different Neo-Riemannian
accounts. Cohn liberates tones from their diatonic contexts and studies them within
a system of triads as their possible contexts. Harrison liberates tones from their
triadic contexts and studies their harmonic meanings within a system of diatonic
scales. Can't we put both approaches into a unified perspective? My colleague Jack
Douthett proposes a hierarchical tone stroboscope on the basis of his joint work
with John Clough. This model seems to be capable of doing that integrative job.
Each layer of this system has its autonomous reality and its own dynamics: a triadic
one, a diatonic one and a chromatic one. Among many interesting properties the
stroboscope has the capacity to simulate traditional parsimonious triadic
connections as well as parsimonious hexatonic transformations with an included
diatonic level.

Mu: But isn't this stroboscope the same as Fred Lerdahl's diatonic basic space ?

Ma: It appears to be so at first sight. But in the light of our reality/illusion question I
see a fundamental difference between the two. Douthetts 3-7-12 stroboscope
conceptually exemplifies a system of wellformed scales in the sense of Norman
Carey and David Clampitt. If you compare Lerdahl's definition of a wellformed tone
hierarchy with Carey & Clampitt's definition of wellformed tone systems, you see
that Lerdahl emphasizes the mutual embedding of the layers one into the other,
while Carey & Clampitt as well as Douthett consider transformational modalities in
order to mediate between autonomous layers. In Douthett's case they are
homogenous. The study of transformations in addition to mere tone configurations
increases the amount of work, at first sight at least. Practically, transformations may
prevent us from interpreting significant configurations merely as preferable
instances of otherwise arbitrary configurations. It is another question, whether we
should consider the transformations as real.

Phi: Does this challenge a dispute on universals within music theory: Lerdahl
representing the tone nominalists and Carey & Clampitt the transformation realists ?

Ma: Mathematical Physics seems to do well without such a debate. To make an

analogy, a nominalist concept would consider motion primarily as a dislocation,
while a realist one would consider it as a transformation of phase space. The latter
one gives more insight. That's what counts.

Phi: Simplicio, do you agree that we have a preliminary answer to our initial
question? It should be possible to grasp the essential aspects of harmonic tonality
within Douthett's or Lerdahl's integrative hierarchical system of tone spaces.

Simp: Yes and No! I'm puzzled by the ignorance of enharmonic paradoxes in all
these approaches. I understand that an ambient twelve-tone universe allows an
integration of diatonic and abstract triadic relations. But what happens to the
traditional diatonic world? Twelve-tone based reconstructions of diatonic tone roles
reduce the problem of enharmonicity to a mere contextual phenomenon. However,
in the traditional diatonic and triadic theories it is a serious question of tone identity
and identity conflicts. These we cannot solve with a hocus-pocus metaphor. We
need to assume true magic to occur. Do music theorists hesitate to postulate that?
Can't Schubert's sonata help us to decide upon the urgency of this problem?

Mu: There are various strategies of argumentation. Schenkerian analyses of this

piece, such as proposed by Xavier Hascher (1996), acknowledge enharmonic
identifications in order to express salient unfoldings and lines. Baltz Trümpy (1995)
presents a detailed functional analysis as a central part of his text "Die
Raumvorstellungen in Schuberts Harmonik". Among many interesting details he
localizes ten Bb-major passages in association with the main theme, which he
characterizes as "islands", whose tonal identity with respect to the opening tonality
is systematically questioned. Trümpy deliberately praises Schubert's subtle capacity
to make us relativize and transcend diatonic musical space. I'm not sure wether
Trümpy would use the term "magic" to characterize the quality of these phenomena,
but his argumentation definitely puts music theory into a phenomenological context.

Phi: Simplicio's intervention seems to lead us towards a phenomenological

allocation of our question. We cannot estimate the difference between traditional
diatonic theory and twelve-tone-based reformulations as long as we cannot
estimate the importance of enharmonic paradoxes. The affinity between the
enharmonic paradoxes and phenomenology is a philological matter of fact. Several
authors have emphasized this link. But how strong is phenomenology to help music
theorists answer this question? An affinity between two weak ideas does not
automatically create a strong one. I guess we need a concrete new idea in order to
be able to study enharmonic paradoxes productively.

Simp: But it has been mentioned already: "Motion is transformation"! We should

investigate tonal apperception in a mathematical language of canonical
transformations. Carey & Clampitt's theory of wellformed tone systems is a
challenging point of departure.

Phi: I guess this is homework. For the moment we enjoy Schubert's sonata and
meditate about our present music-theoretical thoughts, introspectively.

Acknowledgment: This dialogue is respectfully dedicated to the organizers and participants

of the transdisciplinary seminars MaMuPhi (Mathématiques, Musique et Philosophie) and
MaMuX at IRCAM (Paris).