Reimann Theory? Other questions..new HN user.

I've been reading up whatever I can find about the Reimann approach to functional harmony...as well as exploring some of the examples in SynfirePro demo.

I do have to say, I'm not that excited about the Reimann functional approach, now that I see it in action a little bit.  I realize this is a controversial topic.  In particular, when I put SynfirePro into a mode to display chords in a progression with roman numerals, it does not properly analyze them at all as secondary dominants, when applicable.  If that is the approach of Reimann also, then i don't like that at all.  

its still somewhat useful if I know what I'm doing, i can find the chords I know i need and put them on a progression, but I find the palettes to be organized in a non-intuitive way for Berklee-esque functional analysis of chords.  the vertical scales are fine, once the chords are chosen.  All the capabilities about taking figures and applying chords and vertical scales to them are really really nice!  What i don't like at all is that if I want to put any thought at all into the functional analysis of the chord progression, it may or may not lend itself completely to Reimann's approach, I do not know, I am still learning about that, but it definitely does not seem to work well with Schenker/Berklee/North American approach to functional analsyis, not withstanding the fact that you can use Roman numerals at some level to see what's going on, its not analyzing them correctly in many cases where secondary dominants in particular are concerned.  Perhaps I will learn more about Reimann approach to functional analysis and find some other merits, but i probably will hold off on Synfire until I can discover more about that.  Or perhaps someone here can point me to directions for how to get Synfire to be laid out in a way that is more in line with the way I was taught to do functional analysis over here in North America?  More based on Schenker's approach, and I specfically learned all the Berklee materials which is heavy into that.

Some things I do like being able to quickly audition chords in various different qualities with different tension notes added, is helpful.  My ears tell me how to go find other chords that are related, but my ears are usually telling me something that I see nothing on the GUI guiding me towards at all.  So I question the usefulness of that, other then randomly clicking on boxes waiting for happy accidents.  The lack of Schenker functional analysis also doesn't provide any clues to guide me either. 

I am trying to find more materials to read to understand better the Reimann approach.  But for me, after decades of looking at roman numerals, the Reimann way isn't jiving with me that well.  On the other hand maybe I'd learn about it by using the tool..  hard to say, but already I've come across a few progressions that fail to properly analyze secondary dominant relationships in the progression.  That oculd sometimes be a good thing if you're trying to avoid a cadential feeling, but if the cadential chord progressions are there, then they should be analyzed that way!

I'm also interested in the neo-reimann approach, with the tonnetz, etc and i'm curious how Synfire can be adapted for that.

If there is some advanced usage for creating a custom palette that will give me what I am seeking, please help me understand, and soon because once the sale is over, I will have to wait until next year.

This has the effect of temporarily tonicizing that particular chord . However, this process of tonicization is so fleeting and temporary that it is not regarded as being a proper modulation.

Well, technically a secondary dominant does NOT temporarily re-tonicize.  In fact secondary dominants have to still conform in some degree to the diatonic chordscale of the base key.   The impression is not given to the listener that a key change has occurred.  The strong expectation that the V-I relationship between the secondary dom and its target, still give the listener the impression that the target diatonic chord was really the focus the whole itme and the secondary dominant is simply a bit of a chromatic way to approach it.  This is not considered in any way shape or form a modulation, not even a temporary one.

Also, modal interchange is a completely seperate topic and musical result then secondary dominants.  They are not the same and do not use the same functional harmony to derive them.

I like the neo-riemannian theory and its approach for generating chord progression via a "Tonnetz" (tone network) using three chord transformation functions. Some time ago I tried this method using Python and music21 leading to some quite interesting results.

Its really an interesting way to approach some post-romantic-esque composing.  Relationships we would not ordinariliy think of trying come out of it and a sense of "key" is lost, in a good way, while still the music may wander around key-less, it still makes sense because of the relatinships between neighboring cells in the tonnetz.  As I sit here thinking about it as a very new HN user, I dpn't think Synfire/HN can easily be setup for it, becuase its based more on the key based chordscales...  But..  maybe usin the chromatic scale as the horizantal scale...then hide many of the chords in the palette?  Still it will not show you how to choose the next one.  Maybe there is a way to setup color schemes that for any given current playing chord, the neighboring tonnetz nodes would show as a certain color?  

Synfire is in no way tied to Riemann Functions, nor are the palettes. Riemann Functions are merely another way to write down chords (as are Roman Numerals, which you can also choose). 

Thanks for explaining to me that Synfire/HN primarily focus on basically using the horizantal scale to determine which vertical scale based chords to place on the palette, without regard to progressions.  I can see how that is perhaps more flexible, though it does make the functional names displayed ather meaningless to me in many cases.

There's currently no input field for Riemann terms to generate a progression (although there is one for adding chords to a palette layout). This is a) because the full syntax is difficult to remember and b) nobody asked for it yet. Also, Riemann Functions denote triads only, which is only a small subset of interval structures. For that reason alone I don't think they are especially useful for composing contemporary/modern music.

The way I was taught, 9,11,13 (and 2,4 6) are mostly considered "tension" tones...that don't change the fundamental harmonic quality of the chord.  They just add some flavor or tension to them.  So when functionally considering chords for a progression, it much more important to mainly look at the core triads involved for their functional purpose, and in some cases the 7th tone can conribute to functional purpose, but it starts to become a bit of a "flavoring" tone also.  

But I am understanding I think, that Synfire/HN are designed to mostly take into consideration the horizantal scale and while you are coloring things to guide people along as they attempt to create a progression, it sounds like you're not imposing Riemann ideas about that too much, I'm not sure, I don't really understand the color coded guiding right now.  But certainly its not aware of secondary dominant relationships, which may be fine I guess, I'm just asking these questions to understand how it works and whether it will improve my workflow.

I can definitely see how happy accidents would be easy to find over and over again with a tool like this, break out of the box and try different things and then think, "OH hey what did I just do?".  In my case a simple happy accident will usually turn on my musically inspired gene, and then I have musical ideas filling my head that need to be realized as quickly as possible before I forget it.  That's where I wish perhaps that the palette UI approach to building progressions would present things in a way that makes it more obvious to find what my brain is thinking at that moment of inspiration, rather then poking around on more chords hoping to find it, and losing my idea in the process. 

I will need to explore custom palettes for sure to see what kind of chordspaces I could create that would help me to stay focused in key, yet still explore xsecondary dominants and borrowed chords as make sense in that key center.  Unfortunately I don't have a lot of time before black friday sale ends...  hehe.

 should note that palettes are not static. A click in the circle of 5th navigates to another key and the back button takes you back.

Right I get that, but modulating to a new key results in a new horizantal scale and newly geenrated vertical scales and does not have the same effect as true secondary dom functions, which still remain sonically in the first original base key, but using chromatic notes outside that base key..  When you venture to a new key center...that is "modulation".  it is handled slightly differently in terms of tonal alterations, then what you do with a secondary dominant in that first base key.  And it will sound differently too.  It can and should sound like modulation at that point.

True, but that still leaves out diminished, augmented, 4th chords, stacked wholetones, etc. There are quite a few chords not based on a major/minor triad. Riemann has no place for them (unless I forgot something, it's been many years since).

To some degree, nor does Schenker.  But generally Schenker, ( and I would guess also Riemann), view that as a voicing issue, not a functional issue.  Chords built out of 4ths, for example, are very interesting, but ultimtely according to functional harmony, those are just voicings of underlying set of chords built on thirds, which can be related to each other using the same functional harmony described by Riemann/Schenker.

However, people have been striving for centuries now to break free of old dogmatic musical rules, and finding other kinds of patterns to follow that produce interesting and pleasing musical results.  For example neo-riemann approach.  And I fully understand that you don't want Synfire tied too strongly to one particular functional approach.  Perhaps I mis-interpreted that a bit because I read the bit in the manual about Riemann functional theory being involved here.

also want to say, just a follow up, dim and aug triads are not left out of Schenker functional harmony.  Generally the consideration in Schenker functional harmony is that these chords have a certain time and place and manner of use that will function without creating a sense of leaving the diatonic key.  Schenker (and I guess Riemann) are truly based on a rather traditional western ideal of sticking with the 7 simple modal scales derived from major.  They have attempted to create rules that provide some chromaticism to be used, without leaving the sense of key established.  Then they say, if you need to be more chromatic then that, you change key (ie modulate).  

But, there are plenty of musical examples, some more than 100 years old, that do venture beyond that sense of key, and then the functional harmony idea of Schenker and I assume Hugo Riemann, start to become hindrance more than a help and are largely meaningless.  That's why things like neo-rienmann ideas and other patterns of chord advancement and voicing have emerged to try to explain what some composers must be doing.

I guess I'm not explaining myself well.  A secondary dominant is not handled the same way as moving to a new key to obtain the same chord.  The allowable alterations are different, exactly because you are supposed to still be adhering to the original base key and in this case a chosen horizantal scale set.

The sound and and vertical scale theory is different then moving to a new key to find a chord by that name.

I'll have a closer look at that today, but already its looking like a lot of work just to use a secondary dominant function, which ought to be commonplace enough to be easy and convenient and direct without having to change key, manually tell it to use a different scale underneath etc.  That makes a simple and common situation more complicated.

Perhaps Synfire can still be useful for me to explore outside the box.  But its an expensive product so I'm trying to determine whether it will be usable to improve my workflow, that is all.

I don't know the product well enough to understand completely what you are suggesting but I will try to poke around in there and see how it goes.

No I wasn't meaning key signature change in written music.  I was referring to tonal center.  There will be a feeling by the listener of a home key or tonal center in tonal music.  
modulation actually changes the tonal center.  Modal interchange and secondary doms do not.  

specifically, carefully handled secondary doms and borrowed modal interchange chords with appropriate vertical chordscales, preserves the tonal center while allowing a certain amount of interesting chromaticism.  When handled right the listener will still feel in the end that the tonal center did not change, which is often desirable.  

modulation changes the listener's perception to another well-heard tonal center, and not just temporarily for a few chords or notes.  A modulation is usually a change of no return where it must play itself out as a new idea in a new tonal center which may or may not come back to the previous tonal center, there is no intrinsic pull back to the previous tonal center, it is lost entirely when you modulated to a new key center.

this is not a small distinction.

in later post romantic and post tonal music, there is hardly any perception of any tonal center at all at any time and that's a different thing.  In that case the tonal center is basically non existent other then chord by chord and perhaps not even there either, in such case there obviously isn't any modulation either.  Modulation is to change from one clearly perceived tonal center to another one, losing the pull of the first one in the process.  Chromaticism without losing the perceived tonal key center is what I have been referring to with regards to secondary doms and modal interchange.

most commercial music, pop music, etc does actually conform to strongly perceived tonal key centers.

Written key changes are extremely rare in orchestral music, that just over complicates it.  The conductor score tends to be in C with accidentals notated wherever they exist.  Especially newer music such as film scores that are modulating frequently.

 You can see those written key signature changes in piano music, for example, when the modulations are few and so strong that the piece of music will stay in a new tonal key center for quite a long time.  Even then it's entirely optional to write key changes into the sheet music and is only done as a convenience to the performer or typesetter to avoid many accidentals. The written representation is entirely independent of the sonic perception of a tonal key center.

In my view there is nothing other than a "complete and permanent modulation".  There is no such thing is halfway.  It either modulates or not.  When it does its a new key and the old key is past history with no inherent pull to go back to it.  Modulation is one direction to the new key and is complete when it happens.  Chromaticism that is partyway, is not modulation.  We are talking about a sense that listeners have about a tonal key center, and modulation is a change to a new one.  

Its certainly possible to deliberately modulate to a new key center and then modulate back to the first key center, but there is nothing in the feeling of it that intrinsically pulls back to the first key center, the composer is just forcing it.  The act of modulating is a feeling in and of itself, so when a composer pushes a modulation, they are changing the key center feeling and when they change back to a previous key center they are changing the key center feeling again, on purpose.  That is a choice by the composer and that is modulation.  When music modulates, the key center changes and the listener no longer expects it to go back to the first key center, unless the composer eventually guides the listener back there again.   Without modulation, the composer can introduce interesting borrowed chords that add chromaticism and interesting feelings, but still the intrinsic pull in the music is to the same key center, the listener still feels it and when it goes back to the tonic the listener will feel that is inevitable.  Modulating, on the other hand, creates a new tonic of inevitability.

Regarding notation....

The notation may or may not change with the modulation in the harmony, that is entirely dependent on numerous other factors.  Modulation can certainly happen with out it being reflected as a key signature change.  When I was trained in film scoring we specifically notated everything in C key signature always...no key signature changes ever, even though the music is often in other keys and modulating all over the place too with all accidentals notated.  The notation itself does not tell you for sure about the key center that is perceived.  In some older classical period works which are much more simple in nature, it would seem more that way more often where a modulation to a new key has a striking key signature change along with it and maintains that new key for quite a long time, but newer works, not so much.  In newer works the music can modulate a lot without any key signrature changes and in some cases may do so more often, but film music in particular is full of modulations happening every few seconds in many cases.

In general what I am saying is that what I am talking about here is not related to notation.  It is about using chromaticism that maintains the tonal key center without modulating to a new key center.   it is about what we hear and perceive when doing that.

Ideally, a single major mode chord pallete, without having to change keys, would display all diatonic and in-key borrowed chords and secondary dominants, including lydian#4 too by the way, WITHOUT also displaying chords that would tend to leave the tonal key center.  I am still learning Synfire, but mainly I find the chord palettes that come up with various horizantal scales tend to either be too simple or if I add some layered horizantal scales, then I end up showing a lot of chords that would not be true borrwoed chords, they would leave the key center and such, I am not sure how to create the ideal palette that has all the possible chromaticism choices while still maintaining a sense of tonal key center...from one consolidated palette without having to change the key of the palette (which would just show even more undesirable chords)

I will try to make an example later that shows in the key of C all the borrowed chords that can be used without losing key center, through modal interchange and secondary dominant function.

it apperas this is turning into a debate, which I am not interested in having, so i will duck out of the discussion now.  Thanks for your time.

I will explore that option