Wayne J. Naus Beyond Functional Harmony PDF MP3

Without analysis, no one understands any system, without analysis a composer does not compose and if do compose, will be simple pieces that have fallen in the common place and in the worn out repetition, there, seen the music of today.

Another part that no one understood here is that Riemann regretted having written this book and did not continue, is that the term that was coined by him "Functional Harmony" was applied to his work by himself.
As you see was not for

"poor reasons"

, I am just warning others that they take a term from the other side of the globe or from another continent and continue to use Riemann's term for other such obvious things. As you said:

"might mislead others that might appreciate it"

. I'm doing them a favor, and the author of the original "Functional Harmony", Dr. Hugo Riemann thanks me for that, being that he himself rejected his own work.

... regards all harmonies ...

It is stupid to believe that there are several harmonies to be used in music, there is only one. On this topic I see clearly who needs some light, reading your text sent me to the "Myth of the Cave or The Allegory of the Cave", by Plato.

Over many years I give lectures in dozens of countries just to speak of harmony simplicity, which for some who have difficulty understanding harmony seems to be the most magnificent things of the arts, and then publish books on the subject and feel owners of the matter, if you are not the author of the book above.

The fact that there are: chord symbols (Cmaj7, Dadd2, V13), Roman numerals (I, II, III, IV, V) or Dr. Riemann's own nomenclature that uses (T, SD and D) does not mean that they are many harmonies (all harmonies), since they deal with the same simple physics described by Schoenberg, which is mere artisanal work, otherwise jazzists would not have explored so many combinations at the beginning of the twentieth century, for they scarcely knew how to read, had a segregated culture and suffered in ghettos.

My focus is to show to the beginners in music that one does not make uses of the words at random, as the proper word theory case, and teach the unique harmony that exists, as well as the various nomenclatures applied to it.
In the past when music was thought to be science, it made use of scientific words to explain it, but today some people are more evolved than others in concepts. By the way, the concept of Webster's theory is wrong.
The theory arises to solve complex problems, such as looking through the gaze to see how these problems can be solved and from there to create methodologies, that is why we are addicted to this word since ancient Greece, a theory must have cause and consequence, for that there is theory, it is necessary that someone through perception develops a thesis, then someone else presents a contrary thesis, and not simply present any argument on any subject and make others swallow.

You're right, of course I know that all chords have a specific function within the tonal axis. If you read correctly my analysis is not about the function of chords within the physical pragmatics of harmony, my analysis is about the musical term applied to the reformulation of harmony, which was adapted by 'Hugo Riemann', the term belongs to him. That harmony is functional in the sense of function, all we know, I had already written this in my text above, but you couldn't understand.

The idea is that chords have a function. that's it dude

If you read my text, you will realize that I didn't say that the chords have no function, my text refers to the German term 'Functional Harmony' that tried to reformulate the traditional harmony, but in the background teaches the same thing, being that functional harmony is the same old harmony. Maybe you did not understand my text.

When we do the first II-V-I jazz exercises, we perceive movements of thirds but not of fifths parallelisms. That was my point.

Then what do those 9th, 11th and 13th comment about?

... using 9th, 11th and 13th, does not imply "functional harmony"

I refer to the dozens of books that some authors think that just by having 9th, 11th and 13th written in the chord symbols must be called functional harmony, and that classical harmony is the common one, it is not me who has erred in terminologies. Best title would be: Functions of harmony, but of course someone will still publish: The Big Band of Music Harmony.

I know 'RON MILLER Modal Jazz Composition', he's amazing, but we're discussing about 'tonal harmony' but not the beginning of it 'modal harmony'. By the way I love to listen to parallel fifths in many themes, like the Pink Panther theme, in my text I am pointing about rules, and that in the time in which we live we are against these rules, even Mozart used parallel fifths in his symphonies, that is, he didn't respect his period rules, so Jazz does.

you are just mixing concepts that you do not understand.

Quite the contrary, I did not mix concepts, it is precisely these authors who don't study the original bases already used in music that have already been abandoned, and use the old terms for their books.

I am happy that you have registered here just for this, happier still, to be able to read opposing hypotheses that are not mine, all your nervous quarreling is because you did not understand about the terminology: 'HARMONY FUNCTIONAL TERMINOLOGY' by Hugo Riemann.
That I learned not only with doctors in Germany as well with Ph.D in music in the USA, that is, you will disagree with a lot of people.