How complete is this diagram of harmonic progression?

[Stamped Records]

With borrowed chords, substitutions, accidentals, extended chords and slash chords, there's a wide range of colour in this chart, but it almost seems too simple.

Is this what people use to analyse the structure of harmony? When people say that harmony is about what comes after, is this what they mean?

[Farnaby]

This diagram appears to show how to set up a cadence in both major and minor keys. Nothing too complicated about this, it is just a preamble to a standard ii V7 I cadence which of course is an essential building block of tonal music.

There is no mention of slash chords, accidentals, extended chords etc.

I have never heard the phrase 'harmony is about what comes after' and can't really see how this relates to a simple chord progression.

[Stamped Records]

This diagram appears to show how to set up a cadence in both major and minor keys. Nothing too complicated about this, it is just a preamble to a standard ii V7 I cadence which of course is an essential building block of tonal music.

There is no mention of slash chords, accidentals, extended chords etc.

I have never heard the phrase 'harmony is about what comes after' and can't really see how this relates to a simple chord progression.

I'm paraphrasing when I say that harmony is about what comes after.

I've often heard in varying syntaxes, the expression that harmony is interpreted by what comes after. There may not have been a direct inference that what comes after is more important than what comes before, but it has been said.

What I'm really asking, is, could this chart be used to interpret music, outside of the scope of a cadence?

For example:

A progression in Cm.

Cm, Gm, Eb, Ab, Gm, Ab.

Would it be fair for me to interpret that Eb and Ab are both substitutes for the "i" chord and therefore this progression follows this path, even though there is no cadence back to "i".

And the second part of my question, is does the Eb being a substitute for the "i" mean that I can treat the Eb as "i" and therefore go anywhere in my progression as the "i" has the freedom to do so, or, do I treat the Eb as a "III" chord that should pass to the "VI"?

ultimately my question is: can this chart be used to both write and interpret the structure of harmony in the absence of a cadence?

Is this a sensible approach to harmony, and if not, why?

[shawshawraw]

I've often heard in varying syntaxes, the expression that harmony is interpreted by what comes after. There may not have been a direct inference that what comes after is more important than what comes before, but it has been said.

This is interesting. I kinda understand the sensation this expression refers to, but harmony really is a way symbolizing what happens in a piece of music, and the interpretation of harmony does require a bird's-eye view - not just what comes after, but what is happening overall, and equally importantly, where in the meter the changes take place.

What I'm really asking, is, could this chart be used to interpret music, outside of the scope of a cadence?

ultimately my question is: can this chart be used to both write and interpret the structure of harmony in the absence of a cadence?

What's wrong with cadence ?!? Isn't it integral parts of music?

Basically music is free, anything can happen, so that chart is very incomplete... But some harmonic qualities and progressions do sound "more suitable" under specific context (or say it genre or sub-genre), so they're studied and extracted to patterns or charts. If the chart fits into the type of music you like, then it's all good.

It's absolutely correct that not all progressions are cadence-bearing. And harmonic cadence only takes the principal role when the music is not metered by pitch-constant percussion section; if not, the bar 4s serve as natural listening cadences most of the time.

Back to harmony, you may want to check out the "Examples for Study" on the study material of Analyzing Classical Form (which a former member shared here). Even if you're not interested in classical music, the categorization of harmony progressions is still very insightful:

http://www.music.mcgill.ca/acf/example1-1.php

[Farnaby]

What I'm really asking, is, could this chart be used to interpret music, outside of the scope of a cadence?

No - this is simply a chord progression (with some alternatives in brackets) that typifies many standard cadences. It is not an all-encompassing description of harmony. It is an enhanced version of the standard ii-V-I cadence and nothing more than that. Whilst this is a vital building block there is plenty more to learn. People write books on harmony - they wouldn't have bothered if it was all covered in this diagram.

That said, if you understand the progressions in the diagram you have already made a good start.

[Stamped Records]

http://www.music.mcgill.ca/acf/example1-1.php

It's classical harmony that I'm most interested in, although in the context of other genres.

Thanks, I'll check this out.

Edit: Prolongation is already a new and exciting concept. I've noticed that I've done this with my bass purely coincidentally at times so it's nice to have a term and proper instruction for the technique.

No - this is simply a chord progression (with some alternatives in brackets) that typifies many standard cadences. It is not an all-encompassing description of harmony.

That said, if you understand the progressions in the diagram you have already made a good start.

So if I were to use this diagram and apply a variety of alterations - substitutes, modal interchanges and borrowed chords, modulations to different keys and basically every other trick for colouring chords and using chromatic notes, what limitations would I be putting on myself i.e. what am I missing, because whatever I'm missing is what I'd like to be studying right now?

[Farnaby]

So if I were to use this diagram and apply a variety of alterations - substitutes, modal interchanges and borrowed chords, modulations to different keys and basically every other trick for colouring chords and using chromatic notes, what limitations would I be putting on myself i.e. what am I missing, because whatever I'm missing is what I'd like to be studying right now?

Frankly if you know about all that stuff this diagram will be little use to you. The main limitation is that it is just a single chord sequence - out of all the possible chord sequences that are available to you.

If you want to get a good grounding in 'classical' harmony there are some good books, e.g. Walter Piston's book Harmony, or Ebenezer Prout (yes really!) on the same subject.

[Stamped Records]

So if I were to use this diagram and apply a variety of alterations - substitutes, modal interchanges and borrowed chords, modulations to different keys and basically every other trick for colouring chords and using chromatic notes, what limitations would I be putting on myself i.e. what am I missing, because whatever I'm missing is what I'd like to be studying right now?

Frankly if you know about all that stuff this diagram will be little use to you. The main limitation is that it is just a single chord sequence - out of all the possible chord sequences that are available to you.

If you want to get a good grounding in 'classical' harmony there are some good books, e.g. Walter Piston's book Harmony, or Ebenezer Prout (yes really!) on the same subject.

Thanks, I'll look into that.

[jsaras]

It's a decent representation of the "jail" of key-centered progressions, but it's nowhere near a complete representation of harmonic progressions.