Tonal function — where it appears
Named by 15 essays across 3 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.
A progression is a path, and the map can be drawn
Chords in a key are not a list. They sit at measurable distances from home, and a progression is a walk across that space — which explains why some sequences feel like journeys and others like wandering.
What makes an ending an ending
Cadences are ranked. The authentic one is strong, the plagal weaker, the deceptive weaker still — and the solver here measured the quantity that ranking is usually explained by and found it says something else entirely. What survives is not a weaker version of the ranking but a different kind of object, with five components and no total.
The resolution the metric cannot find
Rank every triad by how far its voices are from the dominant seventh and the tonic is not at the minimum. It sits in a twelve-way tie in the middle, the chord a deceptive cadence goes to is the furthest away of all twenty-four, and the two nearest are chords no cadence ever uses. What selects the two resolutions is not a distance — it is a direction, and it picks out exactly two triads from the twenty-four.
A dissonance is what has to be resolved
The perfect fourth is a consonance between two upper voices and a dissonance against the bass, and the same three notes are involved either way. Score both arrangements with the roughness model and the one the rules call a dissonance comes out thirty per cent smoother. Whatever the rule is tracking, it is not the sound.
A stack that is not thirds
Build every chord that repeats a single interval and score them all. Eight of the eleven three-note stacks are smoother than the major triad; the four-note stack of fourths is smoother than a dominant seventh by a third and has no fundamental any matcher can find. Two absences, both computable, and both are exactly what the chord was adopted for.
Three notations, one progression
A figured bass, a Roman numeral and a chord symbol are three professional notations for the same four chords, and the number of four-part realisations each of them admits can be counted exactly rather than argued about. With no parallel fifths or octaves the counts are sixteen billion, fifty-nine million and two million: a factor of eight thousand between the loosest and the tightest. What each one collapses is what its tradition thought a chord was, and the three do not agree.
The repeat that is not in the notes
Eight earlier essays compare bars by writing each one as a bag of pitch classes and taking a cosine. Nothing chose that encoding — the first used it and the other seven inherited it. Encode the same six schemes four other ways and one of the three findings survives untouched, one survives with different numbers, and one turns out to have been a statement about the encoding all along: the boundary operator finds none of the section edges in three schemes as a bag of pitch classes and every one of them as tonic, subdominant and dominant.
The cadence as evidence
Every model so far infers a key from a bag of notes, and the thing that most obviously declares a key is a cadence — an ordered pair of chords in which the order is the whole content. The essays on closure built a five-component cadence vector long before this and nobody has used it for this. Two passages differing in one note, one cadencing in C and one in G, get opposite answers from the ordered pairs and the same answer from the profile.
A chord, given a key and a predecessor
A chord's improbability has been priced from its root motion alone, which left one multiplication unmade: a chord is also improbable because its notes do not fit the key, and that number has been available since the probe-tone profile. Multiplied and renormalised, the two give a conditional distribution — and a distribution has an entropy, which is the quantity a surprise has to be read against and which a list of preferences cannot supply.
The passage built to make them disagree
A cadence count and a key-profile correlation have been put on one scale and run on a passage where the two agree, which tells nobody anything. Building one where they disagree — the notes of one key and the cadences of another — measures the exchange rate at about six bars per cadence, and finds something the agreement case concealed: the two statistics cannot be varied independently, because lengthening the profile evidence adds cadence evidence too, for a third key.
The margin the dynamic program already had
Nine earlier essays produce a single best reading, and the passages worth arguing about are the ones where two readings are nearly equally good. What is needed for that has been inside the model from early on: a dynamic program that finds a best path has, by construction, the best score into every state at every bar — so the gap between the best reading and the best reading in any other key is already computed, and printing it turns every analysis here into a measurement of ambiguity.
The ceiling is thirteen bars with names
The key-finder's two cues stop buying anything at about 93 per cent of scheme bars read right, and the obvious suspect was the chord segmentation feeding it. The reading was never given a segmentation: every bar arrives with its true chord. What the ceiling is made of can be listed instead, and it is thirteen bars of 188 — seven in a bridge of secondary dominants, four in a minor episode whose chords C major also owns, and two at the edges of a modulation. No weight of any cue moves one of them.
The bridge is not a labelling problem
Seven of the key-finder's thirteen remaining misses are the thirty-two-bar song's bridge, and the essay before this one proposed that they might be an argument about labels rather than a failure: relabel the eight bars with the keys their dominants point at, and the reading's E and D majors might turn out to be right. They do not. The reading gets one bar of eight under either label, because four of the eight are read as the chord's own root taken for a tonic — a dominant seventh heard as a chord in its own right. And one of the bars the relabelling could have bought is unwinnable in principle: an applied dominant is the same four notes in the major and the minor of the key it points at.
Looking ahead rescues the relative minor, not the bridge
A key-finding reading that scores each bar by its own notes cannot hear an applied dominant, whose meaning is in the bar after it. Given one cue about a pair of bars — a dominant earns credit when the next bar is rooted on its key's tonic — the thirty-two-bar song's bridge is read as the chain of dominants it is, each chord both the arrival of the last and the departure to the next. But the same cue hears a blues's opening tonic seventh as the dominant of its own IV, and at the setting that read the listing best it costs five bars for three. The cue earns its place only in a reading reluctant to change key, and there what it rescues is the rondo's episode in the relative minor.
A second slot hears every modulation as a tonicization
A key-finder that names one key per bar reads a chain of applied dominants by moving the key with every chord. Give its state a second slot — the key a bar is in, and the key its dominant points at — and the thirty-two-bar song's bridge is read exactly as the scheme labels it, every bar, for the first time in these essays, and the blues's opening stays in its tonic. At every setting that does that, the rondo's two eight-bar episodes are heard as tonicizations inside C, and no setting of the three costs reads both. A modulation to a closely related key and a long tonicization are the same chords; what separates them is how long they last, and a cost for entering a state cannot count.
Named alongside it
The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.
Key-findingCadenceModulationProgressionDominant seventhEvidenceScale degreeSegmentationVoice-leadingChord qualityClosureCounterpoint