Harmonic Function in Rock Music A Syntac PDF

Journal of Music Theory
Harmonic Function in Rock Music

A Syntactical Approach
Drew Nobile
Abstract In this article, I advocate for a syntactical definition of harmonic function in rock music such that
function is acquired not by a chord’s scale-degree content but by its role in the context of a song’s form. In rock
songs, the syntactical role of dominant, for example, is often played by chords unrelated to V, such as IV, ii,
♭VII, or even versions of I. A theory of harmonic function rooted in chord category—e.g., ascribing dominant
function to any chord related to V—inadequately accounts for rock’s harmonic organization. I argue that
syntactical elements underlie many existing conceptions of harmonic function, but theories rooted in common-
practice repertoire nearly always involve chord category to some degree. Separating syntactical and categor-
ical elements not only leads us to a fuller understanding of rock’s harmonic idiom, but also reveals similarities
between rock music and common-practice tonal music that many theorists insist do not exist.
Keywords rock music, popular music, harmonic function, form, Schenkerian analysis
example 1 shows the first verse of the Eagles’ 1975 song “Lyin’ Eyes.” Two
eight-bar phrases exhibit an antecedent-consequent relationship. The ante-
cedent ends on the standard V chord. But the consequent, rather than
answering with a V–I cadence, ends instead with IV–I. Such apparent IV–I
cadences have occupied the minds of many a rock scholar. I choose this song
as an exemplar of the IV–I cadence for two reasons. First, the verse’s layout as
a parallel period makes it hard to hear this IV–I progression as anything
other than a true cadence to tonic. Second, the IV–I cadence contrasts with
other cadences in this same song based on the more traditional V chord. The
half cadence in m. 7 is on V, and the structural cadence that ends the chorus
section is V–I. These facts challenge some common explanations of rock’s
IV–I progressions. Walter Everett has suggested that IV–I progressions are
structurally inferior to V–I progressions, but this IV–I progression clearly
plays the role of authentic cadence answering a prior half cadence on V.1 Ken
1 Everett (2008, 139) considers I–IV–I a “prolongation of

tonic within an incomplete I–V–I articulation of the tonal
system, and therefore more static and less dynamic than a
full hearing of the usual bass arpeggiation.”
Journal of Music Theory 60:2, October 2016

DOI 10.1215/00222909-3651838 © 2016 by Yale University 149
Published by Duke University Press

150
Nobile Ex 1 JOURNAL of MUSIC THEORY
Antecedent
I 8 7 IV ii
G GŒ„Š7 C A‹
#4
& 4 œJ œ œJ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œœœ œ Ó ∑ œ œ œ œ œ œ
‹ Ci - ty girls just seem to find out ear - ly how to o - pen
HC Consequent
V I 8 7 IV
6 D G GŒ„Š7 C
# j j Ó Ó Œ ‰ œj œ œ œ œ ‰ œj œ œ ™ œ œ œ œj œ ™ Ó
& œ œ œ œ œœœ ˙ J J J
‹ doors with just a smile. A rich old man, and she won’t have to wor - ry;
AC
ii IV I
12 A‹ C G
# ‰ j j ‰ j j œ œj
& Ó Œ
œ œ œ™ œ œ œœ Œ
œ œ ˙ Ó ∑
‹ she’ll dress up all in lace and go in style.
Example 1. The Eagles, “Lyin’ Eyes” (1975): a sixteen-bar parallel period in which V functions
as dominant in the antecedent and IV functions as dominant in the consequent
Stephenson (2002) and Paul Scott Carter (2005), among others, suggest that
rock is based on a different language than common-practice tonality that
privileges “retrogressive” rather than “progressive” root motion (e.g., by ascend-
ing rather than descending fifth).2 But here we have an example of a single
song containing both progressive (V–I) and retrogressive (IV–I) cadences,
with no grand style shift from verse to chorus. So maybe we are going about
this all wrong. What if we dispense with the assumption that a V–I and a IV–I
cadence are fundamentally different? What if V and IV are simply two options
to fulfill a given function? I don’t use the word function lightly. What if V and
IV in this song both function as the dominant?
In this article I advocate for the separation of harmonic function from
chord identity. Such a theory would unlink, for example, dominant function
and the V chord. In other words, a chord would be identified as dominant-
functioning based on how it acts within a formal unit (phrase, section, etc.)
rather than any internal aspect of the chord itself. This is how the IV chord
in m. 14 of Example 1 can be said to function as dominant: it fulfills all the
formal and rhetorical roles of dominant function despite having no tones in
common with a V chord. Harmonic functions considered in this way are anal-
2 Stephenson claims that rock music is primarily based son 2002, chap. 5, esp. 103–4. Carter claims that the dif-
on root motions by ascending fifth, ascending third, and ference between progressive (“forward-moving”) and ret-
descending second, while common-practice music mostly rogressive (“backward-moving”) root motions is of central
follows the opposite pattern (though he ultimately admits importance to musical style, and in particular that backward
that rock contains both types of root motion); see Stephen- motion is characteristic of certain types of rock music.

Drew Nobile Harmonic Function in Rock Music 151
ogous to grammatical functions such as subject, object, and so on, which

consider words in relation to a (linguistic) sentence (as opposed to gram-
matical categories, such as noun, adjective, etc., which are internal properties
of words rather than relational notions; see Chomsky 1965, 67–69). My theory
of harmonic function is therefore a syntactical one, dealing with interrela-
tionships among chords rather than their internal aspects.3
My first claim, discussed in detail in the following section, is that
music theorists commonly use three different definitions of function, which
I term function-as-category, function-as-progression, and function-as-syntax.
Although all three are in common use, common-practice theories rarely if
ever use function-as-syntax without also employing function-as-category. In
pop and rock music, though, the two definitions often cannot be combined.
This brings me to my second claim: a pure function-as-syntax definition is
best suited to analyze pop and rock music. This repertoire does not exhibit
the same coordination between chord identity and syntactical role that does
common-practice tonality. For example, while Mozart’s cadences virtually all
use some type of V chord to lead to the tonic, it is not uncommon to find rock
songs that use IV, ii, ♭VII, or some other chord in this way.4 This article pro-
vides a function-as-syntax theory aimed at the analysis of pop and rock music.
Central to this theory is what I call the functional circuit: a progression span-
ning an entire formal unit that cycles through the syntactical functions tonic,
pre-dominant, dominant, and back to tonic (T–PD–D–T).5 The functional
circuit interprets many song sections as containing a single, goal-oriented har-
monic progression. Some rock songs do not engage in goal-oriented harmonic
structures and therefore do not contain functional circuits. But I maintain
that extracting notions of syntactical function from chord identity will reveal
that such goal-oriented structures are far more common than we think—if
we accept that the goal might be something other than V–I supporting 2̂–1̂.
Syntax, category, progression: Three views of harmonic function
Several authors have pointed out the multifarious definitions of harmonic

function in the theoretical literature. David Kopp (1995) enumerates no fewer
than seven meanings of the term, which I have extracted in the leftmost box
3 My use of the terms syntax and syntactical are based 4 An example of ii as dominant is Pink Floyd’s “Wish You
on their use in formal linguistics (stemming from Noam Were Here” (1975), discussed below. ♭VII, though a com-
Chomsky’s work). Other disciplines use the terms slightly mon neighboring chord to both major and minor tonics, is
differently. Cognitive scientists often use them to denote much more common in cadences to a minor tonic; the cho-
patterns of signifiers (thus incorporating semantic aspects); rus to Bob Seger’s “Turn the Page” (1973) offers a repre-
Lawrence M. Zbikowski’s (2002) cognitive theory of music sentative example.
follows such a definition. Computer scientists and logicians
5 The functional circuit is my version of Steven G. Laitz’s
use them to denote rules governing the “well-formedness”
(2016, chap. 9) “phrase model.” I do not retain Laitz’s term
of a formal language, such as a programming language.
because my use of the term phrase is different from his;
This definition has made its way into the music-theoretical
in particular, I do not require that a phrase ends with a
literature through the recent work of Ian Quinn (2005) and
cadence. (My use of phrase follows Caplin 1998.)
Dmitri Tymoczko (2011), among others.

152 JOURNAL of MUSIC THEORY
Table 1. Various definitions of function provided by Kopp 1995; Miller 2008a, 2008b; and
Tymoczko 2003
Kopp’s seven definitions of function: Miller’s four aspects of function:
1. Roman numerals within a key 1. Kinship (a chord’s similarity to harmonic

2. A chord's tendency to progress pillars such as I, IV, or V)
“in a particular way to a particu- 2. Province (the location of a chord within an
lar chord” overall T–S–D–T progression)
– May group chords with similar 3. Quality (type of chord, e.g., “dominant
tendencies, e.g., IV and ii seventh”)
3. Specific chord progressions 4. Behavior (interval of root motion)
– E.g., IV–I, IV–ii, and IV–V rep-
resent three different functions Tymoczko’s three theories of tonal harmony:
of IV 1. Root-motion theories
4. Harmonic tendencies of indi- – Chords tend to proceed by certain root
vidual chord tones motions
– E.g., Harrison 1994’s functional 2. Scale-degree theories
theory – Chords based on each scale degree have
5. Phrase-based syntactic meaning different tendencies
6. Prolongational scale-step motion 3. Function theories
7. Chord meanings – Chords are categorized in to T, D, or S
– E.g, categorizing chords into and arranged in the paradigmatic order-
T, D, or S ing T–S–D–T
of Table 1.6 Gabriel Miller (2008a, 2008b) advocates eliminating the term
function altogether and replacing it with four more precise terms: kinship,
province, quality, and behavior (Table 1, top right). Dmitri Tymoczko (2003),
who is looking for prescriptive (generating allowable progressions) rather
than descriptive theories, defines function theories as those that group chords
into categories (e.g., T, S, and D) and postulate allowable successions among
the categories (e.g., T → S → D → T); function theories are presented as
opposed to root-motion theories (theories that certain root motions, e.g.,
descending fifth, are more common than others) and scale-degree theories
(theories that each chord gives rise to a “probability matrix” showing which
other chords will likely follow) (Table 1, bottom right).
All of these definitions answer some combination of the following three
questions about a given chord, each of which reveals a different basic con-
ception of harmonic function: (1) what kind of chord is this? (function-as-
category); (2) what other chord(s) does this chord want to proceed to? (function-
as-progression); and (3) what role does this chord play in its musical context?
(function-as-syntax). Figure 1 groups the various definitions given in Table 1
in terms of these questions.7 In function-as-category definitions, each chord
6 The numbered definitions in Table 1 represent my inter- definition of function to answer all three questions. In fact,
pretation of Kopp’s introductory paragraph discussing the Doll’s theory of function in rock music, discussed below,
vagueness of the term function. may qualify. On the other hand, I have not included an area
in which function-as-progression and function-as-syntax
7 The area in the middle of the diagram, representing the
intersect without function-as-category because I cannot
intersection of all three definitions, is empty but remains
envision what such a theory would look like.
in the example because it is theoretically possible for a

Figure 1. Table 1’s definitions of function grouped into

function-as-category, function-as-progression, and
function-as-syntax
inherently has a function even when taken out of context; for example, one
might say that a IV chord is a subdominant, or that a VI chord is strongly tonic
and weakly subdominant. Function-as-progression definitions consider chord-
to-chord succession as the basis for function, in particular as general tenden-
cies (e.g., ii chords tend to proceed to V) rather than specific instantiations
(e.g., this particular ii chord leads to a V chord). Function-as-progression often
presupposes function-as-category, as when tonic, subdominant, and dominant
categories are said to arrange themselves in the paradigmatic progression
T–S–D–T. Function-as-syntax definitions consider a chord’s broader context
within a phrase or other formal unit. Thus, with a syntactical definition, func-
tion is meaningless outside of a specific context; dominant, say, is not something
a chord is but, rather, is something a chord functions as within a given phrase.
Purely syntactical definitions of function are rare and possibly non-
existent in common-practice theory. Out of the definitions in Table 1, only
Kopp’s “phrase-based syntactical meaning” qualifies—and this definition
receives no further discussion in Kopp’s article. Purely categorical definitions,
on the other hand, abound: four of Kopp’s seven and two of Miller’s four
definitions qualify, while several others, including Tymoczko’s function theo-
ries, combine function-as-category with elements of function-as-progression
or function-as-syntax. The dominance of category-based definitions shows
Hugo Riemann’s continuing influence on our concepts of function; Rie-
mann’s mature Funktionstheorie originated the practice of labeling every chord
as tonic, dominant, or subdominant (T, D, or S), and this practice has been
picked up in various ways by modern theorists, such as Eyton Agmon (1995)
and Daniel Harrison (1994).8 A function-as-category definition has even made
8 Riemann’s categorization of chords into T, D, and S is as abstract category.” The function as chord theory first
what Harrison refers to as his “function as chord” theory, emerges in Riemann’s Skizze einer neuen Methode der
as opposed to the earlier (and more syntactical) “function Harmonielehre of 1880 and is explicitly laid out in Harmony

its way into the pop and rock literature through the work of Nicole Biamonte
(2010, 2012), who offers a modification of Agmon’s theory to account for
rock’s modal progressions. Though these authors do not entirely ignore con-
text and progression, for the most part one can assign a chord its function
even when it is removed from its musical context.
Some common-practice theories, however, are mostly based on a
function-as-syntax definition. The syntactical nature of these theories is often
implicit rather than explicit, as virtually all common-practice-based theories
retain some function-as-category elements. But I argue that three well-known
theories are particularly syntactical at their core: those of William Caplin,
Steven G. Laitz, and Fred Lerdahl. Caplin’s theory of harmony is most prom-
inently laid out in chapter 2 of his treatise Classical Form (1998), though it
comes up in his later work as well (2004, 2009, 2013). Laitz’s presentation is
in a pedagogical context, through his textbook The Complete Musician (2016).
And Lerdahl’s is given in his book Tonal Pitch Space (2001), which draws heavily
on concepts originally explored in Lerdahl and Jackendoff 1983. The three
theories have three threads in common: harmonic function is intertwined
with issues of form, functions are defined based on context rather than abso-
lutely, and the same chord often has many possible functions.
Caplin and Laitz both identify the three main harmonic functions as
tonic, pre-dominant, and dominant (T, PD, and D), with the second of these
replacing the subdominant (S) of function-as-category theorists. Laitz (2016,
273–76) explicitly links these functions to form with his “phrase model,” a
T–PD–D–T progression spanning an entire phrase and concluding with a
cadence.9 For Laitz, every phrase contains exactly one succession of these
functions; no matter how many different chords the phrase may contain, it
has at most one pre-dominant function and one dominant, each of which
may be prolonged by a series of chords.10 If a V chord occurs within a tonic
prolongation, say, via a I–V43 –I6 progression, it does not have the same func-
tion as a V chord representing D of the overall phrase model. Laitz does not
specifically say that this V chord does not have dominant function, but there
is a clear distinction between the two types of V chord. On this point, Caplin
is more precise. Differentiating between “prolongational” and “cadential” pro-
gressions, he states that “the simple I–V–I progression is often better under-
Simplified ([1893] 1896). See Harrison 1994, 265–92. Rie- mann is concerned primarily with labeling individual chords
mann’s palette of transformations is varied enough that rather than devising a theory of chord progression and syn-
any chord can theoretically be labeled as any of the three tax. See also Mooney 1996.
functions; Riemann ([1893] 1896, 74) says that to decide
9 For half cadences, Laitz omits the final T.
which is the correct interpretation, one must take into
account harmonic context. Yet Harrison (1994, 288) points 10 Laitz (2016, 329–32) does allow for “embedded phrase
out that “this attempt at reviving the syntactic model of models,” which are apparent T–PD–D–T progressions that
‘Musikalische Logik’ goes no farther than this textbookish occur within a phrase and prolong the tonic. However, he
prescription; the numerous occurrences of improperly sand- minimizes these progressions by calling them “noncaden-
wiched parallel chords, in both examples and exercises, tial” and subsuming them within the main phrase model’s
are passed over without comment.” It is clear that Rie- initial tonic (T).

stood as prolongational” (1998, 25). In this case, even a root-position V is

analyzed as a neighboring chord (24, example 2.2a). Like Laitz, Caplin does
not specify a lack of dominant function for this chord, but, again like Laitz,
he differentiates between these V chords and those in cadential progressions.
Stronger evidence for the separation of function and chord category
comes from the relationship between pre-dominant function and the IV
chord: not all IV chords are pre-dominants, and not all pre-dominants are
IV (or even ii) chords. A chord’s status as pre-dominant is entirely based on
context. Caplin (1998, 23) defines pre-dominants as “harmonies whose pri-
mary purpose is to lead to the dominant.” IV chords that do not lead to the
dominant are not pre-dominants. Furthermore, many different chords—not
just IV and its contrapuntal variants—can carry pre-dominant function, such
as applied chords to V (e.g., V6/V or vii°7/V), augmented sixth chords, vi, or
other chords.11 Thus being a IV (or ii) chord is neither necessary nor suffi-
cient for pre-dominant function. The case for dominant function is not as
clear-cut: in Caplin’s and Laitz’s theories, not all V chords are dominants, but
all dominants are V chords (or close relations thereto). (Here I am using
dominant to refer to Laitz’s D within the phrase model and Caplin’s cadential
dominant.) Thus being a V chord is necessary but not sufficient for dominant
function.
Lerdahl’s (2001, 214–31) function theory is the most explicitly syntac-
tical in the common-practice theoretical literature. According to Lerdahl,
“Functions depend not on root identity but on prolongational role” (217),
where prolongational role is defined based on the tree structures described
in Lerdahl and Jackendoff 1983. Lerdahl eschews function-as-category defi-
nitions and constructs a functional model that identifies chords’ roles in
their musical context. His definition of dominant function (D) does not men-
tion the V chord, at first glance seeming to be defined entirely contextually:
“D belongs to any chord that is part of a labeled cadence, such that (i) for a
full cadence, it left-branches into T, or (ii) for a half- or deceptive cadence, it
left-branches to an underlying implied T” (216). Similar definitions are given
for Lerdahl’s other functions, which include the standard tonic and sub-
dominant as well as lower-level functions “departure” (Dep), “return” (Ret),
“neighboring” (N), and “passing” (P). The only function that contains explicit
function-as-category elements is T, which is defined based on Lerdahl’s “tonic-
finding rule” (essentially a measure of pitch stability). However, hidden in the
definition of dominant function is a function-as-category requirement that
dominants be V chords: dominant function is based on its role in creating
a cadence, and Lerdahl defines a cadence as follows: “if V → I, V → null, or
11 Laitz (2016, 353) specifically allows vi to function as pre-

dominant, though Caplin (2013, 10) discourages analyzing
vi as pre-dominant. David Tomasacci and Benjamin Wil-
liams (2010) identify a passage from Sarasate’s Ziegeuner-
weisen in which a vii° 43 chord functions as pre-dominant.

V → vi (or some other deceptive motion) occurs at the end of a group that
has a structural beginning [b], then it is a cadence [c]” (218). So for a chord
to be labeled D, it must be a V chord.12 Even an overtly syntactical theory such
as Lerdahl’s cannot escape the function-as-category idea that dominant func-
tion is inextricably linked to the V chord.
Theories by Caplin, Laitz, and Lerdahl all contain three hallmark ele-
ments of a syntactical definition of function. (1) All functions are taken in
relation to a defined formal unit. For Laitz, the unit is a phrase; for Caplin,
a formal type such as sentence or period; and for Lerdahl, a branching
group.13 A chord’s function always refers to this formal unit; a chord is not
just a dominant but is the dominant of the phrase or of the branching group.
(2) There exists a specific concept of prolongation that defines a hierarchy of
structural levels.14 Chords labeled as passing or neighboring do not project
any of the three main functions T, PD/S, or D, on their own, residing at a
lower level than the main functional representatives. (3) A chord can have
many possible functions depending on context. For example, IV can be a pass-
ing chord, a neighboring chord, a “departure” chord (Lerdahl), or a PD/S
chord. These three features would not be found in function-as-category or
function-as-progression definitions.
While a chord can have many possible functions depending on context,
multivalence generally does not work in the other direction. That is, certain
functions must be carried by certain chords. This is most evident with tonic
and dominant functions: in all three theories mentioned above, tonic func-
tion must be carried by a I chord (or vi, as a contrapuntal substitute), and
dominant function must be carried by a V chord (or vii°, as a contrapuntal
substitute). There is good reason for associating tonic function with the I
chord, but perhaps not for associating dominant with the V chord. In all three
theories, dominant function is defined in two ways: syntactically, based on a
chord’s role in a form-defining cadential progression, and categorically, based
on its identity as a V chord (or contrapuntal variant). In common-practice
theory, this seems reasonable, as there is general agreement about V’s impor-
tance in effecting a cadence. However, the association of syntactical domi-
nant function with the V chord is not so clear-cut in the pop and rock reper-
toire. That is, it might be possible for the syntactical elements of dominant
function to exist even in the absence of a chord in the dominant category.
Christopher Doll’s theory of rock harmony provides the most compre-
hensive attempt to date to reconcile traditional notions of harmonic function
12 Lerdahl’s example 5.22 implies that vii° may also be 13 A branching group is essentially a musical passage that
labeled D. Lerdahl (2001, 216–17) also explicitly states is at some level a cohesive whole. Branching groups are
that all secondary dominants are analyzed as D, providing explained in Lerdahl and Jackendoff 1983 and summarized
another function-as-category element in his definition of in Lerdahl 2001, chap. 1.
dominant.
14 Laitz generally uses the term contrapuntal expansion
rather than prolongation.

with rock’s idiosyncratic style.15 Doll’s theory defines three types of function:
he begins with the standard tonic, dominant, and subdominant categories,
defined based on a chord’s scale-degree content, to which he adds predictive
functions, such as pre-tonic or pre-dominant, indicating to where a chord
predicts resolution, and nonpredictive functions, such as neighboring, passing,
or anchoring, which “speak solely to the hierarchical relationships obtaining
between sonorities in succession” (2007, 40).16 The three types of function are
not entirely independent of one another; for example, dominant function
only applies to a chord that contains 7̂ and 2̂ and predicts resolution to tonic—
that is, dominant is a type of pre-tonic. (The same applies to subdominant
and mediant functions, mutatis mutandis.) A V chord that predicts resolution
first to IV and then to I is not a dominant but a “hypo pre-subdominant.”17
Of all the function theories mentioned (and most others), Doll’s is the
only one with a primary functional label that can describe both a IV and a
V chord (pre-tonic). Doll’s predictive functions are not based on any inherent
quality of a chord but instead rest solely on where the chord leads.18 These
functions are thus based entirely on a function-as-progression definition,
with no function-as-category elements (i.e., they fall on the bottom left of
the diagram in Figure 1). Function-as-category enters the equation when Doll
divides pre-tonics into subdominants, dominants, and mediants. And Doll’s
nonpredictive functions are based on chord stability in relation to surround-
ing chords, and thus approach a function-as-syntax definition. So, taken as a
whole, Doll’s theory of rock harmony might synthesize all three definitions
of function, thus residing in the empty middle area of Figure 1.
But there is one important feature of a syntactical definition missing
from Doll’s theory: form. In this article, I wish to suggest an alternative to
Doll’s theory that treats formal structure, rather than pitch stability, as the
primary syntactic unit. I base my theory on the three primary functions tonic
(T), pre-dominant (PD), and dominant (D), each of which may be prolonged
via passing, neighboring, and other chords. Though I retain the standard
function labels, with the exception of tonic function I am using them with no
function-as-category associations. This is not problematic in the case of the
pre-dominant—although some associate it with the subdominant category,
it is generally considered a purely syntactical function—but it is potentially
15 Doll’s theory is most prominently laid out in his 2007 17 The prefix hypo —which in Doll’s forthcoming book
dissertation, soon to be superseded by his monograph. replaces plagal from his dissertation—refers to the voice
Various articles also speak to his concept of function, leading of the V–IV progression resembling a plagal ii–I
especially Doll 2009. progression.
16 Doll’s nonpredictive functions show the influence of 18 For the most part, Doll analyzes a chord as predicting
Lerdahl, in that anchoring chords are analogous to the the chord that actually follows. Doll (forthcoming, chap. 2)
deepest branch of a Lerdahlian tree structure while neigh- explains that prediction is listener based, and therefore
boring and passing chords branch off of the anchors. when a listener has heard a given song before, his or her
Doll occasionally uses these tree structures, e.g., in Doll predictions line up with the actual chord progression: “Har-
2007, 52. monic prediction is just as much about guessing what
might happen as knowing exactly what does happen.”

confusing in the case of dominant function. I argue that the idea of domi-
nant as a category (relating to the V chord) and dominant as a syntactical
function (relating to cadential closure) are separable elements in our con-
cept of dominant function. In common-practice music, the two are closely
linked, as it is rarely the case that syntactical dominant function exists with-
out a dominant-category chord. However, this situation is common in rock
music; syntactical dominant function is often carried by chords such as IV,
ii, ♭VII, or others. The core concept of dominant is still there: these chords
contain all the aspects of dominant function outlined by Caplin, Laitz, and
Lerdahl except the requirement that dominant-functioning chords belong to
the dominant category. In this way, I do not believe that I am redefining the
term dominant; rather, I am extracting one of the two existent definitions.
Readers may wonder how my syntactical dominant relates to Doll’s pre-tonic.
Indeed, most of the syntactical dominant chords analyzed in this article are
pre-tonics, though there are many other pre-tonic chords that I do not con-
sider to be syntactical dominants. However, pre-tonic is inherently a function-
as-progression concept, applying to chords that predict resolution to a tonic
chord, rather than a syntactical one, as it is not concerned with formal roles
such as providing cadential closure. Furthermore, syntactical dominant func-
tion is often not carried by a single chord but is instead a prolongational area
consisting of several chords (see the section “Expanded dominant progres-
sions,” below). A formal unit may contain several pre-tonic chords, but it will
have at most one syntactical dominant region.19 This dominant region is part
of a larger functional progression from tonic through pre-dominant and
dominant and back to tonic, representing a section’s overall harmonic trajec-
tory. I term this trajectory the functional circuit.
The functional circuit
A functional circuit is a complete statement of the syntactical functions

T–PD–D–T. Since syntactical functions are defined in formal terms, the func-
tional circuit is tied to form; by definition, a functional circuit will span an
entire formal unit (though not all formal units contain functional circuits).
Generally, a circuit will cover one section (e.g., a verse or chorus), but often
several sections will contain a single circuit, as is common over a verse–
prechorus–chorus cycle (see Nobile 2014, chap. 5). We can also define a func-
tional half-circuit (for half cadences) that ends on the syntactical dominant—
that is, T–PD–D. In rock music, it is common for a functional circuit’s
dominant to be carried by a chord other than V. Consider Example 2, which
transcribes and graphs the verse to the Beatles’ “Nowhere Man” (1965). The
opening I–V–IV–I progression is interpreted as prolongational, and the over-
19 I say “at most” because many formal units do not con-

tain a syntactical dominant at all (e.g., those that prolong
tonic throughout).

12 A‹ Journal of Music
C Theory G
# ‰ j j ‰ j j œ œj
& Ó Œ
œ œ œ™ œ œ œœ Œ
œ œ ˙ Ó ∑
‹ she’ll dress up all in lace and go in style.
(a) Nobile Ex 2a
Verse
I V IV I
E B A E
##4 ˙ j
& # #4 œ œ œ œ ˙ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ Œ
J œ
‹ He’s a real no - where man, sit - ting in his no - where land,
ii iv I
5 F©‹ A‹ E
## j
& # # œj œ œ œ œ œ œ œ™ œ
j
œ™ j j
œ œ ‰ Œ
∑
‹ Ma - king all his no - where plans for no - bo - dy.
( b) Nobile Ex 2b
Nobile Ex 2b
ˆ
8 ˆ
7 ˆ
6 ˆ
5 ˆ
4 ˆ
3 ˆ
2 ˆ
1
####^8 œ 7^ œ 6^ œ ^5 œ 4^ ^3 ^2 ^
1
& œ œ œ œ
# # œ œ V œ IV œ I
&## I œ œ APT œ œ
œ
? ####I ˙ V VI I œ ˙ APT ˙ ˙
{{
? #### ˙
I
œ
œ
œ
œ ˙J
ii
˙
iv
˙
I
T JPD D T
I ii iv I
T PD D T
Example 2. Beatles, “Nowhere Man” (1965): iv as syntactical dominant. (a) Transcription of
first verse (primary vocal line only). (b) Graph of the verse showing an overall functional
circuit of I–ii–iv–I as T–PD–D–T.
all functional circuit is I as tonic, ii as pre-dominant, minor iv as syntactical

dominant, and back to I as the closing tonic. These chords are the primary
representatives of the syntactical functions. The primary representative of a
function is the chord that is prolonged throughout that function’s span (the
one that gets the open notehead in a voice-leading graph). Other chords
within that span are considered subordinate to the primary representative.
The minor-iv chord in Example 2 fulfills all of the formal and rhetori-
cal roles of dominant function even though it has no tones in common with
a V chord. “Nowhere Man’s” iv–I cadence is no less final than a V–I cadence,
and iv does not “substitute” for V. In rock the function-chord relationship is
looser, such that non-V chords can carry syntactical dominant function. Cer-
tain chords are more likely to function as syntactical dominant than others—
V is still the most common in rock music, with IV common as well—but theo-
retically any chord has the potential to function in this way.20 Example 3,
20 Several authors have claimed that a hallmark of the rock evidence showing that IV precedes I more often than V
style is that IV rather than V acts as the tonic’s opposing does (e.g., de Clercq and Temperley 2011, White and Quinn
harmonic pole. Many who make this claim offer statistical 2015). I am not convinced, however, that the frequency

(a) Ex. 3a
Nobile
starts
at 3:15 IV V ii
C D A‹
#4 œ‰ œ œ œ œ œ œ œœ œ œœœ
& 4 ‰ œ œ œ œ œ ‰ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ™ Œ Œ œ
‹ How I wish, how I wish you were here. We’re just two lost souls swim - ming in a fish - bowl
I V IV
4 G D C
# œ œ œœœ Œ ‰ œ #œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œœ œœ ≈ œœœœ
& ‰ J ≈¿ œ œ
‹ year af - ter year, run - nin’ o - ver the same old ground. What have we found? the same old
ii I
7 A‹ G
#
& œ œ œ Œ ‰ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ™ Œ Ó
‹ fears; wish you were here.
( b)
Nobile Ex. 3b
ˆ
5 ˆ
4 ˆ
3
j
Nobile Ex. 3b sus
# œ œ ^ ˙ œ œ ^ ˙ ^3 ˙
& œ œ œ 5 4
j
sus
?# # œ j
œ œ œ œœ ˙ œ œ œ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙
{
& œ œ œ
J
˙ ˙
J
?# œ j
œ œœ œ ˙ IV ˙ ii ˙ I
{ J
˙ I
T
J
PD D T
Example 3.I Pink Floyd,

IV “Wish
ii You
I Were Here” (1975): ii as syntactical dominant.
(a) Transcription
T of PD
main section
D T(primary vocal line only). (b) Graph of this section, showing ii
as syntactical dominant.
which transcribes and graphs the main section of Pink Floyd’s “Wish You
Were Here” (1975), gives an example of ii functioning as syntactical domi-
nant. This section begins with the auxiliary progression IV–(V)–ii–I leading
to the opening tonic of the circuit; this auxiliary progression foreshadows the
PD–D–T progression IV–ii–I that follows. The fact that the pre-dominant
and dominant chords (IV and ii) have two tones in common does not dimin-
ish the feeling of functional progression; ii has a tonic-predicting function
that IV does not, given the resolution of the melodic suspension D to C—the
with which IV chords precede I chords is entirely related to are likely specifically avoided in noncadential situations,
the frequency with which IV functions as the dominant in which would diminish their overall frequency but not their
a form-defining cadence. In fact, cadential progressions overall importance.

Nobile Ex. 4a Drew Nobile Harmonic Function in Rock Music 161
(a)
Nobile Ex. 4aBridge
starts at
1:55 vi IVy 7 vi IVy 7
C©‹
Bridge A7 C©‹ A7
#### 4 œ œ nœ œ
starts
& at 4 Œ
vi
‰ J J œ™ Œ ‰ œJ œJ œ™
IVy 7
Œ
vi
‰ J J œ™ Œ
IVy 7
‰ œJ œJ œ™
1:55
‹ # C©‹ A7 C©‹ A7
## # 4 œHoldœ me,
œ™ love
œ œ me,
œ™ nœpleaseœ me, tease me
Œ ‰
& 4III6$ (=VII) J J Œ ‰ J J Œ ‰ J J œ™ Œ ‰ œJ œJ œ™
V7
5‹ G/D B7
#### Œ ‰ nœJ Hold œ œme, œ ˙ love
œ nœme, œ œ nœ œJ
please me, œ nœ
J
œ
tease me
œ œ œ
& III6$ (=VII) J J V7 ‰ Œ ‰ J
5‹ G/D B7 œtake œ nno œ
#### Œ ‰ ntill
œ œI œ œcan’t ˙
J J œ nœI œcan’t, œ
till can’t
nœ J J œ œmoreœ ahœ ah!
& J ‰ Œ ‰ J
‹ till I can’t till I can’t, can’t take no more ah ah!
( b)
Nobile Ex. 4b
Nobile Ex. 4bBridge

starts at
C©‹
Bridge A7 œ œ C©‹ A7 œ œ
# 4 Œ ‰ œ œ œ™ Œ ‰ J œ Œ
œ œ œ œ
‰ J Œ ‰ J J œ™
starts
& at4 J J
‹ C©‹ A7 œ œ C©‹ A7 œ œ
#4 œHoldœ me,
œ™ squeeze me,
œ œlove œ œ me,
œ tease me,
& 4Œ ‰ J J Œ ‰ J Œ ‰ J Œ ‰ J J œ™
Chorus
‹ Hold me, squeeze me, love me, tease me,
i7 i
5 E‹7 œ E‹
# œ œ œ œ œ™ œ œ œ œ œ œ™ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ J œ œ œ Chorus œ #œ œ
& Ói7 ‰ ‰ ‰ ‰ i
5 ‹ E‹7 œ E‹
till
œ œI œcan’tœ œ™ œ till
œ œI œcan’tœ œ™ œ œI can’t
œ œtake œ no
# œ more.
œ DipJ ‰ me
œ inœ the
œ waœ -#œter œ
& Ó ‰ ‰ ‰
Example
‹ 4. “Take
till Me
I to the River”: different
can’t representativesIof
till I can’t the syntactical
can’t dominant
take no more. Dip meat in the wa - ter
the end of the bridge section in versions by Al Green (1974; a) and the Talking Heads (1978; b)
first unstable structural tone—in m. 7 and ii’s arrival in the third bar of a
four-bar hypermeasure.
Nobile Ex. 5
The power of formal and hypermetric positioning is so strong in deter-

miningNobile
syntactical functionvoice
that even a I chord has the potential to function
traditional
Ex. V-I
5 “Take Me to the River”’s
voice leading leading
as syntactical dominant. The Talking Heads’ 1978 cover of Al Green’s “Take
#
& traditional w
Me to #voice
the
w River”
leading provides an voiceexample. Let’s begin with a comparison of the
w V-Iww “Take wwRiver”’s
Me to the
w leading
two
? #versions’
# bridge sections (Example 4). Al Green’s follows a typical bridge
chord#progression, w beginning w off-tonic w and ending with a retransitional V
{ & w
w ww w ww
chord.
? # w But the Talking Heads
21
w do something different with the second half
{of the bridge. Theirs w ends with an extended
w i7 chord over which the melody
composes out the third between G and E. This i7 chord functions as the syn-
tactical dominant in this bridge. Out of context, it might seem like an unmis-
21 See Everett 2009, 147–49, for a discussion of retransi-

tional V chords in bridge sections.


Nobile Ex. 5
traditional V–I “Take Me to the River”’s

voice leading voice leading
#
& #w
w ww w
w ww
?# w w
{ w w
Example 5. The i7–i cadence in the Talking Heads’ version

of “Take Me to the River” exhibits directed voice leading
toward 1̂ in the upper voices similar to that of a
traditional V–I cadence but derived from the pentatonic
rather than diatonic scale
takable tonic chord, but its placement at the end of the bridge imbues it with
so much tension that it is entirely unstable. Adding to this tension are the
frantic lyrics (“till I can’t . . . till I can’t . . . I can’t take no more!”); the drums,
which replace their standard rock beat with incessant eighth notes on the
bass drum and hi-hat; and the guitar and organ’s sustained fourth D–G. This
fourth fulfills the same voice-leading function as a V chord’s 7̂ and 2̂, with
the D (♭7̂) resolving upward by step to E (1̂) and the G (♭3̂) resolving down-
ward by pentatonic step to E (Example 5). Doll (2007, 23) argues that ♭3̂ can
“predict stepwise resolution downward to 1̂” since it lies just one step away
from 1̂ in the minor pentatonic scale.22
The bridge is not the only place where the Talking Heads use a i7 chord
as syntactical dominant in “Take Me to the River.” This same chord acts as the
syntactical dominant in the functional circuit that spans the verse–prechorus–
chorus cycle. This cycle is transcribed in Example 6a. The verses of this song
are relatively static harmonically, with the signature bass riff accompanying
essentially a single chord, which is indicated as Em even though both G ♮ and
G ♯ appear in the organ part.23 The prechorus contains a more active har-
monic structure concluding with two measures on a sustained Em7 chord.
Time stands still for these measures as the expected four-bar hypermeasure
is extended to five bars before we resolve into the chorus (shown below the
transcription). The Em7 chord at the end of the prechorus is not yet the tonic
but, as in the bridge, functions as the syntactical dominant. Example 6b gives
a voice-leading graph of this cycle. I interpret the prechorus’s VI chord as the
main pre-dominant harmony, prolonged by motion to its upper fifth and
sixth.24 An outline of tonic in the verse, pre-dominant to dominant in the
22 Doll (2007, 24) mentions that, by the same logic, 6̂ can 23 Split-third chords such as this are frequently found in
predict stepwise resolution upward to 1̂ within the major blues-based keyboard riffs, as for example in Paul McCart-
pentatonic scale. Jeremy Day-O’Connell (2009) calls a 6̂ ney’s “Maybe I’m Amazed” (at 0:53 in the original record-
that leads to 1̂ the “plagal leading tone” and discusses its ing from the 1970 album McCartney).
use in Debussy’s music. Melodic motion from 6̂ to 1̂ is
24 Interpreting VI as syntactical pre-dominant in the pre-
common at cadences in rock music, even when the pro-
chorus is, admittedly, only one of several plausible analy-
gression is V–I.
ses. An alternative would be to read III as the primary

(a) Nobel Ex. 6a
Verse
i
E‹
# ‰j œ œ œ ‰ j œ œ œ œ œ œ Ó Œ œ œ œ œ Œ œ #œ œ
& ¿ ¿ ¿Ó Œ œ œ œ œŒ
‹ I don’t know why I love you like I do All the chan - ges you put me through Take my mo - ney,
Prechorus
VI III
6 C G
#œœœœœ Œ ‰ ¿ œ œ œ ‰ j ‰ œ #œ œ œ œJ œ œ œ ˙ œ œ œ œ™ œ œ œ
& ¿ J J J J œœ œ
‹ my ci - ga - rettes I ha - ven’t seen the worst of it yet and I wan - na know, can you tell me, am
hypermeter: 1 2
Chorus
IV i7 i
11 A E‹7 E‹
# œœœ œ œœ w ˙ œ œ œ œ œ
#œ œ Ó ¿ œ œ #œ œ Ó
& ‰ Ó ¿
¿
‹ I in love to stay? Take me to the ri - ver Drop me in the wa - ter
Dominant Tonic
3 4
17 œœ
# œ œ œ œ #œ œ œ œ œ œ œ Œ œ œ œ
& Ó #œ œ œ #œ œ Ó Ó ¿ J
¿ ¿
‹ Take me to the ri - ver Dip me in the wa - ter wa - shing me down wa - shing me down
( b) Nobel Ex. 6b
ˆ
1 ˆ
3 ˆ
1
j
# ˙ œœ œ ˙œ œ ˙
& œ œ #œ
verse prechorus chorus
?# œ œ ˙
{ ˙
˙
J
5 ———— 6
˙
i VI i7 i
T PD D! T
Example 6. The Talking Heads, “Take Me to the River” (1978): i7 as syntactical dominant.
(a) Transcription of verse–prechorus –chorus cycle. (b) Graph of verse–prechorus–chorus
cycle showing i7 as syntactical dominant.

prechorus, and a resolution to tonic at the downbeat of the chorus is the

standard layout of a functional circuit in a verse–prechorus–chorus cycle (see
Nobile 2014, chap. 5). Over this circuit, the upper voice expresses the overall
neighboring motion 1̂–3̂–1̂, which as discussed above derives from the minor
pentatonic scale. I have also indicated an inner-voice ascent B–C–C ♯ –D–E.
The final D–E of this ascent and the G–E of the upper voice form the voice-
leading motion in Example 5. It is interesting to note that, as in the bridge,
Al Green’s original version does not use Em7 as the syntactical dominant at
this point but instead uses an A7 chord (IV). While Green’s chords are more
typical of 1970s pop and rock music, the Talking Heads’ substitutions do not
change the overall syntactical progression.
Tonic and pre-dominant
The above examples have shown chords other than V fulfilling the role of
syntactical dominant. But what of the other functions? Tonic function is dif-
ferent from the others, in that it is the most closely associated with a specific
chord (namely I). But syntactical tonic function is not earned by note con-
tent. Many I chords do not project tonic function; some are part of a domi-
nant or pre-dominant prolongation and thus lack the stability necessary for
tonic function. The notion of stability is important for syntactical tonic func-
tion: Doll (forthcoming, chap. 1) pithily describes tonic function as “a type of
functional effect that involves a harmony stable enough to preclude any sense
of requiring resolution.” Doll is talking about pitch stability, but since syntax
is intertwined with form, we can add a consideration of formal stability. Within
a given formal unit, the points of maximum stability occur at the beginning
and the end. When formal stability intersects with pitch stability, we get syn-
tactical tonic function. Thus a functional circuit expresses a progression
from stability (T) through instability (PD–D) then back to stability (T).
The pre-dominant function, on the other hand, is the most context
determined of the functions. Pre-dominant function occurs when the stabil-
ity of tonic function gives way to instability. We have left the tonic behind and
can get back only by traveling through the dominant. The syntactical nature
of the pre-dominant function is already evident in discussions that relate to
common-practice tonality. As many authors note, the main purpose of the
pre-dominant function is to connect the tonic and dominant; in the syntax
of the progression, the pre-dominant function represents the simultaneous
states of no-longer-tonic and not-yet-dominant. Most theorists discussing the
representative of the pre-dominant (i.e., the G chord in m. chord to the second. I prefer the analysis given in Example
10), with the VI chord (C) that opens the prechorus func- 6b largely because of the melody, which remains on E over
tioning as an appoggiatura chord resolving to III. This would the G chord in m. 10, thus suggesting that this chord might
give the prechorus some symmetry in its harmonic organi- be at a lower structural level than the preceding C chord
zation, with the falling fourth from VI to III answered by (exhibiting what I have previously referred to as a hierarchy
IV–i7, with the first chord of both acting as a neighboring divorce between melody and harmony; see Nobile 2015).

pre-dominant have related it to chords whose bass note is 4̂ (Leonard Ratner

[1962] even calls the three functions 1, 4, and 7), but many allow that several
other chords can fulfill the pre-dominant role. Marion Guck (1978, 37), who
calls this function “P” for “post-tonic/plagal/pre-dominant,” claims that “no
one chord is particularly characteristic of P” and that, compared with T and
D, “P is the most context-determined and least convention-constrained.”
Guck implies that any chord besides I and V has the potential to function as
P; a chord’s status as P-functioning is given by context rather than its identity.
(Guck states, for example, that III is “often found as P in large-scale progres-
♯
sions” [36] but later analyzes III as part of an expansion of D [41].) Charles
J. Smith’s (1981) definition of “dominant preparation” (DP) function is
essentially equivalent to Guck’s definition of P function. An interesting
extension in Smith’s article, though, is his positing of a parallel “plagal chord
progression system,” in which the three functions are tonic (T), plagal (P),
and plagal preparation (PP), as opposed to tonic, dominant, and dominant
preparation (165). In this system, plagal function is carried primarily by the IV
chord, and possible plagal preparation chords are iii/♭ III, V, and ♭VII. Thus the
progression I–V–IV–I could represent the functional progression T–PP–P–T.
By presenting the plagal system as parallel to the tonal system, Smith is essen-
tially equating the syntactical functions plagal and dominant, and plagal
preparation and dominant preparation; the difference between his P and D
is entirely chord identity based. Using a syntactical definition of T, PD, and
D functions, we could describe Smith’s I–V–IV–I progression as outlining a
functional circuit in which V represents the syntactical pre-dominant and IV
represents the syntactical dominant. While this might seem an outlandish
proposition to classically minded readers, in many passages in pop and rock
music this analysis is appropriate. Example 7 gives one instance in the verse
of the Eagles’ “Take It Easy” from 1972. This verse has a period structure in
which both phrases use IV to represent the syntactical dominant preceded
by V as syntactical pre-dominant; the harmonic rhythm, which places V on
a weaker (hyper)beat than IV in both phrases, ensures that V is heard as an
intermediate chord between I and IV. (This situation stands in contrast to the
typical twelve-bar blues progression, in which V is on a stronger beat than IV
such that IV is generally heard as a prolongational chord between V, the syn-
tactical dominant, and I.)25
Two more examples demonstrate a syntactical definition of pre-dominant
function. The first presents a situation in which a I–vi–IV–V progression is
25 The Schenkerian concept of “intermediate” harmonies are equivalent in status. Specifically, intermediate harmo-
is related to pre-dominant function but is not entirely the nies come about via “contrapuntal-melodic prolongation in
same. (Schenker himself does not use this term, but it the ascending arpeggiation,” i.e., filling in the overall bass
comes from Allen Cadwallader and David Gagné’s descrip- motion from 1̂ to 5̂ (Schenker [1935] 1979, 29). Possible
tion of Schenker’s theories in their 2011 textbook Analysis intermediate harmonies between I and V include ii, ii 6, and
of Tonal Music: A Schenkerian Approach.) For one, inter- IV (the common pre-dominants), but also diatonic and chro-
mediate harmonies exist at a shallower level of structure matic versions of iii and even I6 (29–33 and figures 14–16).
than tonic and dominant harmonies, whereas T, PD, and D

(a)
Nobile Ex. 7a
Verse
I V IV
G D C
#4 j œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œœ œ œ œœ œ
& 4œ œœ œ œ œ œ œ œ œœ ˙ Œ ‰ J
‹ Well I’m a - run - nin’ down the road tryin’ to loo - sen my load, I’ve got se - ven wo - men on my mind. Four
I V IV I
5 G D C G
#œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œj œ œ œ œ œ œ bœ œ œ œ Œ
& J J J œ
‹ that want to own me, two that want to stone me, one says she’s a friend of mine.
Nobile Ex. 7b
( b)
?# ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙
˙ J ˙ J ˙
I V IV
" I V IV I
T PD D T PD D T
Example 7. The Eagles, “Take It Easy” (1972): V as syntactical predominant and IV as

syntactical dominant in both parts of a parallel period. (a) Transcription of verse. (b) Harmonic
structure.
analyzed with vi rather than IV as the main pre-dominant. Conventional

wisdom dictates that in such progressions, IV is the pre-dominant while vi
represents a tonic extension. But if vi is put in a position of prominence—say,
at the beginning of a chorus section—it might be better to analyze vi as the
primary pre-dominant. This situation occurs in Fleetwood Mac’s “Go Your
Own Way” (1977) (Example 8). The verse of this song (not transcribed in the
example) prolongs the initial tonic, and the chorus contains the progression
vi–IV–V, which repeats twice before resolving to I. Because of the prominent
placement of vi at the beginning of the chorus, it is best to analyze vi as the
true pre-dominant, with IV a prolongational chord effecting a 5–6 shift on
this vi chord (see Example 8b). That is, the shift from I to vi coupled with the
shift from verse to chorus causes a syntactical shift from initial stability to
instability, even though the vi chord has two tones in common with I.
The second example is the early Beatles song “Misery” (1963), shown in
Example 9. This song’s eight-measure verse contains four two-bar phrases that
project an overall srdc form: statement–restatement–departure–conclusion.26
26 The term srdc is Walter Everett’s and refers to the pop/

rock version of the classical sentence (see Everett 1999,
16; 2009, 140–41). See also Summach 2011, Nobile 2011,
and de Clercq 2012 for extensive discussions of srdc
structure.

I V VI
" I V Journal
VI I of Music Theory
T PD D T PD D T
(a)
Nobile Ex. 8a
Chorus
starts at vi IV V vi IV
0:31 Dm Bb C Dm Bb
j j j
4
& b4 Ó ‰ œœ œ œœ œœ œœœ œ œj œ ˙ ™™ œ œ œ œ j œ j Œ ‰ œœ œœ œœ œœ œœœ œ œœj œœ
œ œœ œ œ œœ œœ œœ w
w ˙˙ œœ œ œ œ œ œ œ œœ œ œ
‹ You can go your own way, go your own way. You can call it a - no -
Verse
V vi IV V I
7 C Dm Bb C F
j j j
& b œœ œœ œœ œœj œœœ œœ œœ Œ Ó Ó ‰ œœ œœ œœ œœ œœœ œ œœj œœ ˙w ™™ œ œ œ œ j œ™
˙˙ œœ œ
œ œ œ œ œœ œ œ w
‹ œ œ œ œ œ œ
- ther lone - ly day. You can go your own way, go your own way.
( b)
Nobile Ex. 8b
ˆ
3 ˆ
(3) ˆ
2 ˆ
1
Nobile Ex. 8b
& b ^3˙ ™™(3)

^˙ œ ™
œ ^2˙ ™ œ œ ^1˙
verse chorus verse
m-h
divorce
?b ˙ ™™ ™™ ˙˙ œ ™
{ & b˙ œ œ ˙˙ ™ ™™ œ œ ˙ ˙
verse chorus verse
m-h
?
J divorce
{ b ˙I ™™ ˙vi 5 —œ6 ˙V ™™
˙TI
T PD D
J
IV 5 — 6
Example
T 8. Fleetwood Mac,
D “Go Your OwnTWay” (1977): the formal and rhetorical emphasis
I V I
PD
on the vi chord suggests that vi, rather than IV, is the main pre-dominant. (a) Transcription of
chorus. (b) Graph.
In the first two phrases (s and r), a I chord moves to a neighboring IV chord.
The third and fourth phrases (d and c) then give us IV–V–I. The IV chord in
m. 4, at the end of the second phrase, does not yet carry pre-dominant func-
tion. It is not until m. 5 that IV is lifted beyond neighboring function and
loses sight of the stable tonic function. Even though the chord does not change,
the phrase structure and hypermeter prompt a change in function at m. 5,
helped out by the melodic peak F representing an unstable neighboring tone
in the upper voice. This is shown in the graph in Example 9b.
Expanded dominant progressions
In common-practice music, the most common embellishment of the domi-

nant occurs through the use of the cadential six-four chord delaying the
arrival of the complete V chord. In rock music, the primary representative of
dominant function is often embellished in a similar way, but the cadential

(a)
Nobile Ex. 9a
s r
I IV I IV
C F C F
4 œ ‰ œj œ ™
&4
j
œ œ œ Œ Œ ‰ œJ œ™ j
œ œ™
j
œ œ œ Œ Œ ‰ œJ
‹ I’m the kind of guy who ne - ver used to cry. The
d c
IV V I (vi)
5 F G C Am
œ™ j j j œœ™™ œœ œœ
& œ œ œ œ œ™ œ œ œ œ J
Œ ∑
‹
world is trea - ting me bad; mi - se - ry!
( b)
Nobile Ex. 9b
ˆ
3 ˆ
4 ˆ
3
j
˙ œ ˙ ˙œ
& œ œœ œ œœ œ œ
J J
s r d c
? ˙ œ œ ˙ ˙
{ I
œ
J
IV V
˙
I
T PD D T
Example 9. The Beatles, “Misery” (1963), first verse: the IV chord at the end of the r phrase is
back-related, and the true predominant does not arrive until the d phrase. (a) Transcription of
verse. (b) Graph.
six-four is far less common than it is in the classical style (though it is certainly
not unheard of; see Everett 2009, 208–9, for some early examples). More
common is for the delaying chord to be a root-position I chord, which I have
previously termed the cadential I (Nobile 2011, sec. 3). The cadential I most
often behaves exactly like a cadential six-four, appearing on a metrically (or
hypermetrically) strong beat and leading to a root-position V chord on a
weaker beat. A classic example occurs in the verse of the Beatles’ “I’ll Cry
Instead,” transcribed in Example 10a. Because the preceding phrase pro-
longed the syntactical pre-dominant (represented by the IV chord), the I
chord in m. 13 is not a return to syntactical tonic but instead prolongs the
dominant just like a cadential six-four. In other words, this I chord is unstable
and resolves to the following V chord, which is the primary representative
of the syntactical dominant. The dominant prolongation begins with this
cadential I chord in m. 13, just as a dominant prolongation might begin with

(a)
Nobile Ex. 10a
Verse
I
G
#4 œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ bœ œ œ ˙ Œ ‰ nœ œ œ œ œ œ
& 4 œJ œ J J
Ó Ó
J
‹ I got e - very rea - son on Earth to be mad ’cause I just lost the on -
V IVy 7
6 D C7
#œ œ œœ œ ˙ Ó Ó Œ œ
nœ œ œ œ œ ˙ Œ ‰ bœ œ bœ œ
& J J J bœ J J
œ
‹ - ly girl I had. If I could get my way, I’d get my - self locked
I V I
12 G D G
#œ œ j ‰ œ œ œ œJ œ™ j
& bœ œ œ œ œ nœ ˙ ‰ œ œ ˙ Ó Ó ‰
J
‹ up to - day, but I can’t, so I’ll cry in - stead.
“cadential I”: prolongs

syntactical dominant
Nobile Ex. 10b
( b)
ˆ
5 ˆ
4 ˆ
3 ˆ
2 ˆ
1
#˙ ˙ ˙
& ˙ ˙
?# œ œ ˙
{ ˙ ˙ ˙
J
I IV [I] V I
T PD D —— T
Example 10. The Beatles, “I’ll Cry Instead” (1964): the cadential I prolongs the syntactical
dominant in mm. 13–14. (a) Transcription of verse. (b) Graph.
a cadential six-four chord. The voice-leading graph in Example 10b shows the
overall functional circuit to be I–IV–V–I.27
The cadential I is essentially an example of an inverted cadential six-
four, discussed by William Rothstein (2006) and Timothy Cutler (2009). Roth-
stein and Cutler, who analyze exclusively common-practice repertoire, note
27 See Nobile 2011 for more examples of the cadential I Please Me” (2001, 132). See also Doll 2007, 117–30, for a
in early Beatles songs. The idea of the cadential I arises in discussion of IV–I–V progressions in which the I chord can
Everett’s work; see his discussions of Bob Dylan’s 1983 be considered a “passing plagal pre-dominant” elaborating
song “License to Kill” (2008, 153) and the Beatles’ “Please an underlying IV–V progression.

{
170 R N A LEx.o 11
J O UNobile f MUSIC THEORY
b2œ . . . œ œnœ œ œ bœ. nœ. œ.

5
œ j
& b b 4 nœ œ œ œ. ‰ Œ
? bb 2 œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ#œ œ œ j ‰
b 4 nœ bœ œ œ œ.
Literal Roman numerals: iv6 5£ i6 VI ii¯6% V i
Cutler/Rothstein: iv V6$ 5£ i
Syntactical functions: PD D T
Example 11. Beethoven, Piano Concerto no. 3 in C minor, op. 37, third movement:
Rothstein and Cutler interpret a i 6 –VI–iiø65 –V progression as a composed-out V64 –– 53.
that certain first-inversion and root-position I chords are best interpreted as

cadential six-fours with the “wrong” voice in the bass.28 Rothstein’s and Cutler’s
explanations are generally contrapuntal; Cutler in particular points out that
an inverted cadential six-four is often the result of a voice exchange in the
outer voices. Both authors cite a passage from Beethoven’s Third Piano Con-
certo in which an entire i6 –VI–iiø65 –V progression represents a prolonged dom-
inant (Example 11). The apparent harmonies are by-products of a 5̂–6̂–4̂–5̂
double-neighbor figure in the bass and an exchange of the outer voices such
that the first bass note becomes 3̂. In the case of the Beethoven, a contrapuntal
explanation is adequate. But in similar situations in rock music, contrapuntal
explanations are not so convincing. Consider Example 12, which transcribes
and graphs the first verse of Bobby Darin’s “Dream Lover.” This verse, like
“Misery,” is in srdc form.29 The s and r phrases prolong the tonic via an alter-
nation of I and vi chords, with the vi chord acting as a neighboring chord.30
The tonic prolongation continues into the d phrase with a I–V7–I progression
in stop time, leading to the pre-dominant IV chord in m. 12 accompanying
the melodic peak on F. The c phrase contains a progression similar to Bee-
thoven’s: I–vi–IV–V7–I. This entire chord progression prolongs the syntactical
dominant, resolving to tonic on the downbeat of m. 15. Because they follow
the pre-dominant, the first three chords of this progression are unstable and
resolve into the V 7 chord. This progression furthermore summarizes the
harmonic material of the earlier phrases: I to vi echoes the neighboring
progression from the s and r phrases, and IV echoes the syntactical pre-
dominant from the end of the d phrase. In this way, the c phrase encapsulates
28 Gabriel Fankhauser (2012) has also discussed such 30 My use of “neighboring” follows Caplin (1998, 25), who
“deviant” six-four chords and their relation to harmonic defines a neighboring chord as a prolongational chord that
syntax. returns to the preceding chord. Caplin states that “a melodic
neighbor-tone motion is usually (but not necessarily) pres-
29 See Summach 2011, 10–14, for a discussion of this
ent in one or more of the voices.”
verse’s srdc structure.

(a)
Nobile Ex. 12a
s r
I vi I
C A‹ C
4
& 4 ‰ œ œJ œ ‰ œ œJ
j œ œJ œ œ œ Œ ‰ œ œ œ œ œ ‰ œ œj œ œj œ Œ ‰œœ œ œ Œ
‹ E - very night I hope and pray a dream lo - ver will come my way. A girl to hold
d
I V7
vi C (yeah yeah yeah) G7
6 A‹ Œ œœ œœ Œ œœ Œ œœ œœ Œ œœ
œ œ œœ j j
& œJ J œ Œ ‰ œ œ œ œ œŒ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ Œ Œ ‰ œ œ Œ Œ ‰ œJ
‹ in my arms, J
and know the ma - gic of her charms, ’cause I want a girl to
c
I IV
C F I vi IV V7 I ( V7 )
11 œœŒ œ Œ œœŒ œ
Œ C A‹ F G7 C G7
œ œ œœ œ Œ ‰œ œ œ œ œœ œ œ œ œœ œ ‰bœ œ œ œ ‰ j œ œ ‰ œ œœ
& J J œ œ œ œ Œ Ó ∑
‹ call my own. I want a dream lo - ver so I don’t have to dream a - lone.
expanded dominant progression
Nobile Ex. 12b

( b)
Nobile Ex. 12b
ˆ
3 ˆ
4 ˆ
3 ˆ
2 ˆ
1
j
^ ^ ^ ^ ^
3 4 3 2 1
& œ œ ˙ œ œ œ j˙ <b>˙ œ ˙ ˙
& œ
s/rœ ˙ œ d œ œ ˙ <b>˙c œ ˙ ˙
œ œ œ œ ˙
?s/r˙ œ ˙ c
{{? ˙
œd œ
J œ
œ œ œ ˙
œ œ
J œ ˙ ˙
˙
I J IV [I vi IV] V I
T JPD D T
I IV [I vi IV] V I
Example
T 12. Bobby Darin, “Dream
PD DLover” (1959):Tthe I–vi–IV–V progression in mm. 13–14
prolongs the syntactical dominant. This is an expanded dominant progression.
(a) Transcription of verse. (b) Graph.
the verse’s entire functional circuit within a prolongation of the syntactical

dominant.
“Dream Lover” is similar to the Beethoven in Example 11 in that four
chords prolong the syntactical dominant. Unlike the Beethoven, though,
“Dream Lover” resists a contrapuntal explanation for this structure. There is

no voice exchange, and all chords are in root position. A syntactical explana-
tion is more satisfying in this case. The instability of the I, vi, and IV chords
is due to their position in the form as well as their context within the chord
progression. I further believe that Cutler’s and Rothstein’s analyses of the
Beethoven example is better couched in syntactical rather than contrapuntal
terms. Turning back to Example 11, we see that m. 6 contains a pre-dominant
chord (iv), and so we expect a syntactical dominant at the downbeat of m. 7—
specifically at the downbeat because of the prevailing harmonic rhythm of
one chord per bar. When the apparent tonic i6 appears, it is inherently unsta-
ble because it does not fulfill the expected dominant function. This instability
applies to the entire progression i6 –VI–iiø65, with the locally stable dominant
chord not appearing until the V chord on the last eighth note of the measure.
In this way we can consider the i6 –VI–iiø65 progression to “resolve” to the V, not
only contrapuntally as nonchord tones to chord tones, but also syntactically
as unstable chords to a stable one.
The twelve-bar blues progression
The IV chord is one of the most versatile chords in rock music. It is commonly
used as a neighboring chord to I, a pre-dominant chord, and a dominant
chord. Another common use of IV is as a “softener” of a V–I cadence, as
often seen in the twelve-bar blues. Example 13 gives the standard layout of a
twelve-bar blues progression. The chord sequence in question is V–IV–I in
mm. 9–11. “Softening” is Everett’s term, and it results from an interpretation
of this V–IV–I progression as an elaboration of V–I.31 This interpretation has
proved controversial in the music-theoretical community, with many schol-
ars insisting that the descending-fourths motion of the IV–I progression is
primary and that the V chord does not progress directly to I at any level.
Stephenson (2002, 102–4) even uses this chord progression as evidence that
chord successions in rock music follow the opposite patterns from their com-
mon-practice counterparts (see also London 1990).32 Stephenson and others
accuse scholars such as Everett of artificially privileging V–I progressions in
a repertoire that does not depend on them and suggest that the descending-
fourth progression IV–I is more stylistically representative.33
31 Everett 2004, 18, and 2009, 228–30. See also Doll 2007, 33 Mark Spicer (2005, 8) sums up this disagreement in his
151–52, and forthcoming, chap. 2. review of Everett 2001 by first agreeing with Everett that
V most naturally progresses to I but then playing devil’s
32 Evidence to counter this claim comes from the myriad
advocate to argue that, given the ubiquity of double-plagal
( ♭VII–IV–I) progressions, “surely it is the falling fourths in
rock songs that follow typical norms of common-practice
chord succession, as well as the many songs that freely
the bass rather than the successive neighboring motions
mix these successions with so-called retrogressions (e.g.,
in the upper voices that command the driver’s seat in such
“Lyin’ Eyes,” Example 1).
a progression.” Spicer then asks, “Might then the V chord
of the similarly bass-driven V–IV–I progression ending a
twelve-bar blues function instead as a large upper neigh-
bor to the IV chord?”

Example 13. A standard twelve-bar blues progression
Since the V–IV–I progression at the end of a twelve-bar blues is gener-

ally cadential, the disagreement boils down to which of the two chords, V or
IV, represents the syntactical dominant. What we must realize when discuss-
ing the twelve-bar blues is that it is simply a chord progression and does not
necessarily produce the same analysis every time it occurs. As with the sen-
tence “I saw the man in the park with a telescope”—did I or the man have
the telescope?—the syntax of the blues progression can be analyzed in mul-
tiple ways depending on context.34 But for several twelve-bar blues songs
nobody can argue that IV functions as the syntactical dominant: those that
skip the IV chord so that V lasts for two measures and leads directly to I.
Classic examples include Chuck Berry’s “Rock and Roll Music” (1957),
“Johnny B. Goode” (1958), and “No Particular Place to Go” (1964)—the last
of which omits IV in the verses but includes it underneath the guitar solos—
and Stevie Ray Vaughan’s “The House Is Rockin’” (1989). These examples
suggest that when IV does appear in m. 10, it is merely an insertion—albeit a
remarkably common one—that does not alter the fundamental syntax of the
progression.35
In most cases, therefore, I agree with Everett that the IV chord serves to
“soften” the V–I cadence. Rarely, though, melodic considerations give more
emphasis to the IV chord and encourage hearing V as syntactical pre-dominant
and IV as syntactical dominant. One of the least blues-sounding twelve-bar
blues songs, Michael Jackson’s 1991 single “Black or White” (Example 14),
may serve as an example. While this song lacks the major-minor seventh
chords and minor-pentatonic melodies characteristic of blues songs, the
chord progression is a typical twelve-bar blues that includes IV between V
and I at the end. The graph in Example 14b shows the functional circuit as
I–V–IV–I, with V as pre-dominant and IV as dominant. The justification for
this analysis lies in the melody: the cadential gesture 2̂–1̂ occurs over this
progression with the title lyric “black or white” harmonized with backup sing-
34 An analogy arises with the so-called deceptive cadence, er’s “Call It Stormy Monday (but Tuesday’s Just as Bad)”
a V–vi progression whose multiple possible interpretations (1941) and Robert Johnson’s “Sweet Home Chicago”
are explored in Schachter 2006. Carl Schachter provides (1937). It is not always the case that V begins the third
several analyses of this progression but gives no general phrase of the twelve-bar blues; common variations of mm.
rules as to which is the most “correct”; the best analysis 9–12 include IV–V–I–I (e.g., the Beatles’ version of Chuck
is always dependent on context. Berry’s “Roll Over Beethoven” [1963]) and ♭VI–V–i (most
often heard in minor-blues songs, e.g., B. B. King’s “The
35 An analogous but less common insertion occurs when
Thrill Is Gone” [1969]).
a IV chord is added in m. 2, making I–IV–I–I in the first four
bars. This is heard in such blues standards as T-Bone Walk-


Nobile Ex. 14a
(a)
I
E
#### 4 œ œ œ œ œ œ œ ‰ œ œ
œ œ œ œ
& 4 ‰ œ œ œ œ œ Œ œ
‹ They print my mes - sage in the Sa - tur - day Sun. I had to tell them I ain’t
IV I
4 A E
# ## œ œ œ œ œ œ‰ ‰ œ œ œ œ œ œ œœœ œœ œœ œœœ œœ
œ Œ Ó
& # œ œ œœ œ ‰œ œ œ œ œ œ
‹ se - cond to none, and I told a - bout e - qua - li - ty, and it’s true, ei - ther you’re wrong or you’re right.
V IV I
8 B A E
## œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œœœ œœœ œœ œœ
& # # Œ ‰ œJ ‰ œJ ‰ œJ J Jœ œ Œ Ó ∑
‹ But if you’re thin - kin’ a - bout my ba - by, it don’t mat - ter if you’re black or white.
( b) Nobile Ex. 14b
ˆ
3 ˆ
2 ˆ
(2) ˆ
1
j
#### œ œ ˙ œ œ œ œ 2 œ ˙ œ œ œ œœ˙
& œœœ œ • œœ œ œ œœœ œ œ ˙
J J
“black or white”
2 œ ˙ ˙
? #### ˙ œ ˙
{ I
• J J
V IV I
T PD D T
Example 14. Michael Jackson, “Black or White” (1991): a twelve-bar blues progression
in which IV is interpreted as syntactical dominant and V as syntactical pre-dominant.
(a) Transcription of second verse. (b) Graph.
ers. This gesture is the melodic goal of the verse; one can therefore conclude
both that the IV–I progression represents the cadence and that melodic 2̂
does not resolve to 1̂ when V moves to IV but instead remains active until the
I chord occurs.36
36 This F ♯ could be considered an added sixth to IV that “black or white” could easily have been harmonized with a
resolves down rather than up or could be seen to represent V–I progression rather than IV–I by adding a B chord in the
a “syntax divorce” between melody and harmony, in which second half of m. 10. In this recomposition, the IV chord
melody and harmony approach their cadential goal in dif- would be considered a neighboring chord to V.
ferent ways (see Nobile 2015). The melody on the lyric

Cadence
Implicit in this article is a discussion of cadence. As one might surmise, I

consider the notion of cadence to be linked to the functional circuit; specifi-
cally, a cadence occurs at the completion of a circuit. (And a half-circuit ends
with a half cadence.) Cadences, like circuits, are therefore elements of form—
as opposed to, say, voice leading. Caplin (2004) nicely summarizes this con-
cept of cadence, especially in his distinction between cadential function and
cadential content (81–85). Defining a cadence as a V7–I progression support-
ing 2̂–1̂ represents a focus on content rather than function. Yet in the classi-
cal cadences of interest to Caplin, cadential content is necessary (but not
sufficient) for cadential function: “The harmonic content of the cadence—
the cadential progression—is highly constrained” (56). In other words, classical
cadences are overdetermined; they project both formal and voice-leading
closure (the latter through resolution of the leading tone). In rock music,
though, cadences can project formal closure without traditional V7–I voice
leading.
Many definitions of cadences in rock music forgo the requirement that
V be involved. Everett (2004, 2008) and Allan Moore (1995) expand the pos-
sible cadential progressions to include ♭VII–I (Moore), ♭VII–IV–I (the “dou-
ble-plagal” cadence), and others, while Stephenson (2002, 53–72) and David
Temperley (2011) define cadences based on the vocal melody’s coming to rest
in conjunction with an arrival on tonic.37 Defining cadence based on the
functional circuit is slightly different: in this definition, a cadence represents
the conclusion of a large-scale formal and harmonic trajectory. There may
be certain harmonic gestures or metrical positions that commonly signal a
cadence, but a cadence must be the end of something—specifically some-
thing that contains a beginning and a middle.38 In this way, while Temperley
identifies the IV–I progression that concludes the verse of the Beatles’ “A
Hard Day’s Night” as a cadence, I consider the final two bars a postcadential
tonic prolongation, with the completion of the functional circuit occurring
with the return to tonic in m. 11 (Example 15).
The idea that a cadence represents the end group of a tripartite begin-
ning–middle–end structure draws a parallel with Kofi Agawu’s (1991, chap. 3)
theory of musical semiotics. Rather than representing static locations, begin-
nings, middles, and ends outline a web of interdependence such that each of
the three acquires its meaning in relation to the others. Put another way, one
cannot conceive of any of these three elements independently. The definition
37 For a “closed cadence,” Stephenson adds the require- 38 This conception of cadence owes much to Caplin 2004,
ment that the arrival occur on the final downbeat of a four- esp. 56–66, which itself relies on Fred Lerdahl and Ray
bar hypermeasure and that the melody end on 1̂. Temper- Jackendoff’s (1983, 168) idea of a “cadenced group.”
ley’s “sectional cadence” must occur at the end of a chorus
section.

Nobile Ex. 15
Temperley considers
this IV–I progression
to be the cadence...
C D G C7 G
9
# nœœ œœ## œœ œœ #œœ nn œœ œœ œ œ # œ œœ ## œœ nn œœ œœ
& ‰ œJ œ # œ ‰ œ œ œ œJ œ ™ bœ œ œ œ Œ ‰
J J J
‹ But when I get home to you, I find thethings that you do will make me feel al - right
IV V I IV I
PD D T (N)
...but I place the cadence

here because this is the
end of the functional circuit
Example 15. The Beatles, “A Hard Day’s Night” (1964), end of verse. Temperley’s placement
of the cadence is based on the convergence of the end of the vocal line and an arrival on
tonic. Considering a cadence to be the completion of a functional circuit places it a measure
earlier, with the final I–IV–I progression a postcadential prolongation of tonic.
Nobile Ex. 16
^
of the^ functional
^
circuit
^
provided^ in this
^
article
^
considers harmonic function
as a beginning–middle–end structure. The association of the functional cir-
3 2 (2) 3 2 (1) 1
"
#˙ cuit with “introversive semiosis,” as Agawu terms it, suggests that the circuit
& œ œ may ˙be instrumental
œœ˙ ˙ inœ the œ construction
˙ œ œ œ œof˙ musical meaning. An opening
tonic is a beginning, providing a stable point of departure. The pre-dominant
represents the middle, which, in Agawu’s words, “both undermines and pro-
antecedent consequent
{?#
˙ ˙ longsœ the beginning.
˙
˙ It undermines
˙ œ the
˙ beginning
˙ by departing from it, gen-
erating tension in the process. It prolongs it in the sense that the beginning
J finds its ultimate definition J only through the middle and ending” (54).39
—— 6
5 IV 5 —— 6
PDFinally, the dominant–tonic PD cadence D!at the Tend of the circuit represents the
I IV V I IV I
T D T
end, “securing closure for the entire structure” (67).40
I have argued in this article for a syntactical definition of harmonic
function that privileges such interrelations among functions over chord-
based associations. I believe that rock music’s harmonic structure calls for
such a definition, as functions in this repertoire are not associated with spe-
cific harmonic formulas the way they are in the classical style. Cadences do
not need V chords, IV is not always a pre-dominant, and dominant function
can be carried by a I chord. Yet I believe that the separation of syntax and
category is useful in discussions of common-practice repertoire as well. While
39 It should be noted that Agawu’s application of the 40 There are parallels between this concept of function
beginning–middle–end paradigm to the Schenkerian Ursatz and Riemann’s early theory of “function as abstract cate-
associates the middle with the V chord. Schenkerian the- gory,” in which the Hegelian thesis-antithesis-synthesis
ory, of course, does not acknowledge the existence of a dialectic is applied to harmonic function. See Harrison 1994,
pre-dominant function on the same level as tonic and 266–73.
dominant, so the background harmonic structure is always
I–V–I. My recognition in this article of the pre-dominant as
equal in status to tonic and dominant represents a signifi-
cant departure from Schenkerian theory.

Nobile Ex. 16 Drew Nobile Harmonic Function in Rock Music 177
ˆ
3 ˆ
2 ˆ
(2) ˆ
3 ˆ
2 ˆ
(1) ˆ
1
"
#
& ˙ œ œ ˙ œœ˙ ˙ œ œ ˙ œ œœœ˙
antecedent consequent
?# ˙
{ ˙ ˙
J
œ
5 —— 6
˙ ˙
J
œ
5 —— 6
˙ ˙
I IV V I IV IV I
T PD D T PD D! T
Example 16. The Eagles, “Lyin’ Eyes” (1975): graph of the verse showing IV
as both syntactical pre-dominant and dominant in the consequent phrase
we might not find in Mozart an instance of IV functioning as syntactical

dominant, recognizing in his V–I cadences two coincident processes—one
formal and one rhetorical—allows us to associate such moments with analo-
gous moments that might not use the same harmonic progression. The anal-
ogous moments might come from rock music, nineteenth-century Western
music, or elsewhere. The important point is that it is a marker of the classical
style—not a universal truth—that syntactical dominant function and the V
chord are inextricably linked. If we no longer insist on such a link, we might
find that the structures of rock and common-practice music are more alike
than we think.
As a postlude, I would like to return to the example with which I opened, the
Eagles’ “Lyin’ Eyes” (Example 1). As mentioned, the two phrases of this par-
allel period contain different chords as dominant representatives: V in the
antecedent and IV in the consequent. But there is another interesting result
of applying a syntactical definition of function to this verse. As is generally
the case with a parallel period, this section contains a functional half-circuit
in the antecedent and a full circuit in the consequent. Identifying the pro-
longational structure of the antecedent’s chord progression is simple: one
measure of tonic, two measures of pre-dominant (encompassing IV and ii),
and one measure of dominant. IV is the primary representative of the pre-
dominant, with the ii chord effecting a 5–6 shift on IV. The consequent
begins the same as the antecedent, so we have I as tonic and IV5−6 as pre-
dominant. But the ii chord, rather than leading to V, returns to IV for the
IV–I cadence. The later IV chord is, as mentioned, the syntactical dominant
representative. That is, in the consequent phrase, the IV chord represents
both pre-dominant and dominant functions. Example 16 shows this in a voice-
leading graph. The change in function is obviously not due to voice leading
but is entirely based on the verse’s syntax.

Works Cited
Agawu, Kofi. 1991. Playing with Signs: A Semiotic Interpretation of Classic Music. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Agmon, Eytan. 1995. “Functional Harmony Revisited: A Prototype-Theoretic Approach.”
Music Theory Spectrum 17/2: 196–214.
Biamonte, Nicole. 2010. “Triadic Modal and Pentatonic Patterns in Rock Music.” Music Theory
Spectrum 32/2: 95–110.
———. 2012. “Les fonctions modales dans le rock et la musique metal.” In L’analyse musicale
aujourd’hui, ed. Mondher Ayari, Jean-Michel Bardez, and Xavier Hascher. Strasbourg:
Université de Strasbourg.
Cadwallader, Allen, and David Gagné. 2011. Analysis of Tonal Music: A Schenkerian Approach.
3rd ed. New York: Oxford University Press.
Caplin, William. 1998. Classical Form: A Theory of Formal Functions for the Instrumental Music of
Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven. New York: Oxford University Press.
———. 2004. “The Classical Cadence: Conceptions and Misconceptions.” Journal of the Amer-
ican Musicological Society 57/1: 51–118.
———. 2009. “What Are Formal Functions?” In Musical Form, Forms, and Formenlehre, ed.
Pieter Bergé, 21–40. Leuven: Leuven University Press.
———. 2013. Analyzing Classical Form: An Approach for the Classroom. New York: Oxford Univer-
sity Press.
Carter, Paul Scott. 2005. “Regressive Harmonic Motion as Structural and Stylistic Character-
istic.” PhD diss., University of Cincinnati.
Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Cutler, Timothy. 2009. “On Voice Exchanges.” Journal of Music Theory 53/2: 191–226.
Day-O’Connell, Jeremy. 2009. “Debussy, Pentatonicism, and the Tonal Tradition.” Music The-
ory Spectrum 31/2: 225–61.
de Clercq, Trevor. 2012. “Sections and Successions in Successful Songs: A Prototype Approach
to Form in Rock Music.” PhD diss., Eastman School of Music.
de Clercq, Trevor, and David Temperley. 2011. “A Corpus Analysis of Rock Harmony.” Popular
Music 30/1: 47–70.
Doll, Christopher. 2007. “Listening to Rock Harmony.” PhD diss., Columbia University.
———. 2009. “Between Rock and a Harmony Place.” In Popular Music Worlds, Popular Music
Histories: Proceedings of the 2009 Biennial Conference of the International Association for the
Study of Popular Music, ed. Geoff Stahl and Alex Gyde, 83–91. Liverpool: International
Association for the Study of Popular Music. www.iaspm.net/proceedings/index.php
/iaspm2009/ iaspm2009/paper/viewFile/763/57.
———. Forthcoming. Hearing Harmony: Towards a Tonal Theory for the Rock Era. Ann Arbor:
University of Michigan Press.
Everett, Walter. 1999. The Beatles as Musicians: “Revolver” through the “Anthology.” New York:
Oxford University Press.
———. 2001. The Beatles as Musicians: The Quarry Men through “Rubber Soul.” New York: Oxford
University Press.
———. 2004. “Making Sense of Rock’s Tonal Systems.” Music Theory Online 10/4.
———. 2008. “Pitch down the Middle.” In Expression in Pop-Rock Music: Critical and Analytical
Essays, ed. Walter Everett, 2nd ed., 111–74. New York: Routledge.
———. 2009. The Foundations of Rock. New York: Oxford University Press.
Fankhauser, Gabriel. 2012. “Deviant Cadential Six-Four Chords.” Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the Society for Music Theory, New Orleans, LA.
Guck, Marion. 1978. “The Functional Relations of Chords: A Theory of Musical Intuitions.”
In Theory Only 4/6: 29–42.

Harrison, Daniel. 1994. Harmonic Function in Chromatic Music. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Kopp, David. 1995. “On the Function of Function.” Music Theory Online 1/3.
Laitz, Steven G. 2016. The Complete Musician: An Integrated Approach to Tonal Theory, Analysis,
and Listening. 4th ed. New York: Oxford University Press.
Lerdahl, Fred. 2001. Tonal Pitch Space. New York: Oxford University Press.
Lerdahl, Fred, and Ray Jackendoff. 1983. A Generative Theory of Tonal Music. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
London, Justin. 1990. “‘One Step Up’: A Lesson from Pop Music.” Journal of Music Theory
Pedagogy 4/1: 111–14.
Miller, John Gabriel. 2008a. “The Death and Resurrection of Function.” PhD diss., Ohio
State University.
———. 2008b. “The Death and Resurrection of Function.” Ohio State Online Music Journal
1/1. osomjournal.org/issues/1-1/miller.
Mooney, Kevin. 1996. “The Table of Relations and Music Psychology in Hugo Riemann’s
Harmonic Theory.” PhD diss., Columbia University.
Moore, Allan. 1995. “The So-Called ‘Flattened Seventh’ in Rock.” Popular Music 14/2: 185–
201.
Nobile, Drew F. 2011. “Form and Voice Leading in Early Beatles Songs.” Music Theory Online
17/3.
———. 2014. “A Structural Approach to the Analysis of Rock Music.” PhD diss., City Univer-
sity of New York.
———. 2015. “Counterpoint in Rock Music: Unpacking the ‘Melodic-Harmonic Divorce.’”
Music Theory Spectrum 37/2: 189–203.
Quinn, Ian. 2005. “Harmonic Function without Primary Triads.” Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the Society for Music Theory, Cambridge, MA.
Ratner, Leonard. 1962. Harmony: Structure and Style. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Riemann, Hugo. 1880. Skizze einer neuen Method der Harmonielehre. Leipzig: Breitkopf und
Härtel.
———. [1893] 1896. Harmony Simplified. Translated by H. Bewerunge. London: Augener.
Rothstein, William. 2006. “Transformations of Cadential Formulae in Music by Corelli and
His Successors.” In Essays from the Third International Schenker Symposium, ed. Allen
Cadwallader, 245–78. Hildesheim: Olms.
Schachter, Carl. 2006. “Che Inganno! The Analysis of Deceptive Cadences.” In Essays from the
Third International Schenker Symposium, ed. Allen Cadwallader, 279–98. Hildesheim:
Olms.
Schenker, Heinrich. [1935] 1979. Free Composition (Der Freie Satz). Edited and translated by
Ernst Oster. New York: Longman.
Smith, Charles J. 1981. “Prolongations and Progressions as Musical Syntax.” In Music Theory:
Special Topics, ed. Richard Browne, 139–74. New York: Academic.
Spicer, Mark. 2005. Review of Walter Everett, The Beatles as Musicians: The Quarry Men through
“Rubber Soul.” Music Theory Online 11/4.
Stephenson, Ken. 2002. What to Listen for in Rock: A Stylistic Analysis. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.
Summach, Jay. 2011. “The Structure and Genesis of the Prechorus.” Music Theory Online
17/3.
Temperley, David. 2011. “The Cadential IV in Rock.” Music Theory Online 17/1.
Tomasacci, David, and Benjamin Williams. 2010. “Distinguishing Predominant and Sub-
dominant Behavior in Functional Analysis.” Paper presented at Confounding
Expectations—Inspiring Minds, University of Calgary Graduate Student Conference,
Calgary, Alberta. williamscomposer.com/research/sub-vs-pre-dominant.pdf.

Tymoczko, Dmitri. 2003. “Function Theories: A Statistical Approach.” Musurgia 10/3–4:

35–64.
———. 2011. “Noneuclidean Perspectives on the Classical Style.” Presentation at the annual
meeting of the Society for Music Theory, Minneapolis, MN.
White, Christopher, and Ian Quinn. 2015. “A Corpus-Based Model of Harmonic Function in
Popular Music.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Music The-
ory, St. Louis, MO.
Zbikowski, Lawrence M. 2002. Conceptualizing Music: Cognitive Structure, Theory, and Analysis.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Drew Nobile is assistant professor of music theory in the University of Oregon’s School of Music
and Dance. He received his PhD in 2014 from the City University of New York’s Graduate Center,
where his dissertation on form and harmony in rock music received the Barry S. Brook Dissertation
Award.

Harmonic Function in Rock Music A Syntac PDF

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Harmonic Function in Rock Music A Syntac PDF

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Journal of Music Theory

Harmonic Function in Rock Music

1 Everett (2008, 139) considers I–IV–I a “prolongation of

Journal of Music Theory 60:2, October 2016

Published by Duke University Press

Published by Duke University Press

Drew Nobile Harmonic Function in Rock Music 151

ogous to grammatical functions such as subject, object, and so on, which

Syntax, category, progression: Three views of harmonic function

Several authors have pointed out the multifarious definitions of harmonic

Published by Duke University Press

152 JOURNAL of MUSIC THEORY

1. Roman numerals within a key 1. Kinship (a chord’s similarity to harmonic

Published by Duke University Press

Drew Nobile Harmonic Function in Rock Music 153

Figure 1. Table 1’s definitions of function grouped into

Published by Duke University Press

154 JOURNAL of MUSIC THEORY

Published by Duke University Press

Drew Nobile Harmonic Function in Rock Music 155

stood as prolongational” (1998, 25). In this case, even a root-position V is

11 Laitz (2016, 353) specifically allows vi to function as pre-

Published by Duke University Press

156 JOURNAL of MUSIC THEORY

Published by Duke University Press

Drew Nobile Harmonic Function in Rock Music 157

Published by Duke University Press

158 JOURNAL of MUSIC THEORY

The functional circuit

A functional circuit is a complete statement of the syntactical functions

19 I say “at most” because many formal units do not con-

Published by Duke University Press

Drew Nobile Harmonic Function in Rock Music 159

all functional circuit is I as tonic, ii as pre-dominant, minor iv as syntactical

Published by Duke University Press

160 JOURNAL of MUSIC THEORY

Example 3.I Pink Floyd,

Published by Duke University Press

Nobile Ex. 4a Drew Nobile Harmonic Function in Rock Music 161

Nobile Ex. 4bBridge

The power of formal and hypermetric positioning is so strong in deter-

21 See Everett 2009, 147–49, for a discussion of retransi-

Published by Duke University Press

162 JOURNAL of MUSIC THEORY

traditional V–I “Take Me to the River”’s

Example 5. The i7–i cadence in the Talking Heads’ version

Published by Duke University Press

Drew Nobile Harmonic Function in Rock Music 163

(a) Nobel Ex. 6a

Published by Duke University Press

164 JOURNAL of MUSIC THEORY

prechorus, and a resolution to tonic at the downbeat of the chorus is the

Tonic and pre-dominant

Published by Duke University Press

Drew Nobile Harmonic Function in Rock Music 165

pre-dominant have related it to chords whose bass note is 4̂ (Leonard Ratner

Published by Duke University Press

166 JOURNAL of MUSIC THEORY

Example 7. The Eagles, “Take It Easy” (1972): V as syntactical predominant and IV as

analyzed with vi rather than IV as the main pre-dominant. Conventional

26 The term srdc is Walter Everett’s and refers to the pop/

Published by Duke University Press

Drew Nobile Harmonic Function in Rock Music 167