Do we still need harmony? personal reflections on the crisis of contemporary studies of music harmony

Abstract

Recent trends indicate that the research-based study of music is receiving decreasing support at universities with music programs. More specifically, we are increasingly hearing reports of the closure of such academic departments. When we narrow our focus to the field of music theory, the picture becomes even more discouraging. Globally, relatively few specialized university departments and institutes are dedicated to this area. At the same time, while the humanities more broadly are facing a certain degree of disregard, studies on music harmony are experiencing their own crisis of meaning, which is not of recent origin. The transformation of its referential language, already about a century ago, caused harmony to lose its status as a "necessary craft foundation" for composers. Today, it is primarily used as a tool for analyzing classical music, and, though to a lesser extent, popular genres. Particularly concerning is the fact that such responsibilities are increasingly being assigned to inadequately trained personnel whose competence in harmony is, at the very least, questionable. However, with the emergence of more recent methodologies – such as Schenkerian analysis, neo-Riemannian theory, and others–the question arises: Do we still need harmony? Are we approaching a time when it will be entirely sufficient to feed any composition into a computer system, which, using artificial intelligence, will provide all the necessary answers about a given piece? Has that time, perhaps, already arrived, rendering any form of human analysis obsolete?This paper aims to offer several possible answers to this question, ranging from a nihilistic stance ("harmony is definitely no longer needed") to a call for a return to the roots (i.e., the renewed practice of methods conventionally regarded as outdated), to the possibility that the truth lies somewhere in between.