Volume 21, Number 1, March 2015

Copyright © 2015 Society for Music Theory

Review of Joe Mulholland and Tom Hojnacki, The Berklee Book

NOTE: The examples for the (text-only) PDF version of this item are available online at:
http://www.mtosmt.org/issues/mto.15.21.1/mto.15.21.1.salley.php

KEYWORDS: jazz theory, jazz pedagogy, chord-scale theory, harmonic function, hypermeter, form

Received January 2015

[1] Jazz theory texts have certainly come a long way since the 1970s and 1980s, when generalities and street talk often took
precedence over serious academic rigor. The textbooks under review here are both robust volumes with much to offer the
educated musician. Joe Mulholland and Tom Hojnacki primarily address jazz harmony—though they cannot avoid touching
upon other fronts—in a way that is at once both conservative and forward-looking. They are the chairs of the Harmony
Department at the Berklee College of Music, and their textbook, The Berklee Book of Jazz Harmony, presents a system that has
been taught there since the 1960s. (1) The scope of Dariusz Terefenko’s Jazz Theory: From Basic to Advanced Study is
considerably broader. It addresses topics that do not always appear in jazz theory texts, such as jazz rhythm, music
fundamentals (a very thorough treatment), and even post-tonal jazz with a primer on pc-set theory.

[2] Both books include digital audio resources. Terefenko provides a play-along DVD and a companion website. (2) The
website is open to everyone, requiring no password and stipulating no window of time for user access. It features ear-training
exercises, recordings of examples, appendices, and an extensive workbook of written exercises. Mulholland and Hojnacki
provide a CD with recordings of original compositions that serve as examples in the text. The Berklee Book would benefit
from including some opportunities for readers’ self-assessment. However, for the present edition such objectives are
somewhat beyond (or peripheral to) the intent of the book, which is simply to introduce Berklee’s harmonic system to new
readers.

[3] Despite their differences, these books do have enough in common to invite comparison. Consider the following passages,
excerpted from relatively early chapters in each, where the authors differentiate jazz from other tonal musics. Mulholland and
Hojnacki do this at the very outset:

One thing that distinguishes mainstream jazz harmony from other tonal styles is the tremendous amount of
harmonic color that arises due to the pervasive use of tertian extensions of the basic chord types. Jazz

1 of 6
 musicians refer to these notes as tensions.
Jazz harmony is also characterized by a strong progressive drive or forward propulsion analogous to the
rhythmic character of the music. (1)

While the authors dedicate most of their energy to explaining jazz’s “tremendous amount of harmonic color,” they pay more
than lip service to the “forward propulsion analogous to the rhythmic character of the music.” In several cases, they even go
so far as to consider how that propulsion works within jazz’s rhythmic framework (a topic addressed in more detail below).

[4] Terefenko makes a comparable statement that summarizes an introduction to tonic, pre-dominant, and dominant
functions:

As will be demonstrated time and time again, functional tonality in jazz has different properties than that of
common-practice classical music. These properties are represented by a unique set of rules dictating the
unfolding of harmonic function, voice-leading conventions, and the overall behavior of chord tones and
chordal extensions. (26)

Shortly thereafter, he makes the following observation about the relationship between harmony and rhythm, which further
aligns his theory of jazz with that of Berklee’s method:

In this early exposition of harmonic progressions, we cannot ignore other important factors that contribute
to the concept of tonality, such as metric placements and duration of chords. (31–32)

[5] Claims that jazz is a different kind of tonal music are hardly profound. However, they are significant simply because jazz
theory texts do not normally make such observations. These authors use similar differentiations to situate their discourses
within spaces that allow critical inquiry from academically informed readers. In doing so, they establish points of departure
for presenting innovative ideas on such topics as harmony and form. This review compares these two texts by addressing
their ideas on these topics. In the harmonic domain, I consider the authors’ views on tonal function and chord-scale theory.
In the domain of form, I explore their comments on both phrase models (and their combinations) and the relationships
between harmony and meter that influence our perception of larger-scale rhythm.

[6] A positive attribute of both texts is that they dedicate a significant amount of space to tonal function. (3) This subject is
particularly relevant to jazz, where function and chord type can have very close yet quirky relationships. And though the
concept of tonal function is not elusive in itself, it is broad enough for different musicians to interpret and explain it
differently. The texts under consideration offer quite dissimilar explanations. To Mulholland and Hojnacki, harmonic
function accounts for “the relationship of a chord to its tonal center” (3). The authors introduce tonic, subdominant, and
dominant functions, noting the primary representatives (I maj7, IV maj7, and V 7) for each. At first, this seems innocuous
enough. However, their explanation of the subdominant function cites the voice-leading tensions that arise when IV maj7
resolves to I maj7 (even contrasting it to a resolution from V 7 to I maj7), rather than addressing the inclination of subdominant
chords to lead to dominant chords. Of course the authors are aware of this tendency, but to them, chordal behavior does not
define harmonic function.

[7] “Functional groups” account for functional roles of other diatonic chords, with iii 7 and vi 7 substituting for tonic, and ii 7
for subdominant. What follows is a discussion of six patterns or “cycles” of root motion (ascending and descending 2nds,
3rds, and 5ths) in which diatonic harmonies pass through the key of C, exhausting all possibilities for diatonic chord
succession. Example 1 shows an ascending “cycle 3,” with harmonic functions shown above the chords. (4) Within each
cycle, the authors discuss functional relationships between pairs of adjacent chords, noting whether progression,
retrogression, prolongation, or resolution occurs, as well as commenting on the musical effects of those connections.

[8] While Mulholland and Hojnacki do not conceptualize function in terms of the common-practice T–(P)–D–T phrase
model, Terefenko does. His hierarchy has more levels as well, with dominant defined in terms of its tendency to resolve to
tonic, and pre-dominant in terms of its tendency to progress from tonic to dominant. Thus, functions are presented in terms
of harmonic behavior, and against a background that acknowledges the tonic’s overall influence. Membership in “functional
families” (roughly analogous to the Berklee method’s “functional groups”) is also based on common tones, but here
Terefenko allows chords whose roots lie a diatonic third above or below a function’s primary representative (I, IV, and V). (5)
As a result, the families overlap so that vi belongs to tonic and predominant families, and—to be consistent, if not
particularly reflective of practice—iii belongs to tonic and dominant families.

2 of 6
[9] Terefenko’s discussion of function probably agrees more with the ways most readers understand its application to tonal
music in general, but rhetorically, his argument is not as easy to defend as the one in The Berklee Book. Mulholland and
Hojnacki introduce each function’s representative chord and describe how active scale degrees within subdominant- and
dominant-functioning chords relate to the tonic. On the other hand, Terefenko’s discussions of function (chapters 3 and 4)
do not address active scale degrees and their voice-leading tendencies. In this way, he provides definitions in the manner of
descriptions of chordal behavior, but offers no explanations of the factors that give rise to harmonic function.

[10] Mulholland and Hojnacki’s chord-scale theory is different from Terefenko’s in that it is initially monotonal, allowing only
diatonic “tensions” (extensions beyond sevenths) on chords. In practice, this results in a more varied range of chord types in
comparison to what one usually encounters in jazz theory texts. For example, some chord-scale theories recognize
equivalence among all minor seventh chords, and introduce a standard or generally accepted array of extensions to sound
over them. But according to The Berklee Book, extensions over iii should differ from those that sound over ii or vi. Moreover,
extensions on secondary dominants should also follow this rule, so that while V/iii and V/ii both have minor seventh target
chords, the former would have altered ninths ( 9 and 9) and the latter would have a natural one.

[11] While The Berklee Book’s diatonic basis is simple in principle, complexities arise from such an enlarged harmonic palette.
Mulholland and Hojnacki consider tensions that appear a half step above a chord’s root, third, fifth, or seventh in a chord
scale as “harmonic avoid tones” that readers should not incorporate into voicings (21). “Avoid tones” are certainly not new
to jazz theory, but here they are defined broadly enough to conflict with any of these four fundamental tones of any chord
type. (6) Almost as soon as the authors introduce the idea, they allow for exceptions such as extended dominants with
lowered ninths or thirteenths, as these extensions would conflict with chord roots and fifths, respectively. However, such
“conflicts” are very common in practice. As a result, the authors abandon their diatonic basis for extensions on dominant
chords within the first chapter and introduce five different optional dominant chord scales—possibly the earliest entrance of
altered dominants in any jazz theory text (33–36). Such an early divergence from the diatonic basis is bewildering, and it is no
more reassuring when the authors return to it in the following chapter to discuss extensions on secondary dominants.

[12] In generating such complexity at such an early stage, The Berklee Book raises the question of whether a simpler system of
selecting harmonic extensions could exist—one, perhaps, that is not based on chord scales. After all, chord-scale theories
typically recognize chords and scales as different manifestations of the same thing, reflecting in some ways the interrelated
properties of dual states in quantum mechanics. (7) But Mulholland and Hojnacki do not need to have it both ways. They do
not use chord scales to recommend appropriate collections in melodic improvisation, but only as a convenient way to
present harmonic extensions. (8) Therefore it would seem easier to cast chord scales aside and set general preference rules,
such as one that recommends raising elevenths on any major chord type unless the third is omitted. This would be simpler
than assigning a scalar array of chord tones that contains a perfect eleventh while proscribing the use of that tone—or, in a
more problematic case, assigning the Phrygian mode to iii 7 while proscribing its characteristic tones, 6 and 9. This problem
comes closest to the surface at the conclusion of a somewhat bulky section on secondary-dominant chord scales. Here, the
authors recognize that extensions need not be scale-based or diatonic, noting that “[s]ubstituting or altering tensions is a
common creative option” (46). In fairness, the authors have not set out to determine the simplest system for selecting
harmonic extensions. They set out to publish a codified system that has been in use for decades—one that undoubtedly has
changed and adapted over time along with jazz harmony itself.

[13] Terefenko’s stance on chord-scale theory differs considerably from that taught at Berklee. He acknowledges jazz’s
diversity of chord types from the start, and makes no attempt to explain harmonic derivation in terms of scales. He groups
four-part chords (consisting of a chord’s root, third, fifth, and either sixth or seventh) according to quality (major, minor,
dominant 7 th, and intermediary), and discusses the functions those qualities can fulfill. Only after imparting this information
does Terefenko situate these chords within scales to illustrate relationships between function and scale degree—but he still
does not use scales to illustrate or generate extensions. Even the following chapter on extended chords discusses unaltered
and altered extensions without recourse to scales. Terefenko’s approach manages to avoid the issue of directly mapping
chords and scales onto each other while still providing a preliminary explanation of jazz harmony that is clear.

[14] When Terefenko finally broaches chord-scale theory in Chapter 8, readers find that the topic occupies a special place in
his pedagogy. In contrast to Berklee’s system, Terefenko does believe in the dual state, claiming that “any melodic line can be
represented by a chord and/or harmonic progression and, conversely, any chord or harmonic progression can be
horizontalized with a melodic line” (93). But beneath the surface, his theory is not as rigid as it might seem. He allows that a
single scale may correspond to more than one chord, and that a single chord may correspond to more than one scale. In this

3 of 6
light, Terefenko’s chord-scale theory is not simply prescriptive. It is also descriptive, providing a metric with which one can
gauge the degree to which the harmony and melody of a passage interact with and complement each other to express a
single and cohesive collection:

The interplay between the melodic line and the underlying harmonies unifies both musical dimensions. Not
only does chord-scale theory control the relationship between lines and chords, but it also suggests a
particular melodic and harmonic vocabulary derived from the structure of specific chords and scales. (94)

This information allows further prescriptive application, too. If a harmonic environment fails to completely express the
character of a chord scale because certain tones of a mode are omitted, a musician who has read Terefenko will know to
incorporate or even feature those tones in melodic improvisation.

[15] Terefenko does not define avoid tones as broadly as Mulholland and Hojnacki do, and he cites only natural elevenths on
major chord types (and, inversely, major thirds on suspended dominants) and major thirteenths on minor seventh
pre-dominant chords. This allows Terefenko to present a number of viable harmonic and melodic options at once for each
chord type, thereby demonstrating the principle behind avoid tones in a way that is not overwhelming. The simplicity of his
stance is perhaps most evident in a later chapter that discusses six-note collections. Here, he inverts the concept by supplying
general aggregates (chromatic repositories of eight or ten usable tones) for each chord type from which readers can create
their own chord scales. (9)

[16] Still, given such a profusion of viable collections, Terefenko advises, “when a chord does not clearly project the sound of
a mode, the corresponding melodic line has to supply the missing notes from the correct scale” (103). This raises two
questions. First, why is the complete expression of a chord scale always necessary in jazz improvisation? Experienced
musicians have heard and played “incomplete” textures, and while these textures can seem sparse, they are hardly
impoverished. Second, if a chord symbol elicits multiple chords and scales, what is the likelihood that a group of musicians
will converge upon the same collection for each given chord symbol throughout a performance? Successful examples of
non-convergence are unquestionably abundant in the recorded repertoire. Unfortunately, Terefenko does not address these
questions in the “Basics” section where they arise, or in later “Intermediate” and “Advanced” sections.

[17] Although Mulholland and Hojnacki do not dedicate specific chapters to either rhythm or form, they refer frequently to
effects created by the placement of harmonies within measures and larger metric groupings. This calls attention to a dynamic
rarely considered in jazz theory. The authors do not use the terms “hypermeasure” or “hyperbeat,” but they touch upon
higher-level accent patterns in the first chapter, asserting that “when the harmonic rhythm is regular but slower than the beat,
the listener will still sense an alternation of strong and weak stresses” (15). Shortly thereafter, they encourage readers to be
sensitive to this phenomenon: “Understanding the expectation of the listener (stable chords on strong stresses, unstable
chords on weak stresses),” they advise, “affords us the opportunity to play with that expectation” (16). Chapter 2 urges
readers to observe how occurrences of dominant-seventh chord types in weak metrical positions “create a sense of strong
forward motion” (40). When the authors address this at a level beyond the measure, they argue that the same effect is
achieved (47). This leads them to claim that secondary dominants are more likely to occur on weak metric and hypermetric
stresses than on strong ones.

[18] This claim is certainly a valuable contribution to jazz theory and analysis, and while there is presently no statistical
evidence (i.e., no corpus analysis) to support it, such information is not necessary in a pedagogical context. To the authors’
credit, they address two notable exceptions. The first, involving V 7/V in phrases that end on V, is shown in Example 2. The
second exception involves tunes that begin on V 7/V before progressing to V, such as Frank Loesser’s “If I Were a Bell” or
George Gershwin’s “But Not for Me.” The second exception is particularly valuable, because it shows a syntactical harmonic
motion that is very common in jazz but rare in other tonal musics. It hardly refutes the authors’ claims about the ways that
harmony affects forward motion; rather, it bolsters the authors’ initial claim about jazz’s distinctive harmonic and rhythmic
character (1). The authors return to this topic in later chapters that discuss modal interchange (124) and modal harmony
(193). Such observations show how the “forward propulsion” of jazz harmony is not merely “analogous” to jazz’s rhythmic
character. More accurately, that propulsion arises from it, through the interaction of harmony and form.

[19] Terefenko’s chapters on form are among the book’s most valuable contributions to jazz theory. Chapter 21 takes as a
point of departure eight-measure sections, which typically manifest a harmonic opening, or “phrase identifier,” a “harmonic
departure” in which virtually any tonicizations or prolongations may occur, and a “cadential confirmation” (see Example 3).
Terefenko parses phrases according to their identifiers. He recognizes thirteen unique phrase models and provides extensive

4 of 6
repertoire lists for each. The purpose of these phrase models is not only to develop readers’ sensitivity to pattern
recognition, thereby increasing their ability to categorize and even memorize tunes; it is also to inculcate a deeper
understanding of both the variety and peculiarity of harmonic progression in standard jazz repertoire. (10) Terefenko enables
readers to synthesize this understanding in three following chapters. Chapters 22 and 23 discuss AABA and ABAC song
forms, qualifying those forms by key relationships among the phrase models that occupy each eight-measure section.
Chapter 24 treats extended and unusual forms. Each chapter provides a detailed analysis of a standard that considers the
interaction of phrase models, melody, larger-scale form, and, quite often, lyrics. This holistic approach illustrates how an
integrated understanding of repertoire can inform a comprehensive performance.

[20] In addressing jazz’s ubiquitous hypermeasure, both texts draw attention to relationships between harmony and form.
Because Terefenko’s phrase models are not specific with respect to harmonic rhythm, each of them is general enough to
account for a variety of actual phrases. For this reason, the repertoire lists are indispensable. On the other hand, Mulholland
and Hojnacki are keen to point out the specific differences that result from the harmonic placement of chords within
measures and hypermeasures. They illustrate these effects in a number of original examples and compositions, but refer to
standard repertoire as well. By integrating these ways of thinking about phrase structure, a dedicated student may acquire an
especially sensitive understanding of form in jazz.

[21] While both texts offer much more than what I have been able to address here, this review has touched upon common
topics that they treat in remarkably different ways. Those differences pertaining to chord-scale theory and form could be due
to the fact that the texts address different audiences. Although improvising accompanists will find value in The Berklee Book,
Mulholland and Hojnacki primarily address the developing composer/arranger who already has a strong background in
traditional tonal and chord-scale theories. Terefenko addresses jazz performers in general across all levels of expertise, with
much of the material in his “Advanced” section appropriate for the professional performing jazz musician with a strong
theoretical bent. Bearing this difference in mind, the reader who wishes to gain a more complete understanding of jazz
theory should definitely acquire both texts.

Keith Salley
Shenandoah Conservatory
Shenandoah University
1460 University Drive
Winchester, VA 22601
[email protected]

Works Cited

Coker, Jerry. 1964. Improvising Jazz. Simon & Schuster, Inc.

Jaffe, Andy. 2009. Jazz Harmony. 3rd ed. Schott Music.

Levine, Mark. 1995. The Jazz Theory Book. Sher Music Co.

Nettles, Barrie. 1987. Jazz Harmony. 3 vols. Berklee College of Music.

Nettles, Barrie and Richard Graf. 2002. The Chord Scale Theory and Jazz Harmony. 2nd ed. Advance Music.

Footnotes

1. For this reason, the book’s content and structure overlap considerably with earlier publications by Barrie Nettles (1987 and
2002), who also taught at Berklee. In general, Mulholland and Hojnacki may be credited with clarifying, extending, and
making more widely available the same approach.
Return to text

2. The DVD has no video content. The companion website is available at http://www.routledgetextbooks.com/textbooks
/9780415537612/default.php.

5 of 6
Return to text

3. Texts such as Coker 1964 and Nettles and Graf 2002 introduce function but do not explain the forces that give rise to
them. A notable exception is a brief passage in Jaffe 2009 (29–31).
Return to text

4. While VII–7 5 contains and , the authors argue that it is not a viable dominant because it does not provide falling-fifth
root motion to tonic.
Return to text

5. Terefenko introduces tonal function in terms of triads rather than seventh chords.
Return to text

6. In contrast, Levine (1995) limits avoid tones over major harmonies to natural elevenths that sound against thirds.
Return to text

7. For example, see Levine, who claims that “the scale and the chord are two forms of the same thing” (1995, 33).
Return to text

8. The authors seem to make an exception to this in Chapter 6, “Blues in Jazz,” where the melodic and harmonic
orientations of chord scales are on relatively equal footing.
Return to text

9. Given the limitations of six-note collections in terms of interval content and cardinality, the single eight-note aggregate
omits 2, 3, and 7 on major-seventh chords.
Return to text

10. An implicit insight is that the varying sizes of the lists reflect the relative distributions of different phrase models across
standard jazz repertoire.
Return to text

Copyright Statement

Copyright © 2015 by the Society for Music Theory. All rights reserved.

[1] Copyrights for individual items published in Music Theory Online (MTO) are held by their authors. Items appearing in MTO
may be saved and stored in electronic or paper form, and may be shared among individuals for purposes of scholarly
research or discussion, but may not be republished in any form, electronic or print, without prior, written permission from
the author(s), and advance notification of the editors of MTO.

[2] Any redistributed form of items published in MTO must include the following information in a form appropriate to the
medium in which the items are to appear:

This item appeared in Music Theory Online in [VOLUME #, ISSUE #] on [DAY/MONTH/YEAR]. It was
authored by [FULL NAME, EMAIL ADDRESS], with whose written permission it is reprinted here.

[3] Libraries may archive issues of MTO in electronic or paper form for public access so long as each issue is stored in its
entirety, and no access fee is charged. Exceptions to these requirements must be approved in writing by the editors of MTO,
who will act in accordance with the decisions of the Society for Music Theory.

This document and all portions thereof are protected by U.S. and international copyright laws. Material contained herein may
be copied and/or distributed for research purposes only.

Prepared by Tahirih Motazedian, Editorial Assistant

6 of 6