[Smt-talk] I-V-vi-IV

[Ildar Khannanov]

Dear Daniel and the list,

thank you for an interesting link. I would enjoy reading this paper if it is published. So, Drew distinguishes the function as label from function as syntactic unit, which opens the perspective for semantics and poetics, etc. Very interesting move. Indeed, that IV chord at the end of the progression that we discuss is something else. It is not just IV, it functions differently.

Perhaps, in classical repertory, the label and syntax overlapped and coincided, so that they have become inseparable or/and stereotypical. Late Romantic and other styles (as well as early Baroque) offer cases where function is not defined by the Roman Numeral label. There are functions that we cannot label because we do not have enough terms. Excellent!

Best wishes,

Ildar Khannanov
Peabody Institute, Johns Hopkins University
solfeggio7 at yahoo.com
On Wednesday, April 30, 2014 2:35 PM, "Arthurs, Daniel" <Daniel.Arthurs at unt.edu> wrote:
  
>>Of course, the semantics of this progression can also be interesting. 
  
To that end, I might draw the list’s attention to Drew Nobile’s recent paper at MTSNYS 2014, “Towards a Syntactical Definition of Harmonic Function in Rock and Other Repertoires.” While I have not seen the paper myself, in the published abstract it appears to tussle with the distinction between syntactic and semantic definitions in order to clarify the logic of phrase structure in popular music (with apologies to Drew for any oversimplification). 
  
http://www.ithaca.edu/music/mtsnys/2014mtg/abstracts/popular.html#nobile 
  
Danny 
  
  
  
Daniel J. Arthurs, Ph.D. 
College of Music  
University of North Texas 
1155 Union Circle #311367  
Denton, TX 76203  
  
From:smt-talk-bounces at lists.societymusictheory.org [mailto:smt-talk-bounces at lists.societymusictheory.org] On Behalf Of Ildar Khannanov
Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2014 6:15 PM
To: Mark Yeary; smt-talk at lists.societymusictheory.org
Subject: Re: [Smt-talk] I-V-vi-IV   
  
Dear Mark and the list,  
   
excellent analysis and explication. Of course, the semantics of this progression can also be interesting.  
   
Best,  
   
Ildar Khannanov  
Peabody Conservatory, Johns Hopkins University  
solfeggio7 at yahoo.com  
On Tuesday, April 29, 2014 5:45 PM, Mark Yeary <mark+smt at yeary.net> wrote:  
I've been thinking about this for a while—not the label, which is crude, but the harmonic progression. Here are three ways that we might regard I-V-vi-IV, with an eye and ear toward appropriate nomenclature.

One: the phrase model. The harmonic "work" in this progression happens in the plagal direction, and I suggest that we may understand it as an instance of a *plagal phrase model*. This is most readily revealed when comparing it with an authentic phrase model
 such as I-vi-IV-V: whereas pre-dominant chords set up the D-T motion that marks a new hypermeasure, I-V-vi-IV uses the dominant to set up a S-T motion. In both forms, the vi harmony is a bridge or extension, and in both it may be removed—but often it's kept
 in popular music as a way to establish four-bar hypermeter. (Yes, I know, vi as "deceptive cadence" and all that, but this hearing prioritizes an authentic model that does not fit with the plagal harmonic syntax found in much popular music.)

Two: support for melodic motion. The plagal phrase model permits an "early" arrival on ^1 over a non-tonic harmony, and herein lies the difference: the authentic phrase often sustains a tonic degree before setting up a stepwise melodic motion to ^1 or ^3, whereas
 in the plagal phrase, ^2-1 happens in the middle, and the return to tonic harmony is done without stepwise motion to ^1 or ^3. From here, it's easy to set up a dualist system of authentic and plagal phrase models in melody and harmony.

(Note that if vi is turned into a tonic, forming in the common minor variant of this progression, then the model is authentic—tonic, VI as bridge, III as tonic extension, VII as dominant—and therefore would support different melodic motion. If there's *anything*
 to be said about affect in these progressions, let's at least consider the melodies—you know, the things that these "sensitive" musicians typically sing over these harmonies—and how the alignment of tonic scale-degrees and tonic harmony might be interpreted
 semiotically.)

Three: the vehicle in which the progression is introduced. Although I think the phrase model approach is potentially productive, it won't stick, because names are easier to remember; this was illustrated for me by Philip Tagg, who offered the name "James Bond
 chord" as a more catchy—and less opaque—label for a minor triad with major 7 and 9 extensions.

We've got a name for the authentic phrase model; it's the "Heart and Soul" progression, named after the Hoagy Carmichael tune. (Yes, Carmichael's tune actually uses a ii chord instead of IV, but the version learned by many beginning pianists uses ^4 in the
 bass.) I'll defer to Chris Doll's forthcoming book for a closer look at the history of this progression; "Journey" is a good start, but "Any Way You Want It" is more syllables than "one-five-six-four," so its utility is limited.

Of course, the three-chord plagal progression, with submediant absent—I, V, IV—is certain to have an equally juicy history. Personally, I consider The Who's "Baba O'Riley" to be the definitive statement of this progression; its chords harmonize a ^3-2-1 melody
 with arrival on ^1 on a weaker measure, and it's a wonderful example of how the bogeyman of parallel fifths need not haunt us in the modern era.

Regards,
Mark

--
Mark Yeary, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Music Theory
School of Music, University of Louisville 


_______________________________________________
Smt-talk mailing list
Smt-talk at lists.societymusictheory.org
http://lists.societymusictheory.org/listinfo.cgi/smt-talk-societymusictheory.org  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.societymusictheory.org/pipermail/smt-talk-societymusictheory.org/attachments/20140430/cd9c7e22/attachment-0003.htm>