[Smt-talk] I - II- IV as a progression (counterpoint)

[Richard Porterfield]

Dear List, 
Yesterday, regarding Alexander Reed’s question about what he perfectly reasonably styled “I-II-IV-V,” I wrote: "Although Roman numerals provide a useful shorthand here, in the end what you’re describing are not harmonic functions but motions of counterpoint."
Dmitri in private, Nicolas more publicly, and now John somewhat obliquely, have raised questions about one or another part of that statement. Let me clarify. 
By ‘harmonic function’ I mean a function driving a harmonic progression, such as I-II-V in the music of Mozart. In that context “II” does not mean only a chord with ^^2,4, and 6 in it, but the projection of II’s specific harmonic function: preparing the V-function that follows. That’s what the Roman numerals have been for, historically, not only identifying scale-steps but also their function in a tonal context. 
Of course “I-II-IV-I” is more economical than my “bass ^^1-2-4-1 supporting 5/3 chords of major quality (with or without an added minor 7th),” as I acknowledged. And some on the list may find it more convenient to describe with Roman numerals the kinds of progressions I see as contrapuntal and for which I generally prefer figured bass. 
But partly because of that history we often find chord successions of rock and Renaissance music such as “I-II-IV-I” and “V-IV-I” described as “regressive” or “not following the rules.” By turning our attention to counterpoint I believe we are able instead to describe in terms that are more positive (not saying what the music doesn’t do but what it does) how the bassline acts in relation to the solo voice of a rock song, for example. And not just Thing 1 followed by Thing 2, but a coherent musical utterance. 
Which brings me to John Covach’s question. By ‘counterpoint’ I intend the combination of melodic lines. I don’t mean reading Fux, necessarily. A country singer improvising a descant is engaging in counterpoint. Counterpoint, like grammar, is something we pick up more or less naturally as we sing and play music, although we can study it more systematically in school as well. So your strummer, as long as she’s just strumming a succession of convenient chords, is doing just that. But when she sings a melody that goes well with that succession and turns it into a convincing progression, then she’s making music, isn’t she? 
 
Richard Porterfield 
Instructor, Mannes College
Ph.D. Candidate in Music Theory, CUNY GC
porterfr at hotmail.com

 
> From: jcovach at mail.rochester.edu
> To: smt-talk at societymusictheory.org
> Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 10:07:08 -0400
> Subject: Re: [Smt-talk] I - II- IV as a progression (counterpoint)
> 
> I realize that counterpoint/voiceleading was raised in the context of classical
> music examples, and this is appropriate and in keeping with traditional
> approaches, given the importance of attending to such matters in that repertory
> (this is an informal and oversimplifying formulation, I know, but please stick
> with me).
> 
> But in styles where counterpoint and voiceleading are not central features, are
> they still operative, and/or should they still be operative, in defining the
> musical structures that emerge? Or to put a little less abstractly: if somebody
> is strumming away on the guitar, playing a chord sequence using the conventional
> voicings and with no regard to traditional voiceleading--or at least, no
> *conscious* regard--is it helpful to account for the resultant music in terms
> strongly directed by voiceleading or contrapuntal concerns and practices? Or
> (and I hope I'm not leading the witness here) does appealing to counterpoint
> risk reading the practices of one musical style onto the other, overdetermining
> and perhaps distorting our interpretation of the strummy guitar progression?
> 
> Reading this over again, this looks like a PhD prelim question. Sorry about
> that!
> 
> John Covach
> Professor of Music and Chair, Music Department, University of Rochester
> Professor of Theory, Eastman School of Music
> _______________________________________________
> Smt-talk mailing list
> Smt-talk at societymusictheory.org
> http://lists.societymusictheory.org/listinfo.cgi/smt-talk-societymusictheory.org

_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail® is up to 70% faster. Now good news travels really fast. 
http://windowslive.com/online/hotmail?ocid=PID23391::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HYGN_faster:082009
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.societymusictheory.org/pipermail/smt-talk-societymusictheory.org/attachments/20090903/14545b02/attachment-0004.htm>