[Smt-talk] I - II- IV as a progression: classical precedents

[Dmitri Tymoczko]

On Sep 2, 2009, at 3:14 PM, Richard Porterfield wrote:

> You ask about classical precedents for the progression I-II-IV-I  
> characteristic of 1960s rock. Although Roman numerals provide a  
> useful shorthand here, in the end what you’re describing are not  
> harmonic functions but motions of counterpoint.
>
Just a brief comment about the implication that we can confidently  
assert that particular chords are "not harmonic functions but motions  
of counterpoint."  There's a (by now old-fashioned) view chords are  
either purely contrapuntal or purely harmonic -- some have even  
suggested we can go through musical scores and make a clean  
distinction between "genuine harmonies" and "merely contrapuntal"  
chords.

This seems to me to represent a drastic simplification of a much more  
interesting situation.

It seems to me that music is almost always operating on both the  
harmonic and contrapuntal levels.  The guitar-based chords in the  
Beatles and Donovan might seem "purely harmonic" but there's some  
counterpoint in there -- such as the 5-#4-4-3 line that we've been  
discussing.  The music of Byrd might seem fundamentally contrapuntal,  
but there's very good reason to think that triads played a genuinely  
harmonic role.  That we can find similarities between these styles,  
separated by hundreds of years, is an amazing fact, testimony to the  
power of some very widespread and basic techniques of musical  
organization.

I would just urge everyone to try to remain open to the marvelous two- 
dimensional coherence of Western music, which so often makes sense  
both vertically (or harmonically) and horizontally (or melodically).

DT

PS. I also think we should reject the idea that RN analysis only makes  
sense in the context of traditionally tonal music.  All that is  
required is that (1) the music has a tonal center; (2) it uses tertian  
harmonies; and (3) it repeatedly uses recurring harmonic patterns.  In  
a mixolydian mode rock piece I can say "this piece uses the I-VII-IV-I  
progression."  Or even: "I-VII-IV-I is a cliche of rock mixolydian  
harmony."  There need be no implication about V or about tonal  
functionality or about anything of the sort.  The point of RN analysis  
is to give us a language for discussing chord progressions that is  
invariant under transposition.

PPS. I don't mean to pick on Richard here, whose posts I admire, and  
who did great work in digging up the progression in Byrd.

Dmitri Tymoczko
Associate Professor of Music
310 Woolworth Center
Princeton, NJ 08544-1007
(609) 258-4255 (ph), (609) 258-6793 (fax)
http://music.princeton.edu/~dmitri