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

[Adam Krims]

I think that John Covach's point makes eminent sense. Popular-music composition has never been a single practice nor even a set of disparate practices with written treatises and institutions like conservatories to shape its fashioning; it would thus be logical if some influences from things like common-practice harmony and counterpoint would be determinant in some cases (e.g., "Fly Me to the Moon"), while in other cases, things like guitar strumming, riffs, and so on, would be more determinant of how a song operates. Of course, it is not always our job as theorists to determine the compositional basis of a song or piece, but I think that keeping in mind the very different conditions under which rock and pop composition come about will help us to understand the rather open-ended approach that we sometimes need to take. 
 
Of course, there are many songs in which we can quite clearly perceive two (or more) lines of directed melody interacting with each other, under the constraints of triadic consonance and dissonance (these last two things sometimes being stylistically determined and not always the same as in common-practice composition); when we do, I have no problem calling that a kind of counterpoint, provided that we keep in mind how it might be modified by the constraints of the style that we are examining. But this may not always be the case. 
 
Adam Krims
Professor of Music Analysis
University of Nottingham

________________________________

From: smt-talk-bounces at societymusictheory.org on behalf of jcovach
Sent: Fri 04/09/2009 03:53
To: smt-talk smt
Subject: Re: [Smt-talk] I - II- IV as a progression (counterpoint)



I received a lot of responses to my post earlier today, some here on the list
and many others privately.  While I was indeed attempting to stir the pot a bit,
I should clarify that I do in fact think there are times when
counterpoint/voiceleading plays a central role in pop music.  Many years ago I
argued often and fiercely against those calling for an entirely new system of
analysis for pop music--one not based in "Beethovenian" practice (name the quote
if you can).  I still stand by those arguments.

And though it's been said many times many ways, I still think we tend to hear
what we're looking for if we're not careful.  Voiceleading is a kind of aural
streaming, and mapping the parts is made easier in traditional tonal music by
the presence of a score, and by a practice of attending to such things in the
proper writing of parts.  It's a central goal of the guild skills--which we
still teach--to get our students to hear this, very often when it's not so
obvious to them.

When the voiceleading is clear, things seem pretty settled.  But when it's not,
it then becomes a question of which model best captures the instance at hand.
This seems like something most theorists agree about as a kind of basic
condition of our discourse, especially when we're talking about common-practice
music.  But if the model being posited normalizes the music from one style and
practice into an instance of another style and practice, there is good reason
for us to be skeptical, even if our skepticism later proves unfounded.
Sometimes, such a cross-stylistic normalization works just fine and is quite
revealing.

Dahlhaus once said something like "to understand Schoenberg too quickly is to
run the risk of misunderstanding him completely."  I'd adapt that by saying to
understand pop harmony too quickly is to risk misunderstanding it.  It's because
these progressions can look so similar that we may be tempted to look past the
things that set them apart, and perhaps miss something crucial in the process.
I'm not, by the way, saying anybody here has understood anything too quickly or
anything like that; I'm really only trying to make a broader point.  I'm usually
most suspicious when a passage in pop music seems to be working "just like
classical music."  But that could be a symptom of GDS--Gadamer Derangement
Syndrome!

Thanks for the many thoughtful remarks!!  jc


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



This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an attachment
may still contain software viruses, which could damage your computer system:
you are advised to perform your own checks. Email communications with the
University of Nottingham may be monitored as permitted by UK legislation.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.societymusictheory.org/pipermail/smt-talk-societymusictheory.org/attachments/20090904/82e79ea8/attachment-0004.htm>