[Smt-talk] I - II- IV as a progression

[Richard Hermann]

Dear Smt-Listerians,

Harmony as practiced in many sophisticated pieces in whole or at  
least in significant part is so much more complex than any harmonic  
theory I have read (German, French, Russian, English, Italian if you  
count fig bass). It is so much so that I have come to believe that  
harmonic theories tend to describe and to an extent formalize  
counterpoint's cliches. Whether or not we take all that Schenker has  
given us at face value (or try to extend in ways and into repertoires  
that appear to be contradictory to his thought), we still need  
counterpoint and harmonic interpretation at the risk of being  
constrained to cliches and their formalizations. Kirnberger pointed  
to a fruitful path. Neither counterpoint nor harmony appear to me to  
be monolithic when applied to various repertoires of interest. It  
seems better to add more well thought out tools to the toolbox and  
think about how, when, and which tools to use.

Best,

Richard Hermann, Prof. of Music
University of New Mexico




On Sep 4, 2009, at 7:27 AM, Ildar Khannanov wrote:

> Dear Colleagues,
>
> it is so nice to discover some 30 messages in one's mailbox after a  
> sweet trip to Russia and UK!
>
>
> I wonder, when the spell of Church of  Heinrich will fall and we  
> will return to modest study of HARMONY and will stop substituting  
> it with voice-leaing, counterpoint, and other tricky alterntives to  
> real  music history.. Everybody of any importance in music has been  
> studying HARMONY, and not voice leading (which is nothing but a  
> hole from the bagel) . This tradition, time and enegry consuming,  
> serious, and life-long, has been replaced after the two World Wars  
> by some kind of educated quessing. Please, return harmony into our  
> discussions!
>
>
> Best,
>
> Ildar Khannanov
> Peabody Conservatory
> solfeggio7 at yahoo.com
>
> --- On Thu, 9/3/09, Nicolas Meeùs <nicolas.meeus at paris-sorbonne.fr>  
> wrote:
>
> From: Nicolas Meeùs <nicolas.meeus at paris-sorbonne.fr>
> Subject: Re: [Smt-talk] I - II- IV as a progression
> To: gzar at mail2.gis.net
> Cc: smt-talk at societymusictheory.org
> Date: Thursday, September 3, 2009, 4:04 AM
>
> A few additional considerations:
>
> 1. In the diatonic system, if two roots are distant by a 3rd, the  
> higher chord must be major and the lower minor if the 3d itself is  
> minor (e.g. IV-ii of ii-IV), the reverse if the 3d is major (e.g.  
> vi-IV or IV-vi). These are the well-known R and L neo-Riemannian.
> 1a. Diatonic relations can be described in a series of the  
> type ...E-c#-A-f-D-b-G-e-C-a-F-d-Bb-g... which goes flatwards from  
> left to right, sharpwards from right to left; flatwards is the  
> 'normal' direction in tonal music.
>
> 2. Schoenberg, who described the falling-3rd and falling-5th  
> progressions as "strong", also dubbed them "ascending" because in  
> both cases the root of the first chord 'climbs' the harmonic series  
> of the second (from harmonic 4 to harmonic 5 in the case of the  
> 3rd, from 2 to 3 in that of the 5th). This corresponds to Gerald  
> Zaritzky's description, but seems to me rather metaphoric.
>
> 3. More important is that the falling-3rd and falling-5th  
> progressions authorize a normal preparation and resolution of  
> dissonances (especially of 7th chords). In the case of the falling  
> 3rd, the 5th of the first chord prepares the 7th of the second,  
> while the 7th of the first resolves on the prime of the second. In  
> the case of the falling 5th, the preparation and resolution occur a  
> 3rd lower.
> 3a. It is true that II-IV allows a 7th on II, as Richard  
> Porterfield describes, but the 7th in that case does not resolve  
> 'normally'.
>
> Interesting points about the II-IV progression are that:
> 1. It obviously is not diatonic.
> 2. It goes flatwards, but following an abnormal path (the neo- 
> Riemannian relation is RLRLRL flatwards).
> 3. It does not allow a 'normal' preparation and/or resolution of  
> dissonances. This is characteristic of what often is dubbed 'modal'  
> harmony.
> 4. It necessarily includes a false relation of tritone between the  
> 3 of II and the 5 of IV, in addition to the chromatic relation  
> between 3 of II and 1 of IV.
>
> Let me add, again in comment to Richard Porterfield's message, that  
> roman numerals, if read properly, also can form a shorthand for the  
> voice leading.
>
> Nicolas Meeùs
> Université de Paris Sorbonne
> École doctorale "Concepts et Langages"
> Centre de recherche "Patrimoines et Langages Musicaux"
> http://www.plm.paris-sorbonne.fr
> nicolas.meeus at paris-sorbonne.fr
>
>
>
> gzar at mail2.gis.net a écrit :
> > 1. I've always been impressed by the long-standing observation  
> that a rooted falling-3rd diatonic progression is "stronger" than a  
> rising-3rd one because each new root (especially when in the bass)  
> is "fresh" to the preceding chord tones. (It's the same for falling  
> vs rising 5ths, of course.) Also, the root of the first chord is  
> "promoted" to a more-active member, in the next chord.
> > [...]
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Smt-talk mailing list
> Smt-talk at societymusictheory.org
> http://lists.societymusictheory.org/listinfo.cgi/smt-talk- 
> societymusictheory.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> Smt-talk mailing list
> Smt-talk at 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/20090904/4230023b/attachment-0004.htm>