[Smt-talk] (no subject)

[Richard Hermann]

Dear Folks,

We can define voice-leading as Dmitri suggests and thereby gain  
precision, but at the risk in reducing perhaps inherent complexity of  
voice-leading in sophisticated tonal pieces to a simplicity that  
belies the musical situation as many of us experience it intuitively  
and even theoretically. Do we want rich music with messy theory or  
simple music with precise theory? We will take our error somewhere.  
Where do we want it?
Best,

Richard Hermann, Prof. of Music
University of New Mexico




On Sep 4, 2009, at 9:49 AM, Dmitri Tymoczko wrote:

> On Sep 4, 2009, at 10:22 AM, Bryan Parkhurst wrote:
>
>> One thing that would illuminate this discussion of voice-leading  
>> and it's pertinence to the analysis of popular music is a (more)  
>> rigorous definition of voice-leading.
>
> Formally defining "voice leading" is not so difficult.
>
> Intuitively, a voice leading is a way of mapping the notes of one  
> chord to those of another.  Voice leadings, as I understand them,  
> can be identified with phrases such as "move C major to F major by  
> holding C constant, shifting E up by semitone to F, and G up by two  
> semitones to A."  I've written a number of papers dealing with this  
> issue.  See, for example, "Scale Theory, Serial Theory, and Voice  
> Leading" Music Analysis 27.1: 1-49.
>
> The complications arise from the fact that voice leadings can be:
>
> 	1. Explicitly present in the scores, as articulated by polyphonic  
> voices.
> 	2. Less explicitly present, as in a series of homophonic piano  
> chords in which individual voices are not notated.
> 	3. Imposed upon a relatively neutral stimulus by the listener --  
> for instance when we hear a particular melodic connections in a  
> series of chords played in Shepard tones.
> 	4. Imposed upon a recalcitrant stimulus by the listener -- as when  
> we take a piece of polyphonic music, and assert the presence of a  
> voice leading that is different from the one implied by the voices.
>
> So I would say that any ambiguities here arise not so much from  
> disagreements about what voice leading is as from disagreements  
> about how to go about identifying voice leadings in particular  
> pieces.  There's probably no one right answer here -- for different  
> purposes, different approaches are appropriate.
>
>> Indeed, I rather doubt that we are all talking about the same  
>> thing.  In the last batch of messages I received, these  
>> characterizations of voice-leading appeared:  "A kind of aural  
>> streaming" (Covach), something "whose tokens are taken as objects  
>> of aural experience" (Fitzgibbon), a "system of principles and  
>> parameters" (Wolf, quoting Seeger), and something identical with  
>> "the combination of melodic lines" (Porterfield, describing  
>> counterpoint).  Pretty bewildering.
>
> Maybe it's not so complicated after all.
>
> The reference to aural streaming arises when we identify voice  
> leadings by ear, as in #2-4 above.  Ditto for "tokens of auditory  
> experience."  The "principles and parameters" refer to style- 
> specific conventions for articulating mappings between successive  
> chords (and largely applies to #1 above) -- in some styles, for  
> example, parallel octaves are OK, while in others they're not.   
> "Combination of melodic lines" refers to this as well.
>
> DT
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20090904/61e550e8/attachment-0004.htm>