[Smt-talk] First Species Question

[Donna Doyle]

This point is well-taken, that "we can see composers becoming  
increasingly aware of the harmonic dimension."
But why have we created a chords-as-objects vs chords-as-byproducts-of  
melodic-motion dichotomy? I think
Mark Anson-Cartwright's passage exemplifies a both/and solution: Bach  
give us a perfect balance between
the contrapuntal and the harmonic. Unfortunately, not all composers  
after him walked that balance beam.
And this is a reason why many young jazz composers come to me for  
private counterpoint lessons--they've
learned all there is about jazz harmony and now crave the skill to  
negotiate the voices that jazz traditionally
leaves up to improv.


Donna Doyle

Aaron Copland School of Music
Queens College
65-30 Kissena Blvd.
Flushing, NY  11367
______________________

On Jul 13, 2010, at 9:17 AM, Dmitri Tymoczko wrote:

> Let me say one more thing about the Josquin example I passed on.
>
> Many people have suggested (both publicly and privately) that the F  
> is an accented passing tone, and indeed the context seems to support  
> that reading.  However, it is worth pointing out that theorists  
> often prohibit parallel fifths, even when one of the notes is a  
> passing tone.  That is, in Renaissance counterpoint, (C4, G4)->(Bb3,  
> F4)->(A3, F4) is often illegal, even though the Bb can be described  
> as a passing tone.  (My sense is that the underlying progression is  
> pretty rare in the Renaissance.)
>
> One issue here is whether it makes sense, in a Renaissance context,  
> to speak of a "dissonant perfect fifth."  Or for that matter, a  
> "nonstructural perfect fifth."  Perhaps it is more accurate to say  
> we have two consecutive perfect fifths, which are by definition  
> consonant.
>
> The issues are subtle, and it's worth treading carefully; there are  
> a variety of ways of understanding the passage. I myself favor an  
> explanation that says: the passage is totally fine because the  
> voices do not move in parallel; for Josquin, perhaps, the  
> prohibition on parallel fifths was a prohibition on a certain kind  
> of motion (voices actually moving in parallel), and not on a certain  
> kind of harmonic state (two fifths in succession).
>
> Why do I care about this?
>
> I am interested in the thought that the conception of "forbidden  
> parallels" evolved over time.  I like the idea that earlier  
> composers were more focused on a specific type of motion, while  
> later composers were more focused on a general harmonic situation.   
> It helps explain phenomena that I've noticed before -- for instance,  
> that Palestrina and Lassus will permit parallel-ish things that  
> later composers generally avoid, or that Bach will sometimes get out  
> of parallels in a cheap way, as if reverting to the older conception  
> in a pinch.
>
> What particularly interests me here is the thought that it's another  
> way in which we can see composers becoming increasingly aware of the  
> harmonic dimension of music; usually, we understand this as a matter  
> of becoming more aware of chords and how they move.  (That is, the  
> growing tendency to think of chords as objects that progress in  
> certain specific ways, rather than being byproducts of melodic  
> motion.)  But it's interesting to see a similar phenomenon occurring  
> in the treatment of antiparallel and contrary-motion fifths.  Here  
> the harmonic perspective leads to an increased sensitivity to these  
> pseudo-parallels.
>
> Pedagogically, this leads to differences of opinion between  
> theorists like Schenker (who reject antiparallel fifths, and to that  
> extent are more "harmonic" in their approach) and Lewin (who, as Ed  
> Gollin reminded me, permitted antiparallels, and to that extent is  
> more "linear").
>
> 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/20100714/b68c937b/attachment-0004.htm>