[Smt-talk] Progression at all?

[JAY RAHN]

Conor Cook's observation corresponds to my first reaction to the initial posting. More precisely, since the pulsatile 'progression' of 4 chords is recognized as cycling rhythmically (i.e., looping) and 'beginning' at only 2 of 4 possible points, why just these 2? (My use of 'why' here is not meant to convey causality: instead, Leonard Meyer's notion that explanation involves specifying what is happening.)

Also, is there any viable alternative to letter-name chord symbols or Roman numerals to describe such chord successions? I's, vi's, etc. connote tonal orientations that may or may not be appropriate, and C's, Am's, etc. don't directly illuminate relationships between and among particular chords.     

Jay Rahn, York University
On Thursday, May 1, 2014 8:09:45 PM, Conor Cook <conor.p.cook at gmail.com> wrote:
 
I think that thinking about our [VI-IV-{I-V]-VI-IV} entity might be ill-served by talking of it as a progression at all, at least in its repetitive form.  Is it not a chaconne or passacaglia?  Though I know that these forms are made up of what we often term a "progression," it hardly progresses anywhere.  It is the repetition that makes is fascinating, with its interlocking extremes (witness the possibility of starting at two different points).  While we do need to address the harmonic motion, let's not forget that this is an old form, used to great effect.
>
>Best,
>
>Conor Cook
>UMN
>_______________________________________________
>Smt-talk mailing list
>Smt-talk at lists.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/20140502/0e6df944/attachment-0003.htm>