[Smt-talk] Progression at all?

[JAY RAHN]

Darryl White wrote:


It's true that this succession of chords doesn't go anywhere but neither do most strings of chords that we routinely call 'progressions.' This example circulates in one place. Most progressions of tonal music do the same thing; the only variable is the length of the cycle. To retain a scale, mode, or key, and a handful of chords coextensive with that is to merely circulate. What's more at issue is whether a cadence is ever reached.


Also, Jay Rahn made me wonder if we have examples of pop songs in which this progression begins on IV or V. One advantage to both these options is that the progression would end on vi or I.
-------------
Another approach to the Am-F-C-G and C-G-Am-F successions would focus on their harmonic rhythm and the parts of the diatonic collection they unfold. 

F in Am-F introduces the E-F semitone; G in C-G introduces the B-C semitone.
In the Am-F-C-G succession, G introduces the F-B tritone; in the C-G-Am-F succession, F introduces the F-B tritone. I.e., in both successions, the 'last' chord introduces the tritone.

In both successions, the first and third chords are part of the 'usual pentatonic' CDEGA.

Arguably, then, relative simplicity between the first and third chords, and increasing complexity at the second chord and (especially) at the fourth chord.

Starting at F or G would result in much the same pattern except that the tritone would appear at the first chord of the second pair of chords rather than at the end of the succession. Elaborating somewhat on Darryl White's observation, 'cadences' would occur at the end of the F-C and G-Am pairs.

In contrast, starting at Am or C results in 'cadences to' the beginning of the next pair and to the cycle as a whole. In this respect, cycles that begin at Am or C are  continuous rather than segmented, both within and between their repetitions.   

Jay Rahn, York University

On Friday, May 2, 2014 12:15:44 PM, Darryl White <darryl.musico at gmail.com> wrote:
 
Conor Cook 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.
>____________
> 
>
>It's true that this succession of chords doesn't go anywhere but neither do most strings of chords that we routinely call 'progressions.' This example circulates in one place. Most progressions of tonal music do the same thing; the only variable is the length of the cycle. To retain a scale, mode, or key, and a handful of chords coextensive with that is to merely circulate. What's more at issue is whether a cadence is ever reached.
>
>
>Also, Jay Rahn made me wonder if we have examples of pop songs in which this progression begins on IV or V. One advantage to both these options is that the progression would end on vi or I.
>
>
>
>
>
>-- 
>Darryl White
>University of Arizona
>School of Music
>
>_______________________________________________
>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/20140503/9875577f/attachment-0003.htm>