<HTML dir=ltr><HEAD><TITLE>Re: [Smt-talk] I - II- IV as a progression (counterpoint)</TITLE>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=unicode">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6001.18294" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV id=idOWAReplyText91151 dir=ltr>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>I think that John Covach's point makes eminent sense. Popular-music composition has never been a single practice nor even a set of disparate practices with written treatises and institutions like conservatories to shape its fashioning; it would thus be logical if some influences from things like common-practice harmony and counterpoint would be determinant in some cases (e.g., "Fly Me to the Moon"), while in other cases, things like guitar strumming, riffs, and so on, would be more determinant of how a song operates. Of course, it is not always our job as theorists to determine the compositional basis of a song or piece, but I think that keeping in mind the very different conditions under which rock and pop composition come about will help us to understand the rather open-ended approach that we sometimes need to take. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2>Of course, there are many songs in which we can quite clearly perceive two (or more) lines of directed melody interacting with each other, under the constraints of triadic consonance and dissonance (these last two things sometimes being stylistically determined and not always the same as in common-practice composition); when we do, I have no problem calling that a kind of counterpoint, provided that we keep in mind how it might be modified by the constraints of the style that we are examining. But this may not always be the case. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial color=#000000 size=2></FONT> </DIV></DIV>
<DIV id=idSignature25174 dir=ltr><PRE>Adam Krims
Professor of Music Analysis
University of Nottingham</PRE></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><BR>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT face=Tahoma size=2><B>From:</B> smt-talk-bounces@societymusictheory.org on behalf of jcovach<BR><B>Sent:</B> Fri 04/09/2009 03:53<BR><B>To:</B> smt-talk smt<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Smt-talk] I - II- IV as a progression (counterpoint)<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV>
<P><FONT size=2>I received a lot of responses to my post earlier today, some here on the list<BR>and many others privately. While I was indeed attempting to stir the pot a bit,<BR>I should clarify that I do in fact think there are times when<BR>counterpoint/voiceleading plays a central role in pop music. Many years ago I<BR>argued often and fiercely against those calling for an entirely new system of<BR>analysis for pop music--one not based in "Beethovenian" practice (name the quote<BR>if you can). I still stand by those arguments.<BR><BR>And though it's been said many times many ways, I still think we tend to hear<BR>what we're looking for if we're not careful. Voiceleading is a kind of aural<BR>streaming, and mapping the parts is made easier in traditional tonal music by<BR>the presence of a score, and by a practice of attending to such things in the<BR>proper writing of parts. It's a central goal of the guild skills--which we<BR>still teach--to get our students to hear this, very often when it's not so<BR>obvious to them.<BR><BR>When the voiceleading is clear, things seem pretty settled. But when it's not,<BR>it then becomes a question of which model best captures the instance at hand.<BR>This seems like something most theorists agree about as a kind of basic<BR>condition of our discourse, especially when we're talking about common-practice<BR>music. But if the model being posited normalizes the music from one style and<BR>practice into an instance of another style and practice, there is good reason<BR>for us to be skeptical, even if our skepticism later proves unfounded.<BR>Sometimes, such a cross-stylistic normalization works just fine and is quite<BR>revealing.<BR><BR>Dahlhaus once said something like "to understand Schoenberg too quickly is to<BR>run the risk of misunderstanding him completely." I'd adapt that by saying to<BR>understand pop harmony too quickly is to risk misunderstanding it. It's because<BR>these progressions can look so similar that we may be tempted to look past the<BR>things that set them apart, and perhaps miss something crucial in the process.<BR>I'm not, by the way, saying anybody here has understood anything too quickly or<BR>anything like that; I'm really only trying to make a broader point. I'm usually<BR>most suspicious when a passage in pop music seems to be working "just like<BR>classical music." But that could be a symptom of GDS--Gadamer Derangement<BR>Syndrome!<BR><BR>Thanks for the many thoughtful remarks!! jc<BR><BR><BR>John Covach<BR>Professor of Music and Chair, Music Department, University of Rochester<BR>Professor of Theory, Eastman School of Music<BR>_______________________________________________<BR>Smt-talk mailing list<BR>Smt-talk@societymusictheory.org<BR><A href="http://lists.societymusictheory.org/listinfo.cgi/smt-talk-societymusictheory.org">http://lists.societymusictheory.org/listinfo.cgi/smt-talk-societymusictheory.org</A><BR></FONT></P></DIV></BODY><br/>
<p>
This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an attachment
may still contain software viruses, which could damage your computer system:
you are advised to perform your own checks. Email communications with the
University of Nottingham may be monitored as permitted by UK legislation.
</p>
</HTML>