<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;">My reference to Kopp’s theory comes from:<div><br></div><div>Kopp, David. Chromatic Transformations in Nineteenth-Century Music. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2002.</div><div><br></div><div>I also originally sent this to two versions of the SMT-talk listserv address, but I fixed that here.</div><div><br></div><div>Best,</div><div>Conor Cook</div><div>UMN</div><div><br><div><div>On May 2, 2014, at 7:34 AM, Conor Cook <<a href="mailto:conor.p.cook@gmail.com">conor.p.cook@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;">After I posted I feared I may have missed someone else making the same point earlier, but what’s the harm in bringing it up again, eh?<div><br></div><div>Would transformations tell us anything about the successions?</div><div><br></div><div>Starting at VI: L - LR - LR (with David Kopp’s extended technique: M - D^-1 - D^-1)</div><div>Starting at I: LR - RLR - L (same: D^-1 - Dm - M).</div><div><br></div><div>Not sure how much it says, but it points out how much the motion is reliant on reversal and replication of motion, if you read transformation theory that way, at least.</div><div><br></div><div>Best,</div><div>Conor Cook</div><div>UMN</div><div><br></div><div><div><div>On May 2, 2014, at 6:43 AM, JAY RAHN <<a href="mailto:jayrahn@rogers.com">jayrahn@rogers.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-family: HelveticaNeue, 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, 'Lucida Grande', sans-serif; font-size: 14pt;"><div><span>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.)</span></div><div style="font-size: 19px; font-family: HelveticaNeue, 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, 'Lucida Grande', sans-serif; background-color: transparent; font-style: normal;"><span><br></span></div><div style="font-size: 19px; font-family: HelveticaNeue, 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, 'Lucida Grande', sans-serif; background-color: transparent; font-style: normal;"><span>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. </span></div><div style="font-size: 19px; font-family: HelveticaNeue, 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, 'Lucida Grande', sans-serif; background-color: transparent; font-style: normal;"><span><br></span></div><div style="font-size: 19px; font-family: HelveticaNeue, 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, 'Lucida Grande', sans-serif; background-color: transparent; font-style: normal;"><span>Jay Rahn, York University</span></div><div class="yahoo_quoted" style="display: block;"> <div style="font-family: HelveticaNeue, 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica,
Arial, 'Lucida Grande', sans-serif; font-size: 14pt;"> <div style="font-family: HelveticaNeue, 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, 'Lucida Grande', sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;"> <div dir="ltr"> <font size="2" face="Arial"> On Thursday, May 1, 2014 8:09:45 PM, Conor Cook <<a href="mailto:conor.p.cook@gmail.com">conor.p.cook@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br> </font> </div> <blockquote style="border-left-width: 2px; border-left-style: solid; border-left-color: rgb(16, 16, 255); margin-left: 5px; margin-top: 5px; padding-left: 5px; position: static; z-index: auto;"> <div class="y_msg_container">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.<br><br>Best,<br><br>Conor Cook<br>UMN<br>_______________________________________________<br>Smt-talk mailing list<br><a ymailto="mailto:Smt-talk@lists.societymusictheory.org" href="mailto:Smt-talk@lists.societymusictheory.org">Smt-talk@lists.societymusictheory.org</a><br><a href="http://lists.societymusictheory.org/listinfo.cgi/smt-talk-societymusictheory.org" target="_blank">http://lists.societymusictheory.org/listinfo.cgi/smt-talk-societymusictheory.org</a><br><br><br></div> </blockquote> </div> </div> </div> </div></blockquote></div><br></div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></body></html>