"knucmo" <knucmo23232@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:blfdt3he93lvr2ge04fvctg1gpobnejuuq@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>I have read here that Satie was an innovator in that he made use of
> 'retrogressions to nullify the sense of key' - is this like a V-IV -
> and how is this retrogressive?
People usually describe chords as "progressing" - usually towards the goal
of the Tonic.
HOWEVER, many people use the term loosely to simply mean a succession of
chords as well - so you have to be careful which one you're talking about.
In general, in classical music, chords progress to chords whose roots are
a
4th up, a 2nd up, or a 3rd down:
G7 - C
G - am
C - am
If you look at a progression like:
I - ii - V - I
or,
I - IV - V - I
or even a circle of 5ths progression:
I - iii - vi - ii - V - I
You'll see the chord moving by those distances.
Generally, when a chord goes the other way, it's considered to be
"retrogressing" - i.e. - moving AWAY form the goal of the Tonic.
I - V6 - IV6 - V
The V-IV is a retrogression - and you can see that the goal of this
progression is not the tonic, but the dominant instead.
Now, retrogression shouldn't be considered "bad" - it's used all the time.
It's just that it seems like chords in those progressions don't have the
"direction" or "push" to the Tonic that other chords do.
I don't know enough Satie other than the Gymnopedies to comment on his
style
as a whole, but in those works, it seems the idea of key is established
more
through static harmonic "see-saws", and less through goal-directed
harmonic
motion.
This is obviously a complicated subject so I hope others will chime in as
well with their thoughts, but I hope what I gave you here at least helps
you
out a bit.
Best,
Steve
|
