"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?
To add to what I said before, though most of the progressions I mentioned
previously are considered progressions, some of them rarely happen. For
example, V typically goes to I or VI, but going to III is kind of unusual.
So despite the "up a 4th" "up a 2nd" and "down a 3rd" progressions I
mentioned before, not all of the possibilities for every chord are
realized.
This has to do largely with the chords that contain the leading tone, as
they so strongly want to move to I.
So basically, here's the layout:
iii - vi - ii - V - I
Then, IV likes to go to viio, but viio, being diminished, tends to want to
jump to I.
So usually, IV is paired with ii, and viio is paired with V, like so:
iii - vi - {ii} - [V] - I
{IV} - [viio]
The {} and [] should be in a column.
This means,
I is likely to go anywhere (and I can be interspersed anywhere).
ii is likely to go to V, or viio.
iii is likely to go to vi, or IV.
IV is likely to go to ii, V, or viio.
V is likely to go to I or vi (not shown in order above, but usually shown
with an arrow).
vi is likely to go to ii or IV.
viio is likely to go to V or I.
The only time viio is likely to go to iii is when a sequence of cycle of
5ths is set up (IV - viio - iii - vi - ii - V - I - IV - etc.).
These are considered progressions.
Anything else - going from right to left, or going down within a column,
is
considered retrogressing.
The easiest way to explain this is to look at iii and vi. If, in C, you
use
em alternating with am, it's not going to sound very much like C Major!
It's
going to seem like the key of em instead!
So those chords closer to the right of the chart (closer to the tonic) or
more "unique" to a key, and the combinations in the bracketed groups tend
to
help reinforce the identity of a key rather than detract from it. They
also
seem to "set up" the Tonic and make us feel like there's been some sense
of
completion or finality when it is reached.
But as I said, retrogressions do occur. Pachelbel's Canon in D:
I - V - vi - iii - IV - I - IV - V
And it doesn't "ruin" the key. Many attribute this to the idea that this
is
"really" I - vi - IV - V (look at every other chord, ignoring the 2nd I)
with other chords acting as little see saws to a partner chord.
In any event, there's enough chords in the key that help us recognize the
key and maintain the tonality.
So I don't know if I'd say that Satie's (or anyone's) use of Retrogression
necessarily nullifies the sense of key. The types of chords and their
position within the key could also be a large contributor.
Usually, retrogressions tend to lend a "wandering" quality to music, and,
in
my limited experience with Satie, I'd say I tend to feel more of a
"static"
quality in it, but one that still has short and long term harmonic goals.
Best,
Steve
|
