On Mar 11, 1:07 pm, "Steve Latham" <llat...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> "knucmo" <knucmo23...@[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.
In this particular case, however, the IV6 -> V would be moving BACK to
tonic. The progression as a whole seems to be moving still towards
tonic as implied by the Half cadence ending on the V.
I am just curious. In past posts, you have mentioned 'passing chords'
as not being part of the functional scheme. This chord (the IV6) seems
to be just that as much as any would be. Especially with the La in
the bass. Yes, it does fit the description for that one chord change,
but out of context it doesn't say Retrogression to me as much as the
overall progression of I to V. I am not sure what you would call this
IV6 chord unless without more of a context but as it is, regression
doesn't spring to my mind.
>
> 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.
I also am not an expert on Satie, but my impression of him is similar
to Steve except that I hear the "see-saws" as a balancing rather than
static. If I were to explore his pieces that sound that way to me, I
would be starting with the possibility that he is attempting to
establish tonality not by being static, but rather as a balanced
center. My guess (and it is only a speculation and is not based on
actual analysis) is that he centers his tonality as if on the Cycle of
5ths ladder. i.e. He may start in the key of C and move towards the
sharp keys for a while then back to the Center and then maybe towards
the Flat keys for a while. This movement would fit Steve's "see-saw"
comment as well as having examples of Retrogression. I would be
looking for evidence of Progression and Retrogression to sup****t this
hypothesis.
Of course this is just a speculation as I have not investigated his
music in this manner. It is just an impression that I had when
listening to him. I have made no analysis to sup****t this nor do I
claim it to be fact. It is, however, an interesting premise for a
composition. If anyone cares to explore this concept with a
composition or if anyone analyzes his works and finds evidence of
this, please send me a copy of your results.
LJS
>
> 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
|
