On Mar 11, 4:58 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?
>
> 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
Help me out here Steve. You are referring to the vi -> iii as the
retrograde? Yes, it does go UP a 5th instead of down. But the V->vi
does put an emphasis on the La and if this is considered a tem****ary
tonic, then the progression would continue Baeolean: i v bVI (common
chord) Key Dmaj: IV I IV V ending on a half cadence to repeat the
somewhat "endless" cannon that it is. With the Yuletide feeling of the
canon the use of the aeolean seems quite appropriate. The fact that
the Aeolean occurs on the 2nd measure works well, as you pointed out,
with the "alternating" tonality you suggested that lends itself well
to a canon. The I x vi x IV x IV x provides Tonic and 2nd class
harmonic landing spots for the canon on the strong measures; and the
x V x iii x I x V provide good landing spots for the 1st class
harmonic landing spots on the even measures. If you use the numerals
of the key areas, this may be clearer: I x i x bVI xIV for the odd
and the even measures: x V x v x I x V. The Tonic on the 6th measure
provides a place for a cadence and then the last two measures
continues as a turnaround to keep the canon progressing. Although I
tire of this tune very quickly in the season, (once in its entirety is
usually enough) it is a very well constructed Canon. I have never
thought of it as retrograde, however and thus I am interested in your
point of view.
LJS
>
> 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
|
