On Mar 12, 7:02 am, tex...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> On Mar 11, 1:54 pm, LJS <ljsche...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 11, 12:18 pm, knucmo <knucmo23...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > 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?
>
> > You can make this simple or complicated. In reality it is very simple.
>
> > Progression:
>
> > A progression has been shown, with years of analysis, to most like
> > consist of a movement away from the Tonic note and then PROGRESSING
> > back to tonic. The route taken has shown to be following the cycle of
> > 5ths back to tonic. So if you move from Tonic, C for example, to say a
> > vi chord or Am. The typical progression would be I vi ii V I
> > starting with the vi, each chord root resolves down the interval of a
> > 5th until it reaches tonic or C in this case. Question: But the IV
> > is not in that progression so how can that be? Answer: Good
> > observation. In the never ending search for variety and other
> > characteristics of various chord colors and to accommodate bass lines
> > and for lots of reasons, there can be substitutions. Historically the
> > cadence in CPP would most likely be I vi IV V I. If you look closely,
> > the ii chord is spelled D F A and the IV chord is spelled F A C. They
> > share two notes out of three. The ii is often in its 4 note spelling D
> > F A C which contains the entire IV chord. The CPP also liked the base
> > line of 4 5 1 as a strong cadence. The approach of the F to the G in
> > the bass is heard as emphasizing the V and they more commonly used
> > this for a cadence. It still fits into the scheme of the progression
> > of 5ths toward the tonic for that reason. In Jazz you are more likely
> > to hear the ii7 V I than the IV V I but they both follow the same
> > progression rules based on the 5th and they both serve as a final
> > cadence or a tem****ary cadence.
>
> > Thus retrogression is simply the reverse of this process.
> > Retrogression would basically follow the I V ii vi iii or variations
> > of these root movements.
>
> > If you like more step by step instruction, either find an old theory
> > book or probably someone here will give you the various rules for
> > progression. In either case, the end result will be that they will
> > follow the basic rule of descending 5ths back to tonic with various
> > adjustments as considered best by the composer.
>
> > Does this help?
> > LJS
>
> What does CPP stand for? I did a google search for acronyms and got
> hundreds of posibilities including ChickenPot Pie.
This group seems to use it as Common Practice Period. Personally and
refers to roughly the Baroque through Classical Periods. Personally I
don't like this term as used in this group. Its just too limited and
that is why I often put it in quotes. I see no reason to limit the
harmonic language that did begin during that time to be used ONLY in
these beginning stages although some are very reluctant to use the
language started in analysis of that period, meaning Functional
Harmonic Analysis, in any setting that is more modern than that
including the Romantic period and Jazz. I am sure that someone else
will give reasons why it should be limited, but I just don't see it.
When I use the term, thus it is really more of a way of saying "the
Functional Harmony as started in the Baroque period". I include Jazz
in this group as the Functional Harmonic structure is much the same as
the Baroque and other periods.
|
