On 1 Jun 2002, at 15:28, David Froom wrote: > On 6/1/02 1:01 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > What confuses me is the Pachelbel Canon, which he used as an example, but it > > goes down by fourths, not fifths - but the dominant/tonic (down by fifths) > > is generally recognized as the strongest root movement, right? > > There are, in the theory books, four basic kinds of sequential patterns > described (in practice, there are more kinds of sequences, of course, but > these are the most common): down by fifth, up by fifth, 5-6 ascending, and > 5-6 descending. The first two are obvious. The third is based on two-part > writing: quarter notes G-A; A-B; B-C in sop against half note C; D; E in > the bass (and so on). Harmonically, in C major (if you wanted to label all > chords, even the non-functional ones), this would be I-vi6; ii-vii6; iii-I6. > In practice, sometimes the root position chord are replaced by first > inversion, and/or first inversion chords replaced by root position. > > The fourth one is based on two-part 10ths descending stepwise: quarter > notes E-D-C-B-A-G in sop against quarter notes C-B-A-G-F-E (and so on). > Harmonically, in C major, this looks like I-V6-vi-iii6-IV-I6. Once again, > sometimes the root position chord are replaced by first inversion, and/or > first inversion chords replaced by root position. > > Pachelbel's canon uses, as a repeating pattern (a passacaglia or chaconne > pattern), the 5-6 descending sequence with all chords in root position, > followed by a phrase ending cadence. In C major, it would be the chord > sequence above (I-V-vi-iii-IV-I) followed by a the half cadence IV-V. > > Thus, if you are looking for a common regular movement chord progression in > the Pachelbel canon, you won't really find it, since this is based on a > sequential pattern.
On the contrary, it's an ornamented descending 3rd pattern, approached deceptively. If it were I-V-I, you'd recognize it as an elaboration of I. When it is I-V-vi, the V is subordinate to the vi, with the vi substituting for the I, so the direction of movement is to the vi. To prove this to your ear, change the rhythm of the chord progression from whole measures to half-note/quarter not (e.g., in 3/4). You will note that it doesn't sound wrong to give the V less emphasis. With the next pair, it's the same thing, with the iii resolving to the IV, a deceptive motion that would have resolved back to the vi. What follows the two repetitions of the downward 3rds elaborated with lower-neighbors is an extension of IV, the pre-dominant, that serves to prepare the arrival on the strong dominant. So, if you see the entire passage as I-vi-IV-V(-I), it is quite clear that the main movement is to emphasize the subdominant as preparation for the arrival of the dominant, so that the passage can begin again. Sometimes the subdominant immediately preceding the final dominant is replaced by a ii6, as well -- it sounds fine. It also has the virtue of making it easier to avoid parallels, as well as reversing the direction of the voice-leading of the upper voices. That is, if you harmonize the initial I with G-C-E, the V with G-B-D, you'll notice the pattern than the bottom note is retained, while the upper notes descend in parallel thirds. This is repeated for vi-iii and IV-I. If you harmonize the last two notes (4-5) with ii6-V, you get D-F-A to D-G-B, with the lower note in common and the top two voices ascending in parallels thirds, the reverse of the beginning of the passage. Of course, that has parallel octaves, but the simple pattern with IV-I has everything parallel. The easiest solution is, of course, proper doubling in the ii6 chord, or simply omitting the F in the ii6. That gets rid of the reversal of the pattern, of course. To reiterate, even though the second chord of the progression happens, coincidentally, to be the dominant, it is not there playing the role of a structural dominant but of an ornamental chord within an elaboration of the subdominant. Another thing that has seemed confused about this discussion is the failure to recognize that a descending 5th and an ascending 4th are the same progression. Of course, I don't see any real utility to trying to look at two-note bass progressions, in any event, for much too often, as in the Pachelbel, adjacent bass notes are actually of the same structural importance to a progression. I was taught to divide the chords into groups, tonic function (I, with vi as strong substitute, iii as weak substitute), dominant function (V, with vii° as incomplete V7 substitute), and pre- dominant function (IV, with ii as strong substitute). The most compelling movement is the tendency of V to resolve to I, and, secondarily, or all chords to move to the chord a fourth above them (usually as weak substitute for the upper chord's V-to-I movement, but often explicitly, with the lower chord converted to a secondary dominant by raising its third). Bass movement by third is generally an elaboration of a particular chord (upward from tonic elaborates the I, downward from tonic, the IV). Any stepwise motion (other than 4-5) generally involves two structural levels, a main level and a subordinate level, so the bass 1-2-3-4-5 is structurally I-IV-V, with 1-2-3 being an elaboration of I (regardless of how the bass notes might actually be harmonized). The principles I outline here are quite clearly explained in the Aldwell & Schachter books, which seem to me to be about the most musical music theory texts I've ever seen. Sorry to have gone on so long! I really didn't mean to! -- David W. Fenton | http://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associates | http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
