At 4:03 PM -0700 6/03/02, Philip Aker wrote: >David Froom: > >>And my answer for him was to relate the Pachelbel to the standard >>sequential harmonic pattern generated from descending 10ths (or, if >>you insist, 3rds). > >I don't disagree entirely but this is a different beastie than the >root movements in the music. For instance, dance forms (i.e. Bach >suites & partitas) can be condensed to: I, V->I. Applying sequential >analysis again to your first pass, one could reduce it to I-IV. >Which fits the bill to a tee for an analysis because then one >doesn't have to special case the last of the four-measure phrase. If >one pedals I, vi, IV, IV as the roots in the 4 measure phrase as you >suggest then the essence of the piece is lost. That's because the >descending fourths, being the stronger interval, trump the >descending thirds. As Hal mentioned in his post, these are points of >"cadential repose". I don't think one can have a correct analysis >without taking this sub-phrase notion into account and further that >the strongest statement is actually the chord->chord-a-fourth-below >continuity. Which is to say it's essentially plagal. > >Philip Aker
I guess I am more of a Schenkerian than is fashionable these days (like many jazzers), but in my ears, metre trumps everything - thus the difference between an ornamental V-I where the V is stressed, and a structural cadence, where the I is stressed. Does the stress of the chords in the progression count for nothing, then, in your analysis? Christopher _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
