Ricardo -> RE: solfege vs. pitch-names - thoughts? (Oct. 6 2020 0:44:06)
|
quote:
Not sure what the issue is. The issue is the following: quote:
Plagal IV-I, for example. The Plagal is a weaker substitute cadence when used in CLASSICAL MUSIC. I EXPRESSLY asked you to set this one and other similar WEAK cadences to the side in order for me to make my point. Your refusal do so means I feel stuck way back at my very first attempts at explaining how flamenco should be viewed to function when viewed from a WESTERN TONAL HARMONY vantage point. The reason why I am trying to simplify, streamline and discard other interpretations goes right back to my VERY FIRST post on the subject, agreeing with you that there is a problem with the way they are using music theory terminology to describe flamenco music and practice. The fact you want to bring in elements from the outside of my streamlined vantage point, means your are missing the point of what I am trying to clarify for you that the Flamencologists have been doing wrong, resulting in your rightful confusion about their terminology. So please DUMP the plagal cadence for now, we don't’ NEED it when talking about flamenco specifically. Please. quote:
Or VIIb-I, in rock. Without getting into why that is most often NOT a cadence, lets stop right at the term ROCK, which, again, is a totally different discipline than WESTERN TONAL HARMONY as it is done and learned via CLASSICAL MUSIC. Once again, the REASON that we don’t want to bring in the practices and terminology of OTHER disciplines is because, as I said, the major problem of your FIRST post is the CONFLATION of terminology from various unrelated music systems. So lets DUMP any Rock or jazz equivalent practices and terminology because, again we don’t NEED them when talking about flamenco specifically. Please resist the temptation. quote:
both IIb-I and secondary-dominant-to-whatever (e.g., V7/VI) can function cadentially (or semi-cadentially), in their contexts. In western classical music there exists no such thing as “bII-I”. So we have to first find a way to describe this function VIA the western classical theory system. That is exactly what I had tried to do, but keep getting stuck as you bring in outside music concepts. In classical music there exists two similar concepts:neoplitan 2 and aug6. I tried to offer that the CLOSER to flamenco concept is the Aug6 one...the Neapolitan is more like a sub or type of plagal cadence due to the voicing practice (It is inverted normally such that the bass moves 4 to 1, like Fmb6-C type thing, not very flamenco at all and you never write “bII6-I”, you write “N6-I” Cuz those types of Romans have no logical justification, and N6 normally found in minor keys), and again I wanted you to set aside plagal and OTHER TYPES of cadences, so I could focus on the CORRECT type of cadence that applies to a description of Flamenco. Again, we don’t NEED those other things, or at least, I don’t want them muddying the picture so I can get at the main point of how flamenco can be viewed properly through the lens of western tonal harmony. And yes, we NEED the secondary dominant concepts in flamenco as well. We could eventually bring in N6 even, but we don’t need to go that far yet. So the main problem here is you don’t like my “lens”, the western tonal harmony as done in classical music vantage point, and want to keep pulling in outside practices such as Rock or whatever. I have NO problem attempting to describe flamenco through some other discipline, BY ITSELF, but mixing that together with the classical one is both UNNECESSARY, AND, creating the SAME problem that you brought up to begin with. It’s like I am trying to explain how kick ball is played using “rules” of baseball, but you keep bringing up how FOOTBALL game play shows exceptions to my “rules”. Perhaps what you might not see right away is how doing a harmonic analysis of modern rock tune might fail? As a totally separate discussion we can get into why, logically, it’s not correct to conflate harmonic “function” as in the way classical tonal harmony is designed, with MODAL vamping etc. Ionian or Mixolydian or Aeolian progressions are quite distinct from how major or minor keys “function” and, again, this comes down to which terminology you want to use to describe and “translate” the music. I mean, we can use “rocK” terms and concepts to describe Bach or Mozart and it’s a different thing, we could discard Roman numeral analysis and call iv-V-i, dorian phrygian dominant and Aeolian. In the end, my MAIN point has been restated till red in the face, STICK to ONE when translating a genre from it’s own terminology to another one. And in the case of flamenco, the baroque and classical embraces the bulk of flamenco practice with a few alterations and specific exceptions (plus you expressed understanding of secondary dominant function so I felt I could use that route). But we can’t even get to what THOSE exceptions are if we can’t embrace the system itself, ie the “lens”, at it’s fundamental levels.
|
|
|
|