Ricardo -> RE: Flamenco Keys (Feb. 3 2021 20:57:04)
|
Ok I read your article. It does a great job illustrating how the east west fusion took place with tons of great examples. Also you show with fandangos how functioning harmony can work in music that is ultimately NOT in the major or minor western keys, plus you show the concept of modulation to keys that are “not tonic”. Trying to remember who was who during some arguments earlier (I think Mavi wanted to argue that modulation does occur in proper modal music and deeper look at makkam practice left me thinking makkams are not actually modes, but rather, melodic devices with specific rules of usage), but I think your point was that harmonic function does occur without V-i being invoked. Right? Well.... The thing is I am not seeing any contradiction to that reality in your examples. I did see you claim there is a disappearance of certain makkams that appear less chord friendly, as the modern trend to using “western chords” to accompany once modal songs gains popularity through time...that ties into what I said about modal purists not liking the idea about fusion...in fact you admit it is killing the modal traditions. Good. But you conclude that the western system does not get to claim exclusive rights to harmonic function (lets say chord usage for now regardless of the V-I issue), thanks to these “fusions” that have since taken place. Can’t you see it is the West “eating up”, and I mean that negatively, the modal music of the past? I hope you can because these eastern musicians that are dealing with creating new forms are “reinventing the wheel” so to speak...they are headed toward the same conclusion JS Bach already had...all this modal ambiguity goes bye bye once we pull in the V-I...so they ended up DUMPING ALL the modes, not just one makkam at a time, in favor of a more “complete” system. Do you get me? The fusions (and you can include flamenco if you want) that adhere to ancient melody “types” but pretend to be modal, are in this wishy washy state of evolution. What Bach did is take ancient modal melodies, lets call it Gregorian chant for now, and REAHARMONIZED them...basically the same concept we are discussing, but he did so with Tonal Harmonic function. That is why those “chorales”, whose melodies he did NOT compose, he composed the counter melodies that create tonal harmony, are THE MODEL we use specifically to LEARN tonal harmony in school. While along the way during the evolution we might love the modal sounding I V vi IV to the point of every favorite song uses it, parallel 5th are awesome etc, it doesn’t change the fact it is NOT FUNCTIONING, yet it is pointing us in that direction vs static drones. I am not saying your conclusion is “wrong” it is just that you might believe “chords” harmonizing a melody are “New” because of Turkish pop or whatever and it retains “east flavor” without sounding like baroque music. I get it, but it is not “New” or examplary of something “different than” what you said was done in the renaissance etc. It is the same darn thing where deeper concept of harmony is “eating” or taking over the simpler old view, and at the same huge cost (tuning). Anyway, I still very much like your article and what it is pointing out to folks that might not have heard that stuff, or heard it and were confused. I did find a couple of mistakes or perhaps things that could have been made more clear. Example 3 is only a 6 note melody, so it is hard to justify things like “dorian type melody” because that missing note is the one that defines the difference between the mode Dorian or Aeolian. Unless you alter your G chord to G7 for example... anyway example 4, you first talk about a phrygian progression (by Romans i iv III II vii) as being sort of cadential, but your example imposes a change of scale with the G chord...there is no melodic note that is B natural so my first thought is that this chord is an error, or worse, an imposition on the phrygian natural melody. G minor appears to clear things up as it should. But no example with your specific chord progression was odd after you made a point about it. Again, what was the basis of the G chord there? At glance it seems ii-V-I in C is the point, a smart guy forcing tonal function over a modal melody (JS Bach?). Of course it is an excerpt. Last, example 7 had me raise an eyebrow as I am sure the second part is written in the WRONG CLEFF. It should be bass clef, as per chords...and there you claimed no “cadence” going on, but this is not true IMO. F minor starts as i, then V comes in using F melodic minor #4 (V), giving Arabic flavor, but the G chord is straight V7-i in C minor (V7/v), complete with change of scale as is done in tonal harmony practices. Again, I would agree that the tonal function is being imposed on the modal melody, sure, but it is still cadencing to my ear. (I would use 4 flats to better represent the tonal functions, but again this is an excerpt).
|
|
|
|