Analysis

Do you have the piano at hand?

How do you analyze the first path exhaustively? Chord by chord?

DrJellyfish wrote:

Do you have the piano at hand?

What would I need it for?

DrJellyfish wrote:

A-7 D7 D-7 G7 C∆

Wouldn't it be VI V/V II V I of C?

Frank wrote:

What would I need it for?

i wanted to propose a little game to you...

JamSession wrote:

Wouldn't it be VI V/V II V I of C?

I see it that way too, with the VI also having a function of preparing the V/V, like a II V of the V...

Guys, in my opinion, you are all right and no one is right at the same time. We have said many things...... secondary dominants are passing modulations..... harmonic progressions are chords in a harmonic sequence with chords that can belong to the same key or to different keys. ....in the first case the progression does not modulate, in the second it modulates. ....the modulation may or may not return to the original key. ...and substitutions are temporary modulations,..... chord alterations are not modulations.....................and so on. There are those who say that modulation does not exist if it is passing, those who say the opposite, those who say that secondary dominants are not modulations, those who say they are, those who say that substitutions are modulations, those who say no........!.........!... my personal opinion, in an attempt to approach your discussions, is that a modulation exists, regardless of whether it is short or not. the moment there is a change of key, which is when a II-V appears that converges towards a I located in another key, meaning its triad is not included among the triads of the scale of the song's key.. It is not necessary for the I to be played; the key is determined by the tritone of the V. Therefore, I do not consider the substitution of the V to be modulating because the terminal triad, that is the I, is the same. I do not consider secondary dominants to be modulating since they resolve on a triad that is part of the scale of the base key.

Regarding modulation, in my opinion, the most important aspect which is not written anywhere is NOT to consider as modulating all tonal situations that leave the base key and that are part of a cyclic system or one converging towards the tonic triad of the song's key.. Let me explain better with some examples. The chord sequence of Night and Day (Real Book version in C), both in A and in B, from measure 8 to 16 CONVERGES towards the base C, so it is not modulating; Coltrane changes are not modulating since the tonal centers travel CYCLICALLY by major thirds to return to the starting key: C-Ab-E-C. Convergent systems and cyclic ones are tonal variants whose progression is PREDICTABLE and has a very precise direction, i.e., the cadential movement towards the reference tonal gravity of the song, otherwise defined as the key. Modulation, especially if done during an improvisation, must be UNPREDICTABLE because it can be inserted unexpectedly into any tonal key outside of teleologically oriented structures that have a cyclic character (Coltrane changes) or non-cyclic character (Night and Day). Imagine if during the improvisation of The "days of wine and roses" instead of Bb-7 and Eb7 we insert Eb-7 and Ab7 or Gb-7 and Cb7; the meaning doesn't change much because ultimately modulation aims to create tension, and tension can be created in many other ways. In convergent or cyclic systems, however, the direction is mandatory. This reduces the tension-relaxation element and takes away meaning from the concept and the realization of "modulation."

modale wrote:

in my personal opinion, with the intention of approaching your discussions, is that a modulation exists, regardless of whether it is short or not.

To answer theoretical notions, I am convinced that treatises or manuals are sufficient; clearly, more recent treatises speak of Tonicization ... to which most people appeal and which is not the II V of a certain key, but the secondary dominant (for example) of a certain degree of the scale, such as V/II II V, or V/II II V/V V (in this case, the odd chords are tonicizations and not modulations)

I don't quite understand personal opinions in these situations ... unless it is a matter of one's own new treatise or otherwise an analytical technique that needs to be contextualized ... and perhaps recognized. However, the terms used suggest the opposite; people appeal to known techniques used by everyone... therefore....

In general, okay, forming one's own idea is fine, but a definition is a definition... which is usually argued by making citations. I am referring to Piston; I don't know where the other ideas are taken from.

References?

Oracle, but it depends on the intensity of the tonicization; one can even do II/V V/VV V I, certainly, in a broad context and with other massive tonicizations.

In the end, one must understand how the harmony fits into the musical discourse and the form; harmony is only one of the parameters to be taken into consideration.

I share Piston's opinion and the positive trend towards a universalization of terminology. I believe that expressing one's own ideas, whether shared or not, is useful and necessary as it allows for broadening horizons. How many theories have been called into question..........in various fields of human culture! A forum allows us to communicate .

In effect, the consideration that harmony must be understood and considered functionally makes it clear that rules are valid but not totally, and brings us a bit closer to the concept of cyclic and non-cyclic sequences expressed by me.

....................of course that Bb-7 in The Days of Wine and Roses makes one think more of a V of the preceding G-7, namely a Csus4/7 b9, but the subsequent V, Eb7, eliminates any doubt; it is a new modulating tonality.

In fact, I meant to say that either we formulate a theory and explain it in its entirety, or if we draw from others, as typically happens... it would be nice to reference them.

Also to allow others to work at the source level rather than through personal syntheses.

If I didn't believe in forums... I wouldn't be here. So "discussions" are more than welcome.

modale wrote:

Imagine if during the improvisation of The "days of wine and roses" instead of Bb-7 and Eb7 we insert Eb-7 and Ab7 or Gb-7 and Cb7, the meaning doesn't change much because ultimately the modulation aims to create tension and tension can be created in many other ways.

I find this statement very approximate: a modulation does not necessarily aim to create tension; let's not confuse modulation with resolution; furthermore, the argument about the "meaning not changing much" seems like a rather crude approach to the rules of harmony, which one might also consider insignificant, but when discussing them, one must take them into account. If we replace Bb-7 Eb7 (which resolves to F) with Gb7 Cb7, there is certainly a difference! Of course, if we reduce all tonal theory to the bare concept of tension-resolution, then we can replace any tension chord with a dominant and that's that. Why didn't you consider replacing Bb-7 Eb7 with C7alt? In any case, the meaning (and the sound effect) is the same: tension is created and then it is resolved. Oplà ;-)

"The ear is more suited to perceiving function than reality; if in a I-V-I we substitute any element with another that has the same function, the listener perceives such chord as the original one" (Advanced improvisation Vol. 1 - David Baker - Alfred editions, p. 87). Listen to the solos in Stratusphunk, particularly on Things New and New Donna, or the album George Russell in K.C., Tune up.

http://www.armoniamodale.blogspot.it/

modale wrote:

"The ear is more suited to perceiving function than reality; if in a I-V.I we substitute any element with another that has the same function, the listener perceives such a chord as the original one".( Advanced improvisation Vol. 1-David Baker-Alfred editions, p.87 ). Listen to the solos in Stratusphunk, particularly on Things New and on New Donna, or the album George Russell in K.C., Tune up.

... precisely, that has the same function. here it is necessary to understand that harmonic tension in a strict sense is not a harmonic function.

Modulation is one of many methods used to arouse interest in a composition or during an improvisation. Modulation is the transition to another key, any key; in our case, the author moved from the key of F to that of Ab based also on a melodic line, but there are many pieces in F where the author has modulated to another key. When I say "it doesn't change much," it means that modulating is the author's choice; the chosen key is in relation to the author's thought, and there is no rule other than the instinctive and musical one that relates the starting key to the modulating key. In the context of advanced improvisation, there are concepts not shared by everyone; for example, if I replace one II-V with another II-V, the listener's ear does not perceive the difference. This does not mean we should make it a rule—that would be useless; rather, it means that the functional meaning of a progression today possesses greater importance than what was attributed to it some decades ago. Certainly, modulation as a whole is not a harmonic function; from the point of view of its constituents, it is often a II-V that has the same function as non-modulating II-Vs. The purpose of modulation, in my opinion and according to many harmony scholars, is to arouse interest in the musician or the listener through a temporary departure from the home key, often to then return to it; it is one of the many methods that allows us to follow a musical piece with interest.

Well, of course, in music it is fundamental to keep the listener's interest awake; and also, as is evident in modal music, using certain harmonic solutions to induce a mood in the listener or otherwise to communicate something. If we simplify the discussion to the utmost, we could say that any modulation or substitution serves solely to create variety, a concept that could, moreover, also be applied to modal music. However, just as I would find it reductive to say that alternating a Dorian mode with a Phrygian or Lydian one is the same because it only serves to create a diversion—since the listener doesn't perceive the difference anyway—the same applies to tonal music. I believe that in a harmonic context like that of the piece in question, if we replace Bb-7 Eb7 with another II V, a slightly trained ear will certainly hear the difference!

But specifically, I would be opposed (of course, this is just my opinion) to considering this sequence as a modulation. Sure, if we consider exclusively the scale-chord relationship, it might make sense, but precisely in tonal music, for better or worse, one must take context into account. Perhaps I'll go into more detail later, otherwise this post will become a slog... ;-)

I am aware that many of my posts are also... "a brick" [heavy/boring]. In fact, there are always few of us engaging in dialogue. I realize that I am sending messages, often strong ones, and I hope they can be useful. Sincerely, I see a harmonic culture that is a bit static, but with much good will and enthusiasm, and that is what matters. Besides, I believe many young people have the right to doubt and must have the time to mature.

I would like to pose a somewhat "transgressive" question:

Is it indispensable to know harmony well to be a "Musician," or is it not indispensable?

... with musician we obviously also mean a percussionist, right? Or are we only talking about composers?

JamSession wrote:

... with musician obviously we also mean a percussionist, right? Or are we only talking about composers?

For me it is important for the musician, including performers. But it is also important to know that harmony is the 360° verticality of music

I will doubt the young ones, but knowing only a tiny piece of harmony (that which arises from modal scales) is very reductive, something to know and know how to use, but there is also a lot of other stuff to deepen and know how to use (which will have a ratio of 90 ... 100 compared to that which refers to Modal).