On Jul 14, 2004, at 1:11 PM, Christopher BJ Smith wrote:
if you consider that atonal means with no discernable key centre at all, then there is a big gap between tonal and atonal, which includes a lot of modal music (like a lot of rock and pop, and jazz, too!)
The word "atonal" was coined at a time when it was widely believed that functional tonality was a law of nature, and that early music and world music merely represented primitive states of it. We now no longer think this way, but the word "atonal" still keeps its original meaning. To define tonal as "not atonal" is deeply ironic, because it assigns to atonality a breadth and depth of influence that it never had. Imagine if instead one were to divide all music into Impressionist and Non-impressionist! See what I mean?
There is a similar confusion in the art world, where laypeople confuse "abstract" with "non-objective" and think that both are the opposite of "realistic."
I know there is a lot of history backing up the V chord as the basis of tonality, but I still maintain that we need a word to cover music that DOESN'T have a functional leading tone, yet is still in a recognizable key. I don't mind the term "tonal" for this, despite the lack of V chord. I usually apply the term "non-functional" in a harmonic context to chords that don't fit the key in an easily construable way. I was a bit surprised to see you applying it to any harmony that doesn't have a V-I cadence, as our apparent definitions of the term seem to be worlds apart.
Why is modal music not functional harmony?
Because a mode is a mode and harmony is harmony. It's like asking "why is time not measurable in centimeters?" If by "modal music" you mean the music of the Renaissance and Middle Ages,
No, I'd also be including a lot of Britten, Stravinsky, Ravel, Vaughn Williams, PRokofieff, Bartok, and a lot of rock, pop, folk, and jazz under the "modal" umbrella as well. There most certainly are modal harmony and modal chord progressions, and they mostly don't have leading tones. I would still call them "functional", as they still serve to outline the key (mode), and bring us back to a functional I chord through cadences (though not authentic cadences most of the time!) I suppose if your definition of modal ends with the Middle Ages, then there isn't much use trying to find terms to discuss modal harmony.
you shd. note that none of this music was composed by assembling chords, but by following rules of counterpoint that apply to individual pairs of voices only, never to full chordal entities. In functional harmony (i.e., tonal harmony)
Ah! I see. Functional harmony as you define it always includes a V chord.
, every chord has a function (it can only appear in certain contexts and serves a particular, fixed purpose in driving the harmony forward) and the whole thrust of the music is driven by the relationships between chords. Mediaeval and Renaissance music is not even *about* chords, and though it contains chords, they are secondary to melodic and contrapuntal concerns, and do not drive the music.
An ordinary plagal cadence is still tonal, isn't it?
Only in a tonal context. Before 1600 or so, no, it isn't tonal.
Then how about late 19th c and early 20th c? How about the ii-i cadence in Miles Davis' "So What" that defines D dorian so well? I guess I am still looking for a term other than "non-functional" to describe non-V-chord progressions that stay in a key or mode, and define that key or mode.
Incidentally, most of the strongly convincing modal cadences I have found include the perfect 4th degree from the mode in the penultimate chord, and avoid a leading tone, which is pretty much the definition of a plagal cadence (at least to my modern ears. I realize that it was much more tightly defined in previous centuries.)
Christopher
_______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
