The most obvious and prominent repertoire featuring the V-IV retrogression is the blues, where it is fact mandatory at the beginning of the tenth of twelve bars. But is this functional? Is it even proper to assign the numbers I, V, and IV to the three chords used in the blues?
It isn't functional by the definition you appear to be using, but they DO function in the key. And while I agree that the numbers aren't important, what IS important in my ears is that the perfect 4th from the key is contained in the second-to-last chord, which puts it pretty firmly in the domain of modal harmony (according to the way I have understood it.) You can have tonal blues as well, by substituting a ii-V7 for the V7-IV7 in the 9th and 10 bars, which is very common in jazz.
Try this experiment: Instead of a "dominant" seventh chord, replace each of the blues chords w. a four or five note chromatic cluster built on the notes C, F, and G respectively. Now play those clusters in the 12-bar blues pattern while singing your favorite blues melody over it. The result is still the blues, with exactly the same pattern of tension and release (maximum tension in bar 10). Why? because blues harmony works by taking a single sonority, establishing it at a certain pitch level, then moving it up a chunk, then back, then up further, back to the middle setting, then back to the rest state. For this to work it does not matter one bit what the sonority is. It could even be musique concrete, or indefinite-pitch percussion: it would still work.
This cannot by any means be construed as functional harmony because there is in fact no harmonic change--just a shift in pitch level. Just because the traditional blues chords look like dominant 7th chords does not mean that they *are* dominant seventh chords. They just do not function as such.
Then what does one call them? Seventy years of jazz and blues musicians have been using the term "dominant seventh chord" to refer to the vertical structure, not worrying at all about whether or not the leading tone is functional or not. Which brings me back to a previous question - is a plagal cadence in a situation like this tonal? Or do you absolutely require a functioning leading tone to be able to apply the term "tonal"?
That is why there is no voice-leading in the blues: the 7ths have no need to resolve--because they are not functional.
Somebody is going to say "aha! your experiment retains a tonal basis because your tone-clusters are built on the tonic, subdominant, and dominant of an identifiable scale." I reject this reasoning (which would define large swaths of unquestionably atonal music as tonal),
Ooo, I hear all kinds of tonal implications in music that was supposed to be atonal, like Webern, Scriabin, and the serial yet curiously tonal Violin Concerto by Berg. I think maybe we have different definitions of atonal and tonal, which are probably not very good terms to start with.
but just for the argument, build the tone clusters on C, F#, and G# (or better yet, G a quartertone flat) instead. This will be atonal by any definition--but it will still do most (admittedly not quite all) of the work of a traditional blues progression.
And the work that will NOT be done is harmonic! Only the rhythmic form remains.
I've heard some weird variants on the blues, including "Weird Blues" by Miles Davis, "Solar" by the same, and "Slickaphonic Shuffle" by Ray Anderson, and they all include modal cadences. Your idea of building toneclusters on C F# and G# outlines the blues form, but not the harmony, which is what we are discussing, and I still maintain that there is a harmonic structure that is at work in the blues which is not covered by your C, F#, G# progression, whether one calls it "functional" or not.
Try playing random tone clusters while singing "She'll be Comin' Round the Mountain", changing the cluster where the chord would normally change, and going back to the first cluster at the end of the tune. Amazingly, the form of the piece is preserved, and you still get a feeling of "home" and "not home" in the harmony, which is more than you would get if EVERY cluster was randomly chosen. Make them diatonic clusters, and the feeling is stronger. Include the key's 4th and a leading tone in the second-last chord, omit the 4th from the home sonority, and you have an authentic cadence. Now it's functional, but it's not triads. You can even stick some chromatic notes in there to muddy things up a bit (shades of Stravinsky) and still hear strong functional harmony.
Christopher _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
