On Jun 29, 2005, at 11:34 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
On 29 Jun 2005, at 9:28 PM, Raymond Horton wrote:
The work in question is most definitely in two groups of 3 beats
each (although it often hemiolas into 3/2 temporarily).
That's not the right meaning of hemiola. A hemiola is:
W W W
H H H | H H H
across two measures in a 3/2 context, (or H H H in two 3/4 measures).
In 3/2, the hemiola is overlaying a 3/1 measure over top of two 3/2
measures.
I think "hemiola" is one of those terms which has gone beyond its
traditional meaning, to mean any 3 against 2 OR 2 against 3 counter
accent in our modern times.
Other terms that I think have moved on in a similar fashion:
Subdominant (used to mean the 4th of the scale, or the chord built on
it. Now means ANY chord that can lead to a dominant (though it doesn't
invariably have to). Some of my colleagues have replaced this term with
"Predominant" to be more clear. But what if it doesn't go to the
dominant, but directly to the tonic? Is it still a "predominant"? If
not, then why have a different name for the same chord in the same key?
Modal - had a big discussion about this one last year on the list.
Doesn't mean now what it used to mean a couple of centuries ago. Of
course leads to
Tonal - which might be one of those words that can't be used any more
in ANY context except historical, because of all the different ways it
is construed
Picardy third (now often applied to ANY major-quality resolution chord
where a minor one is expected in the key, wrongly or not)
Toncisation (used to mean only with a secondary dominant, now can mean
articulating a temporary tonic by any applicable means) (on that
subject, what do you call a plagal resolution to a temporary tonic? A
"plagalisation"? I shudder at it, but it IS logical. Musicians who play
gospel (where it is most common) call it "backcycling", but that is a
bit obtuse IMHO. Drawing on "applied dominant" perhaps "applied
predominant"? Not clear. Applied how?)
All of these expanded uses came about because we needed to talk about
them, but didn't have a brand-new term, so we used an old term that did
something similar, but restricted, in an older context. I even hear
some jazz musicians (mostly bass players) talk about "musica ficta" in
a jazz context, meaning that they use sharper notes walking up to a
target and flatter notes moving down to a target; a great departure
from the raised 4th and lowered 7th the term used to refer to.
This points up a need for a jazz theorist's convention, where we could
all talk to one another and come up with proper terms for all this
stuff, but not so far removed from the common classical terminology
that nobody outside of jazz knows what we are talking about. I am
insistent with my students that they make the connections between what
they learned in their classical theory courses and how it applies to
their jazz performance, composition, and arranging. It IS mostly the
same as classical, after all, just expanded a bit more in places, and
with a few different idiosyncracies. It seems that every jazz school
has its OWN way of describing things, and often there are huge holes in
the analysis and terminology.
Comments? (no swearing please.) Helpful hints? Resources?
Christopher
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
