Timeline for Analysis of a jazz chord progression
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 21, 2022 at 22:07 | comment | added | Michael Curtis |
I don't want to keep extending this, but one thing should be made clear: analyzing the expressiveness of music is not functional harmonic analysis. A progression like I IV V in terms of expression could be an upbeat boogie, or a poignantly bittersweet melody, or anything in between. None of that changes the harmonic analysis of I IV V
|
|
| Jan 21, 2022 at 20:37 | comment | added | Michael Curtis | Functional analysis: I'm expecting Roman numerals or those German labels. "Passing chord" is not some contrivance of mine. It's a standard theory term. I does say something: it means it is not an essential part of the functional harmony, it's something passing in between the essential harmonic elements. | |
| Jan 21, 2022 at 19:23 | comment | added | piiperi Reinstate Monica | @MichaelCurtis How does the answer look now after my edits? I'm trying to say, it sounds like a secondary dominant sort of motion is being set up, but then cancelled at the last minute. Saying that it's "non-functional" or "passing chord" doesn't really say anything about what the chord does. It does do something, and I feel that I could describe what that something is. I try at least. | |
| Jan 21, 2022 at 19:11 | comment | added | piiperi Reinstate Monica | Many times, a question clearly demands a specific type of answer, even if it's based on a misconception or lack of experience. StackExchange or StackOverflow was originally created to displace an annoying computer and programming Q&A site called "experts-exchange". To be a "better experts-exchange". So, the format was in a way made for experts to help other experts. But on many SE sites, the posters behind the questions are not experts! And this creates a problem, because the site format kind of assumes that the question's (mis-informed) premises must be followed ... My opinion only though. | |
| Jan 21, 2022 at 19:02 | comment | added | Michael Curtis | But that doesn't seem to be the case in this question. It all reads very straight forward. | |
| Jan 21, 2022 at 18:59 | history | edited | piiperi Reinstate Monica | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 185 characters in body
|
| Jan 21, 2022 at 18:52 | comment | added | piiperi Reinstate Monica | Usually, the literal question asks for something that's a bit ill-adviced and cannot explain the situation. I'm trying to answer the real problem that the OP couldn't ask. Functional harmony in its pure form is quite a simplistic model, and if things like unfulfulled expectations aren't allowed, then it's hard to "analyse" real world pieces. | |
| Jan 21, 2022 at 18:48 | comment | added | Michael Curtis | The OP is asking something specific functional analysis. Just write a Roman numeral analysis for the whole progression. First let an analysis do the talking, then elaborate with some discussion. | |
| Jan 21, 2022 at 18:42 | comment | added | piiperi Reinstate Monica | Oh, I just remember talking about this many times before, sorry. This may seem like an inappropriate analogy, but it's justifiable to call a dance sexy, even though it doesn't eventually lead to intercourse. But the mechanisms are there all the same. In a way the whole art of music-making is about creating feelings, don't you agree? You hint about something, reveal a bit ... but then don't give it to the listener. Maybe it's an unorthodox way of looking at music. I tried to edit the answer to remove the claim about actually being a secondary dominant, from all points of view at least. | |
| Jan 21, 2022 at 18:37 | comment | added | Michael Curtis |
What discussion? It does not necessarily need to be an F chord, and I have never said that kind of thing before. It just needs to do something to justify the claim. Putting key labels with RNA will make a big difference instead of sprinkling Roman numerals into comments.
|
|
| Jan 21, 2022 at 18:35 | history | edited | piiperi Reinstate Monica | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 256 characters in body
|
| Jan 21, 2022 at 18:22 | comment | added | Michael Curtis |
If dominant seventh chord doesn't actually do anything to function as a V there is no justification for calling it a V. Non-function dominant seventh chords are a thing.
|
|
| Jan 21, 2022 at 16:45 | comment | added | Michael Curtis |
How would Em7b5 actually work as a secondary dominant if the key is Bb or Gm? It doesn't do anything to actually function that way.
|
|
| Jan 21, 2022 at 12:49 | history | answered | piiperi Reinstate Monica | CC BY-SA 4.0 |