What do you see as the implied harmony in this, and why does it help with any analysis of the piece?Stamped Records wrote: Tue Jan 14, 2020 3:08 pm What I'm actually saying is that the same language describes the behavior of both. Harmony and melody are what they are depending on how you use them but people can be put off learning theory because it appears to relate only to harmony. Harmony and melody are interdependent and even where there appears to be no harmony, harmony can be at work in the background holding the melody together.
I think you're also over-egging the idea that melody implies harmony by itself (if you take memory out of the equation and don't try to impose what your brain heard on the first playthrough of the completed piece). Reharmonisation is a thing and will change the perception of a melody on each change in harmony.
The problem you describe of people being put off by harmony is more a consequence of "music theory" being not music theory at all but the theory of common practice classical music. The 20th Century drove a coach and horses through that and, unfortunately, the theory books and courses still haven't caught up. It is, unfortunately, not that relevant to the kind of music a lot of people want to make but we currently force people across the chasm first rather than take into account the fact that not everything has to have a V-I cadence.
