Cadences for minor chord

[jancivil]

I don’t know from “contemporary” pop really; but:

We have to get into definitions. The word cadences seems to carry a connotation of finality. But music structured by chord progression cadences by phrase typically. The half cadence (literally cadence means falls) ends up a phrase but goal yet to be reached.
(rare but not impossible to achieve is a final on V)

Here, Mozart



and Macca


are speaking the same musical language w. the same form of syntax, phrase differences notwithstanding

[Functional]

I don’t know from “contemporary” pop really; but:

We have to get into definitions. The word cadences seems to carry a connotation of finality. But music structured by chord progression cadences by phrase typically. The half cadence (literally cadence means falls) ends up a phrase but goal yet to be reached.
(rare but not impossible to achieve is a final on V)

I agree that the language and phrasing is largely similar in your two examples. What I am referring to myself is more akin to things like this:

It's not all that fancy and in fact it would probably feel amateurish in many regards - but regardless, this is what you have now. It's not like our views on major/minor wouldn't be considered warped to say the least back in the renaissance.

Not all pop music is like this, but there is plenty that is exactly like this for one reason or another. You practically do not really have any kind of cadences and the only significant cadential point in this song is the very end, where you have somewhat sound-design oriented transition into a part that you could call an outro at about 4:00 mark

Phillip Tagg has paid in particular a lot of attention to contemporary pop music like this and has proposed a new model of thinking for such cases where we abandon traditional tonic-subdominant-dominant framework AND the notion of perfect cadences.

As for myself, I don't know exactly what to think of it all and whenever these things should be regarded as oddities or calls for a new framework and it would be especially tragic (in my eyes anyway) if such a new framework is what would be primarily taught to anyone interested in making pop music. But if it is just one framework alongside others and perhaps less emphasized upon too, then I'm all good with it.

To tie this into the topic itself; for reasons like these, I find that classical syntax of a "cadence" doesn't always fit so well into pop music that often tends to be rather "blocky" in structure. But as far as I'm concerned, I think it might have a lot to do with modern pop composers / producers not taking their lessons especially from classical music which taught me a lot about having a flow between sections

[jancivil]

Debussy was composing music well outside of tonic-dominant structures quite some time ago, for just one instance. Not all that novel.
I can’t think of one work of mine which deals in it that wasn’t a student exercise. The hegemony these notions enjoy radicalized me by my early 20s.

But while my disposition there is mirrored in Tagg’s statement “conventional music theory terminology, based mainly on the euroclassical [and jazz] repertoires – is often both inaccurate and ethnocentric –
(which ethnicity is jazz centered in, lol. I mean, REALLY?)
we get this nonsense - “he cites the widespread use of “tonality” to denote just one type of tonality as one example of the problem.”
There is tonality and then there are the others. Modal is not tonal. Atonal is not tonal. Jazz is functional except when it isn’t.
Moving on now.
This unfortunately reminds of an hilarious thread here where someone tried that one on for size, tonality means any number of things (throwing the very concept of definition out with the bath water). Postmodern bs.

Tagg is on quite a quixotic quest. The distinction between ‘music theory’ that describes the tonic-dominant harmonic paradigm and “its simultaneous conceptual opposition to both “atonality” and “modality” (as one example of the problem)” is not a real problem, it’s just a misapplication of.

apologies for alliteration

[jancivil]

Where I agree w.him is with the abject failure of music school to get into rhythm. Leaving aside a Jim Gallatin who had us dealing with Messiaen isoryhythm and Elliot Carter, it’s slim pickins out there

Tagg is a musicologist, as such he is concerned with such as “cultural competence“, eg., knowing from “the princess voice” when the movie’s director talks in these kinds of terms. To me that maybe should be a different classroom than harmonic part-writing.

[Functional]

To me that maybe should be a different classroom than harmonic part-writing.

I agree, thus I expressed my own reservations about, for instance, the "extended present" framework (didn't really think of debussy or satie but you're right, those two come perfectly in mind too)

As far as I'm concerned, classical music in particular taught me a lot about structuring music and while the music I do make is not even close to any art music, it has helped me a lot to develop a flow between sections rather than have music that either feels like it barely has any or just music with somewhat disjoint, "blocky" sections.

And anyhoo, it's not like part-writing classes are taught by people who aren't aware of what they're teaching. Like, for instance, the no parallel fifths rule - a rule that can actually be broken even while remaining stylistically bona fide. But it is still said that students should go through the boring stuff first before they can get to the exciting "except..." stuff and I think most people can accept that easily.

Oh well, it is not my place to really judge music education. My grievances mostly are aimed towards online education but I doubt I have to tell you much about that. While it did get me started at the very least, in the end it left me with a lot of things to unlearn

[Kinh]

wha-ya-talkin' bout mate? bend da rules any which way ya want like Beethoven