Well, what's the problem? The progression, or the implied parallel octaves?There's actually been some yelling about this sort of progression on the SMT-talk list recently. I think the issue of using IV to expand dominant harmony (which is my quick explanation of this progression) is analogous to teaching a class to juggle three oranges, then taking them to see a circus artist juggle five flaming torches. The torch-juggler ("Bach") is expert enough to do things that beginners shouldn't try because they'll get themselves in trouble. But the novices should SEE and think about torch-juggling--and about how the torch-juggler gets away with it. Coming to grips with this torch-juggling requires a deeper, more subtle perspective of harmony than students usually have at the point they're writing diatonic four-part progressions. I'd want them to see this feat and to hear the explanation of what makes it possible... but that's very different from "would you let your students write this."It's difficult to parse the distinction between "IV can be used to expand a longer span of dominant-function harmony" and "V can go to IV sometimes"--especially when students are just struggling to figure out what IV IS in G major.As to the voice-leading... yeah, I dunno. Bach's a big, fat cheater.
My very thoughts articulated much more poignantly than I could myself.
Yes to both: V expanding IV, and the near-miss octaves. Life is too short.
The eighth-eighth quarter melodic/rhythmic motive (3 of them) seems to have been given precedence over harmonic considerations- the final bass iteration being the retrograde of the first occurrence. Also, our friend Schenker would point out that nothing says final better than 5-4-3-2-1 as heard here in the bass, not to mention 4-3-2-1 in the soprano. Remember, he is voice leading here, and the harmonic simultaneities are the result - not the origin. The linear aspects so often get slighted in these examples.
Post a Comment