Leaderboard

after ~1900, common practice rules no longer apply because tonality does not exist in any meaningful sense. pop songs may use chords and progressions borrowed from traditional tonality, but they are as likely to employ modality and arbitrary chord progressions for purely colouristic purposes. trying to analyse a progression like that in functional terms is missing the point. the progression is in G-ish with an ascending bass up until the part with the repeating chords, which is in a G/E-flat-ish region.

I write as few indications as I possibly can while still clearly conveying what it is that I want. I used to write markings all over the place, but now I'm very minimalist about it.

Bach generally didn't include dynamic markings because in his time dynamic contrast was created by adding or taking away voices from the texture rather than having the voices sing louder or softer. Other composers of the time only found use for "loud" and "soft" because the technology to give individual instruments a wider dynamic range did not exist. Dynamic marks and performance directions have become more detailed as instruments have become better, and expressive marks and interpretive gestures have become more commonplace as performers have become better. (The standard of playing technique nowadays is undoubtedly the highest in recorded history. In Paganini's day only Paganini could play his violin caprices; today every Juilliard student can do it.) We are confident in giving a performer detailed instructions because we know the performer is capable of executing those instructions with a degree of musicality. If Bach had attempted to detail his scores so carefully he would have utterly befuddled the musicians of his time—even the degree of detail he did add (i.e., writing out all the ornaments and prohibiting the performer from adding more) was decried by performers of the day.