11-02-2013, 04:42 AM
(This post was last modified: 11-02-2013, 04:58 AM by crazysam23.)
Sometimes, arguing music theory with people is like banging your head against a wall. Ugh!
The annoying thing is, you usually are either repeating things you already said or things others already said, in a "head-to-wall" argument.
This one dude has been arguing that bVII-IV-I is the same as ii-bVII-I, in terms of function. The first progression would be a plagal phrase (not a cadence, because we're talking about a repeated chord progression here), while the second the second progression would be similar to an imperfect authenic phrase (movement from leading tone to tonic). The first progression also moves in fourths. There's no way that you could say that the two progressions function in exactly the same manner.
The annoying thing is, you usually are either repeating things you already said or things others already said, in a "head-to-wall" argument.
This one dude has been arguing that bVII-IV-I is the same as ii-bVII-I, in terms of function. The first progression would be a plagal phrase (not a cadence, because we're talking about a repeated chord progression here), while the second the second progression would be similar to an imperfect authenic phrase (movement from leading tone to tonic). The first progression also moves in fourths. There's no way that you could say that the two progressions function in exactly the same manner.