Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-cphqk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-13T00:08:55.433Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Motivic cohesion and parsimony in three songs from Gentle Giant's Acquiring the Taste (1971)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 April 2014

Mattias Lundberg
Mattias Lundberg*
Affiliation:
Department of Musicology, Box 633, SE-751 26, Uppsala, Sweden E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In addition to a hierarchy of harmony and fundamental pitch, large-scale modal or tonal music generally needs to generate considerable portions of its substance from a limited number of melodic ideas in order to be readily comprehended as musical form. In Western musical tradition this has typically been achieved by means of motivic development. A distinctive trait in the mainstream of popular music in the 1960s and 1970s, on the other hand, is the predominance of clearly demarcated phrase-bound structures, where either no smaller unit than the phrase could be perceived, or where the smaller units (as in the case of riffs and ostinato figures) have functions that are subservient or complementary to the phrase-structure. Some genuine exceptions from this otherwise highly dominant tendency can be identified in the music from the so-called progressive rock movement in the early 1970s. This article investigates the case of the British group Gentle Giant (active 1970–1980). A motivic analysis of three songs from the album Acquiring the Taste (1971) elucidates how a small set of motives could be used in concatenations to unify larger and more dynamic song structures than what is possible in non-reducible phrase-bound forms.

Type
Articles
Information
Popular Music , Volume 33 , Issue 2 , May 2014 , pp. 269 - 292
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References

Atton, C. 2001. ‘“Living in the past”: value discourses in progressive rock fanzines’, Popular Music, 20/1, pp. 29–46Google Scholar
Cone, E.T. 1989a. ‘Analysis today’, in Music, a View from Delft: Selected Essays, ed. Morgan, R.P. (Chicago, IL, University of Chicago Press), pp. 39–54Google Scholar
Cone, E.T. 1989b. ‘Three ways of reading a detective story – or a Brahms Intermezzo’, in Music, a View from Delft: Selected Essays, ed. Morgan, R.P. (Chicago, IL, University of Chicago Press), pp. 77–93Google Scholar
Covach, J. 1996. ‘“Free Hand”: the gentle art of counterpoint’, Progression. http://www.ibiblio.org/johncovach/gentlegiant.htmGoogle Scholar
Curtis, J.M. 1987. Rock Eras: Interpretations of Music and Society, 1954–1984 (Bowling Green, OH, Bowling Green University Press)Google Scholar
Dahlhaus, C. 1975. ‘Some models of unity in musical form’, Journal of Music Theory, 19, pp. 2–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowling, J. 1978. ‘Scale and contour: two components of a theory of memory for melodies’, Psychological Review, 85, pp. 341–54Google Scholar
Edworthy, J. 1985. ‘Interval and contour in melody processing’, Music Perception, 2/3, pp. 375–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halbscheffel, B. 2000. ‘Rockmusik und klassisch-romantische Bildungstradition’, PhD dissertation (Berlin, Freie Universität)Google Scholar
Hanninen, D.A. 2001. ‘Orientations, criteria, segments: a general theory of segmentation in music analysis’, Journal of Music Theory, 45/2, pp. 345–433Google Scholar
Hasnes, G. 2005. ‘The music of Gentle Giant’, in Gentle Giant: Acquiring the Taste, ed. Stump, P. (London, SAF), pp. 162–82Google Scholar
Josephson, N.S. 1992. ‘Bach meets Liszt: traditional formal structures and performance practices in progressive rock’, Musical Quarterly, 76/1, pp. 67–92Google Scholar
Keller, H. 1987. ‘Music criticism’, in Criticism, ed. Hogg, J. (London, Faber & Faber), pp. 111–62Google Scholar
Kneif, T. 1977. ‘Rockmusik und Bildungsmusik’, International Review of the Aesthetics and Sociology of Music, 13/2, pp. 237–51Google Scholar
Korsyn, K. 2004. ‘The death of music analysis: the concept of unity revisited’, Music Analysis, 23/2, pp. 337–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macan, E. 1992. ‘“The spirit of Albion” in twentieth-century English popular music: Vaughan Williams, Holst and the progressive rock movement’, Music Review, 53/2, pp. 100–25Google Scholar
Macan, E. 1997. Rocking the Classics: English Progressive Rock and the Counterculture (Oxford, Oxford University Press)Google Scholar
Martin, B. 1998. Listening to the Future: The Time of Progressive Rock 1968–1978 (Chicago, IL, Open Court)Google Scholar
Mazullo, M. 2000. ‘The man whom the world sold: Kurt Cobain, rock's progressive aesthetic, and the challenges of authenticity’, Musical Quarterly, 84/4, pp. 713–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milano, D. 1976. ‘Kerry Minnear: keyboardist/composer for Gentle Giant’, Contemporary Keyboard, 2.Google Scholar
Moore, A.F. 2001. Rock. The Primary Text: Developing a Musicology of Rock, 2nd edn (Aldershot, Ashgate)Google Scholar
Moore, A.F. 2007. ‘Gentle Giant's Octopus’, Philomusica On-line, special issue, Composizione e sperimentazione nel rock britannico. http://www-3.unipv.it/britishrock1966-1976/pdf/mooreeng.pdfGoogle Scholar
Morgan, R.P. 2003. ‘The concept of unity and musical analysis’, Music Analysis, 20, pp. 7–50Google Scholar
Morris, M. 2000. ‘Kansas and the prophetic tone’, American Music, 18/1, pp. 1–38Google Scholar
Palmer, J.R. 2001. ‘Yes, “Awaken”, and the progressive rock style’, Popular Music, 20/2, pp. 243–61Google Scholar
Pearsall, E. 1999. ‘Mind and music: on intentionality, music theory and analysis’, Journal of Music Theory, 43/2, pp. 231–55Google Scholar
Rothgeb, J. 1971. ‘Design as a key to structure in tonal music’, Journal of Music Theory, 15/1–2, pp. 230–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Satyendra, R. 2005. ‘Analyzing the unity within contrast: Chick Corea's “Starlight”’, in Engaging Music, ed. Stein, D. (Oxford, Oxford University Press), pp. 50–64Google Scholar
Schenker, H. 1979. Free Composition [Der freie Satz], New Musical Theories and Fantasies , Vol. III, trans. and ed. Oster, E. (New York, Longman)Google Scholar
Schoenberg, A. 1950a. ‘Composition with twelve notes’, in Style and Idea, ed. Newlin, D. (New York, Philosophical Library), pp. 102–44Google Scholar
Schoenberg, A. 1950b. ‘Criteria for the evaluation of music’, in Style and Idea, ed. Newlin, D. (New York, Philosophical Library), pp. 180–95Google Scholar
Sheinbaum, J. 2002. ‘Progressive rock and the inversion of musical values’, in Progressive Rock Reconsidered, ed. Holm-Hudson, K. (New York, Routledge), pp. 21–42Google Scholar
Stump, P. 2005. Gentle Giant: Acquiring the Taste (London, SAF)Google Scholar
Stump, P. 2010. The Music's all that Matters, 2nd rev. edn. (Chelmsford, Harbour)Google Scholar
Zimmermann, G. 1994. ‘Pantagruel's Nativity: a musical analysis’, Proclamation: The Occasional Gentle Giant Magazine, 4, pp. 65–70Google Scholar

Discography

Genesis. Foxtrot. Charisma. 1972Google Scholar
Genesis. Selling England by the Pound. Charisma. 1973Google Scholar
Gentle Giant. Gentle Giant. Vertigo. 1970Google Scholar
Gentle Giant. Acquiring the Taste. Vertigo. 1971Google Scholar
Gentle Giant. Three Friends. Vertigo. 1972Google Scholar
Gentle Giant. Octopus. Vertigo. 1972Google Scholar
Gentle Giant. In a Glass House. WWA. 1973Google Scholar
Gentle Giant. The Power and the Glory. WWA. 1974Google Scholar
Gentle Giant. Free Hand. Chrysalis. 1975Google Scholar
Jethro Tull. Thick as a Brick. Chrysalis. 1972Google Scholar
Rush. Fly by Night. Mercury. 1975Google Scholar
Van der Graaf Generator. H to He Who Is the Only One. Charisma. 1970Google Scholar
Yes. Close to the Edge. Atlantic. 1972Google Scholar
Yes. Tales from Topographic Oceans. Atlantic. 1973Google Scholar
Yes. Going for the One. Atlantic. 1977Google Scholar