Phish.net is a non-commercial project run by Phish fans and for Phish fans under the auspices of the all-volunteer, non-profit Mockingbird Foundation.
This project serves to compile, preserve, and protect encyclopedic information about Phish and their music.
Credits | Terms Of Use | Legal | DMCA
The Mockingbird Foundation is a non-profit organization founded by Phish fans in 1996 to generate charitable proceeds from the Phish community.
And since we're entirely volunteer – with no office, salaries, or paid staff – administrative costs are less than 2% of revenues! So far, we've distributed over $2 million to support music education for children – hundreds of grants in all 50 states, with more on the way.
So, I think what you're saying is that I'm not using the terms "tonicization" and "modulation" in the same way you would when undertaking an analysis of Baroque or Classical music, and that's certainly a valid point. I understand what these terms represent in the analysis of classical music (secondary dominants, etc.). I've tried to adapt them as broad concepts that aid in the analysis of improvisational rock, and that turns out not to have a one-to-one relationship. But I think it's essential when you're mapping an interpretive framework onto a new repertoire.
I'm trying to use both terms, tonicization and modulation, in a way that represents "going somewhere else," with the distinction being how long they spend in another key. You could, in a sense, map the point you make about tonicization above (i.e. "tonicizing a new pitch for literally as little as one bar, or in many cases even only one beat" onto "being in a new key for a relatively short period of time," as I think is true of the examples I've given above.
"Modulation," then, becomes "being in a new key on a semi-permanent basis," which maps onto what you said about Bach fugues ("only last a few bars" or Mozart ("the course of a few bars" . Within what I've called modulation, I've determined there's a distinction between "structural modulation" (somewhat arbitrarily defined as lasting more than two minutes) and "last-minute swerves" (key changes at the end of jams that set up segues into new songs, and don't seem to serve any other purpose, i.e. new jamming spaces).
I'm not sure I agree that the two-minute time limit is misleading. I really do believe there's a difference between the two groups, structural MODs and last-minute swerves, and I think the jams in each group do share properties that are unique to the group. Practically speaking, it was also a way of narrowing a batch of about 50 jams down to the 37 that I discuss in this paper, which is a slightly more manageable serving size. But your point is well-taken, namely that using terms designed for the analysis of the classical music repertoire don't necessarily translate exactly to a new body of music.
My preference, really, is to never have to use the term "modulation." When I'm discussing this casually with friends or whatever, I usually just say, "That jam went from X to Y," rather than "that jam modulated from X to Y." Using tonicization versus modulation is me trying to account for how long the band spends time in the new key(s).