[Smt-talk] I-II-IV as a progression

[David Feurzeig]

On Aug 30, 2009, at 8:53 PM, Steven Rosenhaus wrote:

> The II almost always strikes me as V/V--which is a predictable  
> response--but what happens next is that the IV sounds (to me, I  
> must emphasize) not as a set up for plagal candence but rather as  
> an extended V chord (V 11) missing the root. In other words, I hear  
> it as functioning as a V in a weird but real way.
>
> Does anyone else hear it this way?

I don't, not generically. I hear I-II-IV as its own thing: a stock  
progression, as many have pointed out in this thread. But your  
hearing calls to mind an intriguing instance, again from the Beatles:

In "She's Leaving Home", the II chord (F#dom9) resolves in the body  
of the song to V9, but with the melody outlining the upper-structure  
triad (i.e. A, the IV chord).
Then in the coda, the F#9 resolves to IV outright.

So there is not just the potential for overlap between the V9 and the  
IV functions, but exploitation of this bi-valence in "the repertoire".

(In a similar sense, to me the fully-diminished vii chord often has a  
plagal effect, especially in 2nd inversion, despite the supposed  
strict opposition of "dominant" and "subdominant" functions.)

David

David Feurzeig
Music Department
University of Vermont