[Smt-talk] I - II- IV as a progression (counterpoint)

[Richard Porterfield]

Dear Paul, 

Since no one more qualified as a historian of theory has answered your question, I'll share with you what your posing it has led me to review and discover. 

Although some theorists such as Riemann track functions (T, D, S) which might be projected by a harmony built upon one or another scale degree, while others track scale degrees without regard to function, the historical association I speak of is longstanding and not limited to Schenker. 

A good place to start is David W. Bernstein's "Nineteenth-century harmonic theory: the Austro-German legacy" in the Cambridge History of Western Music Theory (2002): 778-811. There Bernstein refers to "archetypal cadential formulations" (780) of degrees expressed in Roman numerals (I-V, V-I, IV-I, etc. -- functional in their "various degrees of closure") in the 1802 Handbuch zur Harmonielehre of Georg Vogler, who was the first to systematically apply Roman numerals to scale steps. Bernstein transcribes from the same work a table of seventh chords marked as "VII#, IV#, and V and functioning just so, resolving to triads whose roots are a step above (VII-[I]), a step above (IV-[V]), and a fourth above (V-[I]), respectively (781). Weber, who took up and developed Vogler's ideas and notation was "reluctant to provide the reader with rules for determining acceptable and unacceptable progressions," although he acknowledged that many of the "more than six thousand possible progressions ... are unusual or harsh-sounding" (783). 

So there has always been a tension between prescriptive and descriptive approaches to Roman numeral analysis, as in theory generally. Over-prescription (or worse, malprescription) can stifle creativity; mere description (or worse, misdescription) devolves into what I call Rumsfeld analysis: "stuff happens." 

Regarding the North American theoretical tradition specifically, Bernstein refers to "a roman numeral style of harmonic analysis in America during the nineteenth century" of which Percy Goetschius is a prime mover (787-88). Consider the following passage from Goetschius's The Theory and Practice of Tone-Relations first published in Boston in 1892 (I quote from page 25 of the 1917 edition [New York: G. Schirmer], available on Google Books): 

Rule I: The tonic triad can progress, under all harmonic circumstances, into any other chord of its own, or of any other, key. This is its prerogative as chief of the harmonic system. Therefore I-V and I-IV are good.
Rule II: The subdominant triad (IV) may progress either into the I or the V. Thus: IV-I or IV-V. 
Rule III: The dominant triad (V) may progress, legitimately, only into the tonic chord. Therefore V-I is good; but V-IV must be avoided [emphasis original]. 
There may well be a paper or even a Ph.D. in the subject of Goetschius's influence on American theory having made conditions favorable for the reception of Schenker's theories and methods later in the twentieth century. 

 

Regards, 

Richard Porterfield

Instructor, Mannes College of Music

Ph.D. Candidate,  


From: Paul.Sheehan at ncc.edu
To: porterfr at hotmail.com
CC: jcovach at mail.rochester.edu; smt-talk at societymusictheory.org
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 01:03:06 -0400
Subject: Re: [Smt-talk] I - II- IV as a progression (counterpoint)

Dear Readers,
 
Re. Richard Porterfield's statement: 
"That’s what the Roman numerals have been for, historically, not only identifying scale-steps but also their function in a tonal context." 
I don't mean to be overly fussy, but is it the case that Roman numerals have _not_ historically entangled with function?  I am under the impression that, until Schenker, scale step theory (Roman numerals) was used as an analytical tool independently of function theory.  Furthermore, I am under the impression that Schenker in particular combined scale degree theory with function theory in a way that now seems almost automatic to many theorists and other interested parties (at least in North American academic culture).  Witness, e.g., many textbook treatments of such matters since Aldwell and Schachter, inclusive.  Do any historians of theory care to comment?
Paul Sheehan
<Paul.Sheehan at NCC.edu>


 











 
_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live: Keep your friends up to date with what you do online.
http://windowslive.com/Campaign/SocialNetworking?ocid=PID23285::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:SI_SB_online:082009
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.societymusictheory.org/pipermail/smt-talk-societymusictheory.org/attachments/20090907/478edec7/attachment-0003.htm>