[Smt-talk] Passing and Neighboring 6/4s

[skostka at aol.com]

Hi, All --


Sorry to be so late to respond to this, but I was traveling with no access to our book. It is not true that Dorothy Payne and I say (or even imply) that vi->V and vi->viio are "unacceptable." In fact, on p. 117 (6th edition) you'll find that "...the diagrams represent norms of harmonic practice observed by theorists over the years in the works of a large number of tonal composers. They do not represent rules; they are just guidelines for your use..."


I do stand by that assertion, but perhaps we should rewrite it to clarify?


Other than that, I thoroughly enjoyed the discussion and found it very informative.


Best,


Stefan Kostka
Professor Emeritus
University of Texas at Austin


-----Original Message-----
From: Dmitri Tymoczko <dmitri at Princeton.EDU>
To: smt-talk smt <smt-talk at societymusictheory.org>
Sent: Thu, Jan 21, 2010 9:51 am
Subject: Re: [Smt-talk] Passing and Neighboring 6/4s


A bunch of people have written in to defend Aldwell and Schachter.  Let me clarify that I'm not trying to single out their book in particular: every major textbook contains similar howlers.  For example, Kostka and Payne provide a map of acceptable progressions which asserts that both vi->V and vi->viio are unacceptable.  Yet in Mozart's piano sonatas, fully 29% of vi chords go to either viio or V. 
 

 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.societymusictheory.org/pipermail/smt-talk-societymusictheory.org/attachments/20100201/8dabef0b/attachment-0002.htm>