[Smt-talk] Passing and Neighboring 6/4s
Dmitri Tymoczko
dmitri at Princeton.EDU
Tue Jan 19 16:54:13 PST 2010
A number of you have made the sensible-sounding suggestion that we
should teach both specific idioms and general principles. I agree
with the general sentiment.
The problem, in this specific instance, is that when you look
carefully at classical music, you find shockingly few varieties of
"passing" and "neighboring" 6/4 chords. There are only two common
kinds of "neighboring 6/4 chords", to wit I->IV6/4->I and V->I6/4->V,
and basically just one common variety of "passing 6/4," namely IV6-
>I6/4->[IV or ii6 or ii6/5].
So the idea that there is some complicated practice which can be
subsumed into a single unifying framework -- that of "passing" or
"neighboring" 6/4 chords -- is not really backed up by this music.
There are precisely three idiomatic non-cadential 6/4 progressions,
and together these account for the vast majority of examples that
students are going to encounter. The concepts "neighboring" and
"passing 6/4" allow you to knock these three idioms down to two
categories, but at the expense of forcing you to explain to your
students that a vast number of the newly-sanctioned theoretical
possibilities (ii-V6/4-ii, etc.) don't ever occur in the literature.
In this sense, I think the cost of the proposed "general principles"
might be greater than the benefit.
Let me also point out a couple of deeper philosophical issues raised
by this very interesting discussion:
1. Ultimately, we're asking whether we should account for this piece
of tonal harmony using general "grammatical laws" or particular idiom-
like "schemas" -- an issue that is close to Robert Gjerdingen's
heart. I am not willing to follow Bob down the dusty road of
dismissing harmonic theory altogether, but I think it's interesting to
ask whether noncadential 6/4 chords might call for a schematic, rather
than rule-based description.
2. For this discussion to get anywhere, it is necessary that we
rigorously distinguish phenomenology from syntax. It's reasonable to
say: "The I-IV6/4-I progression gives me a neighboring feeling." I
have no quarrel with that psychological statement, though I do not
share it. It is another thing to say: "The I-IV6/4-I progression
results from a more general contrapuntal process, namely neighboring
motion; this contrapuntal process licenses a chord progressions that
are not accounted for by standard harmonic rules." This claim is
false: the *only* common sorts of "neighboring 6/4" progressions are
those that conform to familiar harmonic principles -- that is, there
are no common "neighboring 6/4" progressions that can't also appear in
root position.
Personally, I think a lot of music-theoretical confusion results from
the failure to distinguish psychology from syntax; they're very
different enterprises. When people on the list talk about "general
principles," I suspect they're talking about the psychological level
-- they're saying "the IV in IV6/4 feels neighboring to me." They are
not talking about a general syntactical principle like "in general a
chord can be embellished by neighboring motion," because that general
principle is manifestly inaccurate.
DT
Dmitri Tymoczko
Associate Professor of Music
310 Woolworth Center
Princeton, NJ 08544-1007
(609) 258-4255 (ph), (609) 258-6793 (fax)
http://music.princeton.edu/~dmitri
More information about the Smt-talk
mailing list