[Smt-talk] Abbreviated Labels of Seventh Chords

[Ninov, Dimitar N]

Dear Phil,

Thank you very much. Your last sentence says it all; our students must know more than a single approach, for this opens their horizons and teaches them to think critically and to be curious.

Best wishes,

Dimitar

Dr. Dimitar Ninov, Lecturer
School of Music
Texas State University
601 University Drive
San Marcos, Texas 78666
________________________________________
From: Philip Duker [pduker at udel.edu]
Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2012 12:00 PM
To: Michael Luxner
Cc: Stephen Jablonsky; Ninov, Dimitar N; smt-talk at lists.societymusictheory.org
Subject: Re: [Smt-talk] Abbreviated Labels of Seventh Chords

As a historical note, you can find examples of both (i.e. "4/2" or just "2") in continuo parts, and composers were not consistent in their use.  In the first line of Purcell's "Stript of their Green" you'll find "4/2" in m. 2 followed by just "2" in m. 4, both times to indicate a "6/4/2" chord.  Here's a link to the score if you're interested (scroll down to the bottom for the score published in the first edition of Orpheus Brittanicus):

http://artsongcentral.com/2009/purcell-stript-of-their-green/

Also, in CPE Bach's Versuch you find him classifying these as "The Chord of the Second," (pg. 252 in the Mitchell translation) and he says that it can be figured a number of ways including "2" or 4/2" but also just "4+" or "4 [natural sign]."  While many modern editions tend to standardize figures, continuo players "back in the day" read things that were a little more chaotic (not to mention dealing with visual alignment issues as the Purcell score shows).

Pedagogically I think it makes sense to point out both practices in case they would encounter such music, even if you want to require the students to write things in a particular way in your classes.

Cheers,
Phil

.

.

>>
Philip Duker
Assistant Professor of Music
University of Delaware



On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 10:33 AM, Michael Luxner <mluxner at mail.millikin.edu<mailto:mluxner at mail.millikin.edu>> wrote:
That is indeed elegant, and dovetails nicely with the point I make to students: that in all positions (7; 6/5; 4/3; 2) the symbol's only essential purpose is to show the dissonance in relation to the bass.  Incidentally, we use the Kostka-Payne text, which presents the third-inversion symbol as "4/2," but occasionally uses just "2" in later chapters, without comment.



CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message along with any included attachments may contain information that is confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee,) you may not use, copy, or disclose to anyone any information contained in this message. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender and immediately delete the message and any attachments. Thank you for your cooperation.

>>> Stephen Jablonsky <jablonsky at optimum.net<mailto:jablonsky at optimum.net>> 2/9/2012 7:18 AM >>>
Dimitar,

I've been using 2 instead of 4/2 for decades because it is so easy to teach your students that the abbreviated figured bass numbers descend from 7 to 2: 7 - 6/5 - 4/3 - 2. It is simple and beautiful and seems to possess some universal truth about it.


On Feb 8, 2012, at 10:50 PM, Ninov, Dimitar N wrote:

Dear Colleagues,

My students were asking me why I wrote V2 instead of V4/2. I guess I had to ask them why they wrote V4/2 instead of V2. This is not a big deal, of course, but I wanted to bring to your attention the fact that number 4 is irrelevant to the logic of derivation of the abbreviated labels of seventh chords.

The abbreviated labels are derived by two intervals: 1) the interval between the bass and the root on the one hand, and 2) the interval between the bass and the seventh on the other. Thus in root position the only number is 7, because the interval between the bass and the root is unison; in first inversion we have 6-5; in second inversion 4-3, and in third inversion the only number is 2, because the interval between the bass and the seventh is unison.

Why 4? It shows the interval between the bass and the third of the seventh chord, which does not have to be shown unless we work in minor and use only figured bass with no Roman numerals.

When I flip through the pages of some European and older American books of harmony (as well as some relatively new) the above explanation is provided. Author such as Piston, Tischler, Schoenberg, Horvitt, Cook, and all Russian theorists use 2 instead of 4/2, but the massive tendency in the US is to write 4-2. Is this tradition based on ignoring the logic of derivation, or is there something special that stands behind this label?

I would appreciate any ideas in this regard.

Best wishes,

Dimitar

Dr. Dimitar Ninov, Lecturer
School of Music
Texas State University
601 University Drive
San Marcos, Texas 78666
_______________________________________________
Smt-talk mailing list
Smt-talk at lists.societymusictheory.org<mailto:Smt-talk at lists.societymusictheory.org>
http://lists.societymusictheory.org/listinfo.cgi/smt-talk-societymusictheory.org

Prof. Stephen Jablonsky, Ph.D.
Music Department Chair
The City College of New York
160 Convent Avenue S-72
New York NY 10031
(212) 650-7663<tel:%28212%29%20650-7663>




_______________________________________________
Smt-talk mailing list
Smt-talk at lists.societymusictheory.org<mailto:Smt-talk at lists.societymusictheory.org>
http://lists.societymusictheory.org/listinfo.cgi/smt-talk-societymusictheory.org