[Smt-talk] Nature and Labeling of the Cadential Six-Four

[Solomon, Jason]

> As for the "conundrum" of the connection between II and I am puzzled. II6 is
> an excellent subdominant chord and it connects the tionic perfectly, in
> aplagal relationship; just like IV. Perhaps some people forgot to think of
> this when they circulate the term "pre-dominant", and they teach their
> students that connecting II6 to I is bad? Or II to I6? Both are terrfic. Not
> to speak of II6 and cadential 6/4.


Dear Dimitar,

Use of the term "predominant" has absolutely nothing to do with considering
ii6-I or ii-I6 to be "bad." The supertonic chord, in such harmonic contexts,
simply is not serving the predominant function as it does when it precedes a
dominant-functioning chord (something like ii6­V). The distinction here is
between *chord* (such as supertonic or subdominant) and *function* (such as
predominant). When you write that "ii6 is an excellent subdominant chord,"
you seem to be using "subdominant" as the designation for a function, in
place of "predominant." Riemann used "subdominant" to describe this
particular function, and many scholars still do today.

Along a similar line, and regarding the cadential 6/4, I believe that some
theorists would say that dominant *function* begins at the cadential 6/4
(when it truly is "cadential"), rather than claiming, as you have suggested,
that the cadential 6/4 "is a dominant." The difference in language might be
subtle, but I believe it reflects a recognition that chord and function are
not necessarily one and the same.

Best,
Jason

--
Jason W. Solomon, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Music Theory
Department of Music
Agnes Scott College
Office: Presser 101
404-471-6261
jsolomon at agnesscott.edu
http://www.agnesscott.edu



> 
> As for the "conundrum" of the connection between II and I am puzzled. II6 is
> an excellent subdominant chord and it connects the tionic perfectly, in
> aplagal relationship; just like IV. Perhaps some people forgot to think of
> this when they circulate the term "pre-dominant", and they teach their
> students that connecting II6 to I is bad? Or II to I6? Both are terrfic. Not
> to speak of II6 and cadential 6/4.
> 
> As for the use of the term "pre-dominant" versus "subdominant" I will open a
> new topic very soon.
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> Dimitar
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Smt-talk mailing list
> Smt-talk at lists.societymusictheory.org
> http://lists.societymusictheory.org/listinfo.cgi/smt-talk-societymusictheory.o
> rg