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

[Ninov, Dimitar N]

Dear Jason,

Thank you. I think that we are bringing the issue of using the term "pre-dominant" by many American theorists. I will not postpone writing on this subject, but let me comment on the "dominant" and on the "beginning on the dominant".
I am sorry I will have to repeat myself. 

You would hardly use the term "beginning of the dominant" for a real dominant chord with suspensions, for it instantly sounds as dominant at the very beginning. The proof is that you could instantly resolve it into the tonic, without waiting for its "second phase" to occur. This will produce an authentic cadence. The cadential six-four cannot do that, and it this sense it needs to go through two mandatory phases: initiating a dominant momentum in the bass and overcoming the tonic function implied by the overall structure. 

Therefore, the label V6/4 is an incorrect expression of the beginning phase of this dominant process, for a true  "V" would have had the potential to resolve immediately into the tonic - even at the beginning level of V6/4. Compare to V5/4 which does not need "continuation" but can resolve directly into I. 

We can fully enjoy the nature of the cadential six-four as a conflict between T and D when listening to some cadenzas in different instrumental concerti. The cadential six-four is usually dramatically introduced before the opening of the cadenza, and very frequently prolonged with arpeggiations. Do you hear a bunch of non-chord tones over a dominant function, or do you hear clearly arpeggiated tonic triad over a dominant function?

Thank you,

Dimitar

Dr. Dimitar Ninov, Lecturer
School of Music
Texas State University
601 University Drive
San Marcos, Texas 78666
________________________________________
From: Solomon, Jason [jsolomon at agnesscott.edu]
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2012 4:25 PM
To: Ninov, Dimitar N; smt-talk at lists.societymusictheory.org
Subject: Re: [Smt-talk] Nature and Labeling of the Cadential Six-Four

> 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