[Smt-talk] Subdominant versus Predominant

[Peter Schubert, Prof.]

I join this interesting thread to comment on an aside by Dimitar Ninov, in
which he expresses a pedagogical preference for "real music" over
"abstract theory." As I write in the current issue of JMTP, I share this
sentiment. But we still have to give names to things, and to somehow
simplify matters for the young. I wonder if we could simply give fewer
names and rules at the early stages of musical education, adding more as
we go along. As the students approach the level of historical
sophistication and knowledge of repertoire possessed by the writers of
this thread, more rules and terms could be introduced. Then maybe early on
we could avoid categorical statements like "IV never follows V" or "I
never follows ii" that force us either to scurry around avoiding
repertoire examples where those things happen, or to explain them as some
kind of exception.

Peter Schubert
Schulich School of Music
McGill University
555 Sherbrooke St. W.
Montreal, QC  H3A 1E3
(514) 398-4535 x00281



On 12-02-26 10:02 PM, "Ninov, Dimitar N" <dn16 at txstate.edu> wrote:

>One of my missions as theorist and pedagogue is to stand against this
>abstract theory which is too detached from real music, and into which
>generations of students are currently being dragged as if it is the
>heaven of musical analysis.
>