[Smt-talk] A Reply to Prof. Väisälä on harmonic and teaching problems

[Ninov, Dimitar N]

Dear Prof. Väisälä,

Thank you for your comments. I will address them by order.

“This is a very Schenkerian way of thinking. Substitute "prolongation"  
for "expansion." (See the illuminating discussion in Joseph Dubiel's  
JMT article, "When you are a Beethoven.")”

I do not have any idea of why you referred to Schenker here; all I implied was that there were no rules in music, but prinicples. Rules are mostly needed by musicians who have chosen to believe that music theory was born before music making. 

“Actually, it is also "stricter" in many ways concerning melodic  
motions, as Jeppesen describes (although Jeppesen's dissertation  
shows he was well aware that there are exceptions from his textbook  
rules).”

What is stricter? Palestrina's music, compared with Fux’s rules?

“This is mystifying. Is there really a "scholastic" rule somewhere  
that forbids leaps of upper voices in a V2–I6 resolution? I had  
not hear of it. In any case, Aldwell & Schachter describe such leaps  
"very characteristic" in the soprano.”

There is no scholastic rule concerning that, but I am certain that, generally, free resolution of V7 is not taught explicitly, at least in the United States. How many books in English have you found that have a chapter devoted to free resolution of the dominant seventh chord? Secondly, free resolution does not only encompass the V2-I6 connection; there are other cases that involve such resolutions as V7 to I6; V7/V to V7, V7 to I with descending scale degrees 5-3 in the melody, etc. None of these cases have been discussed in any recently published book that I have reviewed. Only Walter Piston mentions the connection between V7 and I6. Besides, a number of Haydn and Mozart piano sonata movements end with a free resolution of V7 to I with “no apparent reason”. Perhaps there is some reason that is worth investigating.

“I wonder how common this type of teacher is nowadays. Perhaps I am  
just lucky with not having come across such teachers in the  
institution where I have studied and taught for the last thirty years.”

I am afraid that nowadays this is your common type of teacher. Yes, you are lucky to have studied and taught in the same institution for thirty years, and to know the same people. I am also lucky to have changed institutions in both Bulgaria and the United States (National Academy of Music and Dance in Plovdiv, State Conservatory of Music in Sofia, University of South Carolina in Columbia, University of Texas at Austin, and Texas State University in San Marcos). With this experience, enhanced by: some 25 years of specialization in the filed of harmony; reading books in English, Russian, French, Bulgarian, and Serbian; attending conferences and discussing matters with colleagues and students; arguing with devotees of certain theoretical concepts, etc.– I was able to draw a certain picture of the differences between some European and some American mentalities, concepts, and approaches. But there are also general trends. 
   According to my observations over the years, I claim that, today, the level of harmony studies worldwide has dropped by several degrees. I attribute this situation to several reasons, among which are: 1) commercialism; 2) the massive production/devaluation of PhD and DMA degrees around the world; and 3) curriculum/financial policies in music departments geared to producing a “well-rounded” music theory major who is no specialist in any of the three fundamental theoretical disciplines. 
   I also claim that a huge number of theory teachers, especially those who are no music makers of any kind and have been hired to fill a position upon review of their paper credentials alone, teach from a single textbook whose premises they hardly question. If this book says that the appoggiatura is a leaping dissonance, they believe in that statement and relate it to their students with no further investigation. (Do you personally believe in that? If not, why did you not share your opinion a week ago?) Also, if the book in question does not teach free resolutions of V7 (or any seventh chord) – they will not teach that either. You cannot sell what you do not have, can you? If this book says that there is no subdominant function, and that everything must be analyzed in the light of tonic or dominant prolongation, they will relate that to the students too, even if some of them are not fond of Schenkerian theories.
   Last, but probably most important: the art of harmonization is not studied explicitly in theory classes, and this fact is very sad, because one could only get first-hand experience in the real problems of functionality and voice-leading through being involved in the most essential and only creative activity in the study of harmony. Practicing the art of harmonization will open a teacher’s horizons and make them a part of the creative branch of music theory, without which you only have speculation.

Thank you for your time. I wish you well,

Dimitar Ninov

Dr. Dimitar Ninov, Lecturer
School of Music
Texas State University
601 University Drive
San Marcos, Texas 78666