[Smt-talk] Doubling the Tone of Resolution

[Ninov, Dimitar N]

Dear Colleagues,

I agree to a certain extent with both Prof. Meeùs and Prof. Kemme. I think there must be some misunderstanding in the discussion.

Nicholas is right when he presents a principle that has been more frequently observed than not. He talks about the so-called “false seventh” that I covered in my previous message.

Clemens is right that numerous expansions of this principle will be observed. He gave an example by Mozart, and I gave examples with Bach’s chorales. I do not want to refer to fine examples created by great masters as “breaking a rule”, but as an “expansion of a principle”. Rules only exist in the mind of teachers who believe that music theory was born before music making.

We do avoid parallel fifths, but in some cases they are justified by style or voice leading, or more complex texture, including an orchestral accompaniment. The same is the problem with the false seventh. It is not a problem if we know how to use it masterfully.

The problem with Fux’s strict counterpoint would not be so big if some musicians did not take his rules literally, even within the 16th century counterpoint. Palestrina’s music is freer than Fux’s rules. The discrepancy grows when we try to find those rules reflected in the free contrapuntal style of the 18th century, where the boldest possible vertical combinations may be observed. Mozart may have studied strict counterpoint but his fugatto in the last movement of Jupiter has nothing to do with a strict style, except for the general application of invertible counterpoint.

I also do see a conflict between scholastic harmony studies and practical experience in the real world of music. Class studies of harmony will easily go counter to what happens in real music when the teacher is not a professional musician but a “dry speculator” who relies on a textbook to tell him or her how to teach. All kinds of problems may arise from such a situation, including a penalty on the part of the teacher for some original harmonic progression or voice-leading made by the student. In this case the penalty will be given out of ignorance rather than expertise and critical assessment. Sometimes, if the progression is stylistically quite inconsistent but technically well executed, I would praise the student for a good work and make remarks about style. 

Let me provide a general example of scholastic limitation versus some idiomatic practices in classical music. There are numerous cases of free resolution of the dominant seventh chord; a resolution that may affect any of the chord members, including the seventh itself. For instance, the seventh may move upward, or some other chord member may leap in an upper voice. Occasionally, a simultaneous leap of two or even three upper voices may be observed, and the sound is idiomatic (for example, Beethoven, Piano Sonata in f, Op. 2, No.1, second movement, measure 6). In most of these free resolutions, the tonic appears as a sixth chord and covers the exceptional situations. There are also situations where the tonic is in root position.

Having said that, I know that, usually, students are not taught how to resolve V7 and its inversions freely in a variety of situations that would suggest that. A teacher will penalize the student even if a free resolution has been executed idiomatically. Why would that happen? Because the teacher has not paid attention to such examples and is not aware of them. And since the book says that the dominant seventh must resolve strictly, he/she goes by the book. However, some books do cover aspects of free resolution…but our teacher in question has chosen to use THAT SPECIAL book forever, and it represents the ultimate judgement for him/her.

Thank you very much,

Dimitar


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