[Smt-talk] Caution versus Generalization

[Nicolas Meeùs]

I think so too, even if perhaps in different terms.

On the one hand, it is true that Erpf, reviving 18th-century theories 
that the 7th of the dominant chord actually is the subdominant degree 
(Rameau, d'Alembert, and more specifically perhaps Jean Adam Serre), 
appears to reduce the opposition between dominant and subdominant. It is 
in that sense that V11, even more than V7, combines a bottom D and an 
upper S.

On the other hand I think that Erpf is more sensible than Riemann ever 
was to the direction of the movement. There is something strange in the 
fact that Riemann opposes I--IV--I movements, on one hand, to I--V--I 
movements on the other hand, while there seems to be an obvious analogy 
between I--IV and V--I on the one hand, IV--I and I--V on the other hand.

All this may be considered to weaken the opposition between dominant and 
subdominant functions. I don't think it really does. But certainly it 
does not "repudiate" any of them.

Nicolas Meeùs
Université Paris-Sorbonne



Le 29/08/2013 16:14, Dave Headlam a écrit :
> Frank et al -- There's some nuance to be added here.  Dan's text (p. 
> 309) states that "First, he [ Erpf] remakes harmonic function from a 
> three-termed into a two-termed dualism--in other words, from a 
> conception of a central T and two lateral areas, S and D, to one 
> involving an 'on' Tonic state and an 'off' non-Tonic state.  Although 
> both traditional Subdominant and Dominant categories are retained, 
> they are now the two basic aspects of the non-Tonic state . . . "   
> Dan goes on to show Erpf's indications for the "off" state 
> differentiate S from D and major from minor, and that Erpf's examples 
> show elements of "both Dominants" ("Doppeldominanten") within chords, 
> such as a "V11" chord combining a bottom D and upper S:  G-B-D-F-A-C.
>
> Dave Headlam

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.societymusictheory.org/pipermail/smt-talk-societymusictheory.org/attachments/20130829/ceb85944/attachment-0003.htm>