<table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="0" ><tr><td valign="top" style="font: inherit;"><DIV>Dear Thomas,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>thank you very much for your exciting input! As always, original and profound. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Indeed, tonal functions are not fast attached to musical texture. They can be related to modalities, to Greimasian square, to narrative trajectories, to logic, to discoursive strategies, to Aufhebung, to deconstruction, etc. Functions are the elements which connect musical thinking to thinking in general, as a category. In this sense, voice leading is just the icing on the cake.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The fourth element (the additional C) can be inscribed into binary opposition and its negation. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Thank you again,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Best wishes,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Ildar Khannanov</DIV>
<DIV>Peabody Conservatory</DIV>
<DIV><A href="mailto:solfeggio7@yahoo.com">solfeggio7@yahoo.com</A><BR><BR>--- On <B>Fri, 9/11/09, Thomas Noll <I><noll@cs.tu-berlin.de></I></B> wrote:<BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(16,16,255) 2px solid"><BR>From: Thomas Noll <noll@cs.tu-berlin.de><BR>Subject: Re: [Smt-talk] I - II- IV as a progression (counterpoint)<BR>To: "Ildar Khannanov" <solfeggio7@yahoo.com><BR>Cc: "smt-talk smt" <smt-talk@societymusictheory.org>, "Nicolas Meeùs" <nicolas.meeus@paris-sorbonne.fr><BR>Date: Friday, September 11, 2009, 7:20 PM<BR><BR>
<DIV id=yiv1070902399>Dear Ildar, dear Colleagues,
<DIV>
<DIV>as Kevin Mooney points out in his introductory article "<FONT class=Apple-style-span size=3><SPAN class=Apple-style-span style="FONT-SIZE: 11px">Riemann's Debut as a Music theorist</SPAN></FONT><SPAN class=Apple-style-span style="FONT-SIZE: 11px"><SPAN class=Apple-style-span style="FONT-SIZE: 12px">" to his translation of "Musikalische Logik" (JMT 44/1), there is an interesting deviation in Riemann's analysis of the "grosse Kadenz" C F C G C between the 1872 version from "Neue Zeitschrift für Musik" and the published version of his dissertation "Musikalische Logik: Hauptzüge der physiologischen und psychologischen Begründung unseres Musiksystems" from 1874. </SPAN></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=Apple-style-span style="FONT-SIZE: 11px"><SPAN class=Apple-style-span style="FONT-SIZE: 12px">The (1901 reprint of the) 1972-version contains the Hauptmannian terms "Quintbegriff" and "Terzeinigung"</SPAN></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=Apple-style-span style="FONT-FAMILY: Times">"Ich sehe in diesem zweiten Auftreten der Tonika den Quintbegriff, der sich dem Einheitsbegriff des ersten Auftretens entgegensetzt, und der seine Terzeinigung durch die Oberdominante wieder in der Tonika findet."</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>In the dissertation (as published 1974) he abandons the Hauptmannian terms in favor of "Antithese" and "Synthese" and he introduces a grammatical error! (a Freudian slip ?) </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px; FONT: 12px Times"><SPAN style="LETTER-SPACING: 0px">"Ich sehe in diesem Auftreten der Tonika nach der Unterdominante die Antithese ..., die sich der These des ersten Auftretens entgegensetzt, und die ihre Synthese durch die Oberdominante wieder in die Tonika findet." </SPAN></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px; FONT: 12px Times"><BR></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px; FONT: 12px Times"><FONT class=Apple-style-span face=Helvetica>A grammatically correct formulation would be:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px; FONT: 12px Times"><FONT class=Apple-style-span face=Helvetica><SPAN class=Apple-style-span style="FONT-FAMILY: Times">"... und die ihre Synthese durch die Oberdominante wieder in der Tonika findet." </SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px; FONT: 12px Times"><FONT class=Apple-style-span face=Helvetica>But literally this would imply that the manifestations of Thesis, Antithesis and Synthesis are the three occurrences of the C-chord (the second typically as a six-four-chord).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px; FONT: 12px Times"><FONT class=Apple-style-span face=Helvetica><BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px; FONT: 12px Times"><FONT class=Apple-style-span face=Helvetica>But Riemann defines subsequently:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px; FONT: 12px Times"><FONT class=Apple-style-span face=Helvetica>Thesis: C, Antithesis F C, Synthesis G C.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px; FONT: 12px Times"><FONT class=Apple-style-span face=Helvetica><BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px; FONT: 12px Times"><FONT class=Apple-style-span face=Helvetica>And finally he introduces the terms:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px; FONT: 12px Times"><FONT class=Apple-style-span face=Helvetica>thetic chord: C, antithetic chord: F, synthetic chord: G </FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px; FONT: 12px Times"><FONT class=Apple-style-span face=Helvetica><BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px; FONT: 12px Times"><FONT class=Apple-style-span face=Helvetica>In other words, it seems as if he shifts the scene of logical action from the C chords towards the F and G chords.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px; FONT: 12px Times"><FONT class=Apple-style-span face=Helvetica>When this maneuver is done, he acknowledges that the cadence C F G C is more frequent and explains why the absence of the second C-chord doesn't matter.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px; FONT: 12px Times"><FONT class=Apple-style-span face=Helvetica><BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px; FONT: 12px Times"><SPAN class=Apple-style-span style="FONT-FAMILY: Helvetica">The intellectual tension behind this shift is that – on the one hand – Riemann wishes to present his preferred analysis of the "typical" cadence, while – on the other hand – he wants to make peace with the frequent cadence. Recall that he concludes his characterization of the "Grosse Kandenz" (both in 1872 and 1874) with: "Diese Gestalt der Kadenz ist der Typus aller musikalischen Form". </SPAN></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px; FONT: 12px Times"><FONT class=Apple-style-span face=Helvetica><BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px; FONT: 12px Times"><FONT class=Apple-style-span face=Helvetica>I'd like to amplify this tension with a side glance to structural semantics: The first characterization Thesis: C, Antithesis F C_64, Synthesis G C reminds about the structure of a semiotic square (which - of course involves different attitude towards logics):</FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px; FONT: 12px Times"><BR></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px; FONT: 12px Times"><FONT class=Apple-style-span face=Helvetica>C C_64</FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px; FONT: 12px Times"><FONT class=Apple-style-span face=Helvetica>| X |</FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px; FONT: 12px Times"><FONT class=Apple-style-span face=Helvetica>G F</FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px; FONT: 12px Times"><FONT class=Apple-style-span face=Helvetica><BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px; FONT: 12px Times"><FONT class=Apple-style-span face=Helvetica>Although I hesitate to choose semantic labels for the opposition between C (= C_53) and C_64, I would argue the square attributes a kind of narrative meaning to the "Grosse Kadenz" </FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px; FONT: 12px Times"><SPAN class=Apple-style-span style="FONT-FAMILY: Helvetica">[NB: Christine Ohno reports in "Die semiotische Theorie der Pariser Schule" that Hegel was also an inspirational source for Greimas]</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px; FONT: 12px Times"><FONT class=Apple-style-span face=Helvetica><BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px; FONT: 12px Times"><FONT class=Apple-style-span face=Helvetica>Under this particular perspective it would be even less plausible to merely subsume the C - F - G - C cadence under the roof of the "Grosse Kadenz".</FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px; FONT: 12px Times"><FONT class=Apple-style-span face=Helvetica>best wishes</FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px; FONT: 12px Times"><FONT class=Apple-style-span face=Helvetica>Thomas Noll </FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px; FONT: 12px Times"><FONT class=Apple-style-span face=Helvetica><BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px; FONT: 12px Times"><FONT class=Apple-style-span face=Helvetica><BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px; FONT: 12px Times"><FONT class=Apple-style-span face=Helvetica><BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px; FONT: 12px Times"><FONT class=Apple-style-span face=Helvetica>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>*********************************************************</DIV>
<DIV>Thomas Noll</DIV>
<DIV><A href="http://flp.cs.tu-berlin.de/~noll" target=_blank rel=nofollow>http://flp.cs.tu-berlin.de/~noll</A></DIV>
<DIV><A href="http://us.mc450.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=noll@cs.tu-berlin.de" target=_blank rel=nofollow ymailto="mailto:noll@cs.tu-berlin.de">noll@cs.tu-berlin.de</A></DIV>
<DIV>Escola Superior de Musica de Catalunya, Barcelona </DIV>
<DIV>Departament de Teoria i Composició </DIV>
<DIV><BR class=khtml-block-placeholder></DIV>
<DIV>*********************************************************</DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV></FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px; FONT: 12px Times"><BR></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px; FONT: 12px Times"><FONT class=Apple-style-span face=Helvetica><BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px; FONT: 12px Times"><FONT class=Apple-style-span face=Helvetica><BR></FONT></DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV><BR>
<DIV>
<DIV>Am 11.09.2009 um 23:37 schrieb Ildar Khannanov:</DIV><BR class=Apple-interchange-newline>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><SPAN class=Apple-style-span style="WORD-SPACING: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; COLOR: rgb(0,0,0); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; BORDER-COLLAPSE: separate; orphans: 2; widows: 2">
<DIV>
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 border=0>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD vAlign=top>
<DIV>Dear Nicolas and the List,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>in my view, this situation is much less dramatic. Roman Numerals are a scaled-down version of tonal functions.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>As for the subdominant triad problem, it does not exist. Critics of Riemann have fallen in the trap they were preparing for the great theorist from Leipzig. Why is it the "weakness of Riemann's theory" to imagine a shadow of tonic between subdominant and dominant? Au contraire, it is a very elegant theoretical suggestion!</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>As for the revisionist idea that IV to V "is not a progression because there are no common tones," and the suggestion to substitute IV as a primary triad with supertonic triad, one may ask: so what if there are no common tones between S and D triads? There is a common tone between T and S triads! And, if to consider that Rameau suggested Dominant Seventh chord as the representative ot dominant function, then there IS a common tone between Subdominant and Dominant Seventh.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>As for supertonic triad as a substitute for subdominant triad, it does not exist! If we are talking about root position supertonic triad in major, it is used very rarely because there is a serious problem connecting it with tonic, and that is a very serious voice leading problem : there are no common tones indeed and no purpose of resolution. In minor this chord is an absolute nonsense. Only Snoop the Dogg uses it after the tonic triad ( "I've been a sittin in a Holiday Inn...etc). As for considering it a part of the circle of fifth, as a chord resolving to the dominant triad, there is another problem. A minor triad as it is, it cannot serve the function of a dominant and as such it does not require resolution into dominant triad. Nicolas in his previous email mentioned exactly that, that the presence of a leading tone makes the dominant sound like the dominant. Or else, why Sechter did not suggest to use minor v as a
good substitute of a dominant triad in minor? We still use harmonic minor and raise sc st 7 for a reason.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>It has been discussed for decades that supertonic triad in root position is not a function. The function is the subdominant. It often has an added 6 or substituted 6. Supertonic triad in major and in minor is not a structural function. Its addition to the number of structural functions does not solve the problem of progression because progression do not strart on ii. The problem is not to connect IV to V, but to go through the circle I--non I--I. Or, I--IV--V7--I.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>As for adjacency as a factor determining function, there is also a big problem with logic. Mi to Fa seems to be an adjacency, but this connection does not constitute the leading tone. Mi can go to Fa and stay there. Or Fa can go to Mi and remain on Mi. What makes Ti a leading tone is not the adjacency but the fact that it is a part of the dominant function. Adjacency is meaningless in music, while function is a constituting power.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>My conclusion is that Riemann is not that easy to criticise. The division of labor is such that Leipzig has always been a theory town, while Vienna had brilliant performers and composer.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Best wishes,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Ildar Khannanov</DIV>
<DIV>Peabody Conservatory</DIV>
<DIV><A href="http://us.mc450.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=solfeggio7@yahoo.com" target=_blank rel=nofollow ymailto="mailto:solfeggio7@yahoo.com">solfeggio7@yahoo.com</A><BR><BR>--- On<SPAN class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN><B>Tue, 9/8/09, Nicolas Meeùs<SPAN class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN><I><<A href="http://us.mc450.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=nicolas.meeus@paris-sorbonne.fr" target=_blank rel=nofollow ymailto="mailto:nicolas.meeus@paris-sorbonne.fr">nicolas.meeus@paris-sorbonne.fr</A>></I></B><SPAN class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN>wrote:<BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(16,16,255) 2px solid"><BR>From: Nicolas Meeùs <<A href="http://us.mc450.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=nicolas.meeus@paris-sorbonne.fr" target=_blank rel=nofollow ymailto="mailto:nicolas.meeus@paris-sorbonne.fr">nicolas.meeus@paris-sorbonne.fr</A>><BR>Subject: Re: [Smt-talk] I - II- IV as a progression (counterpoint)<BR>To: "smt-talk smt" <<A href="http://us.mc450.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=smt-talk@societymusictheory.org" target=_blank rel=nofollow ymailto="mailto:smt-talk@societymusictheory.org">smt-talk@societymusictheory.org</A>><BR>Date: Tuesday, September 8, 2009, 1:02 PM<BR><BR>
<DIV id=yiv159990648 style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"><FONT size=-1><FONT face=Georgia>The relation between function theory and Roman numerals is a complex matter. It depends, in my opinion, on one's conception of a harmonic function.<BR> The problem not only is that the same function may be projected by harmonies built on different scale degrees, but also that the same scale degree may project different functions. In this respect, it is striking that Goetschius, whose rules quoted by Richard otherwise faithfully echo Simon Sechter's description (<I>Die richtige Folge der Grundharmonien</I>, 1853, p. 12-13), nevertheless include the IV-V progression which Sechter (and Bruckner or Schoenberg after him) wouldn't consider a progression properly speaking because of the absence of common tones. [R. Wason,<SPAN class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN><I>Viennese Harmonic Theory</I>, p. 154 n. 10, notes that Sechter's<SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN><I>Grundsätze</I><SPAN class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN>were known in American translation as early as 1871; 12th edition in 1912.]<BR><BR>That the function of IV in IV-V may be considered different from that in IV-I has been a major concern of harmonic theory since Rameau's<SPAN class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN><I>double emploi</I>.<SPAN class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN><BR> In order to make IV a subdominant (S) in both cases, Riemann is compelled to view IV-V as conceiling a IV-(I)-V progression; this remains a major weakness of his theory: Riemann cannot imagine a simple path from one of the opposites of his dualist construction to the other, from<SPAN class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN><I>Unterdominante<SPAN class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN></I>to<SPAN class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN><I>Oberdominante.<BR> <SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN></I>Sechter, on the contrary, considers that IV in IV-V stands for II. If a function were to be assigned to IV-V = II-V, however, it would be a dominant function (in a sense inherited from Rameau), not a subdominant as in IV-I.<SPAN class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT size=-1><FONT face=Georgia>As Wason states (p. 35), Sechter's "notion of the subdominant is completely unrelated to its use as<SPAN class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN><I>dominant preparation</I>".</FONT></FONT><BR><FONT size=-1><FONT face=Georgia><BR>The question then, is whether a harmonic function is a "chord quality", independent from context (as in Riemann), or arises from the context (as in Sechter, or more generally in theories based on cadential formulas). There is a tendency, in Germany, to consider Roman numerals as expressing a theory based on six (or seven) different harmonic functions. This may be true in
some cases, but Roman numerals more often convey a conception of contextual functions. The distinction between the two is not always clear, however.<BR><BR>Cordialement,<BR><BR>Nicolas Meeùs<BR><A class=moz-txt-link-abbreviated href="http://us.mc450.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=nicolas.meeus@paris-sorbonne.fr" target=_blank rel=nofollow>nicolas.meeus@paris-sorbonne.fr</A><BR><A class=moz-txt-link-freetext href="http://www.plm.paris-sorbonne.fr/" target=_blank rel=nofollow>http://www.plm.paris-sorbonne.fr</A><BR><BR><BR></FONT></FONT><BR>Richard Porterfield a écrit :
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">[...]<SPAN class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN><BR>Although some theorists such as Riemann track functions (T, D, S) which might be projected by a harmony built upon one or another scale degree, while others track scale degrees without regard to function, the historical association I speak of is longstanding and not limited to Schenker.<SPAN class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN><BR>[...] Regarding the North American theoretical tradition specifically, Bernstein refers to "a roman numeral style of harmonic analysis in America during the nineteenth century" of which Percy Goetschius is a prime mover (787-88). Consider the following passage from Goetschius's<SPAN class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN><EM>The Theory and Practice of Tone-Relations<SPAN class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN></EM>first published in Boston in 1892 (I quote from page 25 of the 1917
edition [New York: G. Schirmer], available on Google Books):<SPAN class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN><BR>
<P align=center><STRONG>Rule I:</STRONG><SPAN class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN>The tonic triad can progress, under all harmonic circumstances, into any other chord of its own, or of any other, key. This is its prerogative as chief of the harmonic system. Therefore I-V and I-IV are good.</DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
<P align=center><STRONG>Rule II:</STRONG><SPAN class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN>The subdominant triad (IV) may progress either into the I or the V. Thus: IV-I or IV-V.</DIV>
<P align=center><STRONG>Rule III:</STRONG><SPAN class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN>The dominant triad (V) may progress, legitimately,<SPAN class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN><STRONG>only into the tonic chord.</STRONG><SPAN class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN>Therefore V-I is good; but V-IV must be avoided [emphasis original]. There may well be a paper or even a Ph.D. in the subject of Goetschius's influence on American theory having made conditions favorable for the reception of Schenker's theories and methods later in the twentieth century.<SPAN class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN><BR> <BR>Regards,<SPAN class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN><BR>Richard Porterfield<BR>Instructor, Mannes College of Music<BR>Ph.D. Candidate, <BR></DIV>
<HR id=stopSpelling>
From:<SPAN class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN><A class=moz-txt-link-abbreviated href="http://us.mc450.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=Paul.Sheehan@ncc.edu" target=_blank rel=nofollow>Paul.Sheehan@ncc.edu</A><BR>To:<SPAN class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN><A class=moz-txt-link-abbreviated href="http://us.mc450.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=porterfr@hotmail.com" target=_blank rel=nofollow>porterfr@hotmail.com</A><BR>CC:<SPAN class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN><A class=moz-txt-link-abbreviated href="http://us.mc450.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=jcovach@mail.rochester.edu" target=_blank rel=nofollow>jcovach@mail.rochester.edu</A>;<SPAN class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN><A class=moz-txt-link-abbreviated href="http://us.mc450.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=smt-talk@societymusictheory.org" target=_blank rel=nofollow>smt-talk@societymusictheory.org</A><BR>Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 01:03:06 -0400<BR>Subject: Re: [Smt-talk] I - II- IV as a
progression (counterpoint)<BR><BR>Dear Readers,<BR> <BR>Re. Richard Porterfield's statement:
<P class=EC_MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: rgb(68,68,68); LINE-HEIGHT: 115%; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana, sans-serif">"That’s what the Roman numerals have been for, historically, not only identifying scale-steps but also their function in a tonal context."</SPAN><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: rgb(68,68,68); LINE-HEIGHT: 115%; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana, sans-serif"></SPAN></DIV>
<P class=EC_MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: rgb(68,68,68); FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">I don't mean to be overly fussy, but is it the case that Roman numerals have _not_ historically entangled with function? I am under the impression that, until Schenker, scale step theory (Roman numerals) was used as an analytical tool independently of function theory. Furthermore, I am under the impression that Schenker in particular combined scale degree theory with function theory in a way that now seems almost automatic to many theorists and other interested parties (at least in North American academic culture). Witness, e.g., many textbook treatments of such matters since Aldwell and Schachter, inclusive. Do any historians of theory care to comment?</SPAN></DIV>
<P class=EC_MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: rgb(68,68,68); LINE-HEIGHT: 115%; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana, sans-serif">Paul Sheehan</SPAN></DIV>
<P class=EC_MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: rgb(68,68,68); LINE-HEIGHT: 115%; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana, sans-serif"><<A href="http://us.mc450.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=Paul.Sheehan@NCC.edu" target=_blank rel=nofollow>Paul.Sheehan@NCC.edu</A>></SPAN><BR><BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>-----Inline Attachment Follows-----<BR><BR>
<DIV class=plainMail>_______________________________________________<BR>Smt-talk mailing list<BR><A href="http://us.mc450.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=Smt-talk@societymusictheory.org" target=_blank rel=nofollow>Smt-talk@societymusictheory.org</A><BR><A href="http://lists.societymusictheory.org/listinfo.cgi/smt-talk-societymusictheory.org" target=_blank rel=nofollow>http://lists.societymusictheory.org/listinfo.cgi/smt-talk-societymusictheory.org</A><BR></DIV></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>Smt-talk mailing list<BR><A href="http://us.mc450.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=Smt-talk@societymusictheory.org" target=_blank rel=nofollow ymailto="mailto:Smt-talk@societymusictheory.org">Smt-talk@societymusictheory.org</A><BR><A href="http://lists.societymusictheory.org/listinfo.cgi/smt-talk-societymusictheory.org" target=_blank
rel=nofollow>http://lists.societymusictheory.org/listinfo.cgi/smt-talk-societymusictheory.org</A><BR></DIV></SPAN></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR>
<DIV><SPAN class=Apple-style-span style="WORD-SPACING: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; COLOR: rgb(0,0,0); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; BORDER-COLLAPSE: separate; orphans: 2; widows: 2">
<DIV style="WORD-WRAP: break-word"><SPAN class=Apple-style-span style="WORD-SPACING: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; COLOR: rgb(0,0,0); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; BORDER-COLLAPSE: separate; orphans: 2; widows: 2">
<DIV style="WORD-WRAP: break-word">
<DIV><BR>
<DIV><BR>
<DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></SPAN></DIV></SPAN><BR class=Apple-interchange-newline></DIV><BR></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></td></tr></table><br>