<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<font face="Calibri">This figuring certainly is in Catel, in
1801-1802. It originates in 18th-century continuo figuring, where
+ is a possible form of #, but I do not know (yet) whether
late-18th-century French treatises, e.g. Rodolphe's which has been
in use at the Conservatoire (and probably already in the École
royale) before Catel's, make use of similar figurings.<br>
<br>
Lowell Mason's American translation of Catel, of 1832, is
available at
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.archive.org/details/atreatiseonharm00masogoog">http://www.archive.org/details/atreatiseonharm00masogoog</a>. I don't
have my French copy of Catel at hand just now to make exact
comparisons but, if my memory of Catel is correct, Mason makes a
more restricted use of the +. It appears among others on p. 147,
where the text explains that 7+ means a dominant above a tonic
pedal, in which case indeed the 7th of the tonic is the leading
tone (and where Mason or Catel add in a NB at the bottom of the
page that 7/+ would denote a dominant 7th).<br>
<br>
But in other French texts, I met +7 denoting the (4th species,
major) seventh on degree I, where the 7th itself almost
necessarily is a descending, passing 7th. This really makes little
sense.<br>
<br>
</font>Nicolas Meeùs<br>
Université Paris-Sorbonne<br>
<font face="Calibri"><br>
<br>
</font><br>
Le 19/12/2010 18:43, Michele Ignelzi a écrit :
<blockquote cite="mid:1B522B53-53D3-4D07-932E-5AC93F3A0C43@tin.it"
type="cite">Dear Nicolas,
<br>
<br>
I agree with you that structure (a legitimate object of analysis,
I'd say) and function of chords should remain distinct. But we
have other means than (Hindu-Arabic numeral) figuring to express
function...
<br>
<br>
By the way, do you or others on the list know who used that
figuring first? I'm not aware of anyone before Dubois...
<br>
<br>
Best regards,
<br>
Michele
<br>
<br>
<br>
On Dec 19, 2010, at 3:48 PM, Nicolas Meeùs wrote:
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">The problem with that figuring is that one
tends to mistake label (or form) for function. It all depends on
how the figuring is performed. If +6 becomes a label for any
chord in the form of a dominant 7th in second inversion, then
the figuring loses any analytical value, IMO. The + should be
used exclusively to denote a leading tone that resolves as a
leading tone; but our students do not restrict it to that
particular case!
<br>
<br>
Nicolas Meeùs
<br>
Université Paris-Sorbonne
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
---------------------
<br>
Michele Ignelzi
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:m.ignelzi@tin.it">m.ignelzi@tin.it</a>
<br>
Florence State Conservatory, Italy
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>