<html><body><div style="color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:times new roman, new york, times, serif;font-size:12pt"><div><span>Dear Nicholas,</span></div><div><span></span> </div><div><span>France, as I know, not only does not make an exception from this, but is and has always been on the forefront of this. Fetis defines Sous-Dominante, Dominante and Tonique quite clearly in his treatise La musique mise a porte de tout le monde.... (see the appendix). He uses the word Sous-Dominante and defines it in the same fashion (as a certain scale step) as Tonique and Dominante. </span></div><div><span></span> </div><div><span>As for the role and importance of Subdominant, you should look not into the writings of Fetis, but through the textbooks for the Conservatoire. Charles-Simon Catel will be a good source. The atmosphere at the Sorbonne and Universite de Paris 4 is somewhat different from that of the Conservatoire. I am sure that your
attempt to throw away the Subdominant will be perceived by Conservatoire professors as an insinuation.</span></div><div><span></span> </div><div><span>I also wonder, what would Serge Gut say about this discussion? Ivanka Stoinova? </span></div><div><span></span> </div><div><span>And the main question: do the French theorists use the term French +6 chord remains unanswered.</span></div><div><span></span> </div><div><span>Best,</span></div><div><span></span> </div><div><span>Ildar Khannanov</span></div><div><span>Peabody Conservatory</span></div><div><br></div> <div style="font-family: times new roman, new york, times, serif; font-size: 12pt;"> <div style="font-family: times new roman, new york, times, serif; font-size: 12pt;"> <font size="2" face="Arial"> <div style="margin: 5px 0px; padding: 0px; border: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); height: 0px; line-height: 0; font-size: 0px;" class="hr" contentEditable="false"
readonly="true"></div> <b><span style="font-weight: bold;">From:</span></b> Nicolas Meeùs <nicolas.meeus@paris-sorbonne.fr><br> <b><span style="font-weight: bold;">To:</span></b> smt smt-talk <smt-talk@societymusictheory.org> <br><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Cc:</span></b> Ildar Khannanov <solfeggio7@yahoo.com> <br> <b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Sent:</span></b> Thursday, November 24, 2011 1:10 PM<br> <b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Subject:</span></b> Re: [Smt-talk] BELGIAN +6<br> </font> <br>
<div id="yiv1422795932">
<div>
Le 24/11/2011 15:40, Ildar Khannanov a écrit :
<blockquote type="cite">
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: times new roman, new york, times, serif; font-size: 12pt; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><span>That is
why old textbooks maintain that all three chords with +6
belong to the Subdominant function. They seem to see the
context very well. Function is defined not by the pitch of the
chord, but by its place in the metric grid. Of course, later
in the 19th century the chords were emancipated, but all
composers, including Franck, had similar training and the
concept of Subdominant instilled from the early age. </span></div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Dear Ildar,<br>
<br>
I wonder to what extent France made exception to this. If I am not
mistaken, Fétis, in his Treatise of harmony, does not name the
subdominant at all. He has no name for it and merely dubs it "the
4th degree". Do you know whether this was exceptional, do you know
what other French treatises said?<br>
<br>
Yours,<br>
<br>
Nicolas<br>
<br>
<a class="yiv1422795932moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:nicolas.meeus@paris-sorbonne.fr" rel="nofollow" target="_blank" ymailto="mailto:nicolas.meeus@paris-sorbonne.fr">nicolas.meeus@paris-sorbonne.fr</a><br>
Université Paris-Sorbonne<br>
</div>
</div><br><br> </div> </div> </div></body></html>