<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Le 24/02/2012 16:55, Ninov, Dimitar N a écrit :
<blockquote
cite="mid:863F27D9B562F4429B340BA70B1F0169010A557C8D7B@BOBCATMAIL3.matrix.txstate.edu"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">[...]
The term "subdominant" suggests that the IV chord is located a fifth below the tonal center, and that it is a "lower dominant". However, the term "predominant" contains no reference to the tonal center but to the dominant triad itself, as if a key had two centers. The attempt to validate a harmonic function with no relation to the tonal center seems theoretically unsupported to me.</pre>
</blockquote>
I don't know whether this is "theoretically" supported, but it
certainly is historically very much supported. It is at the core of
French theory and probably at the origin of the word "subdominant"
itself.<br>
<br>
Rousseau, in the <i>Dictionnaire</i>, wonders about the origin of
the term. He writes (s.v. "Sous-dominante"):<br>
<blockquote><b>Sous-dominante</b> ou <b>Soudominante</b>. Nom donné
par Monsieur Rameau à la quatrième note du ton, laquelle est par
conséquent au même intervalle de la tonique en descendant, qu'est
la dominante en montant [...]. Je puis me tromper dans l'acception
des deux mots précédents, n'ayant pas sous les yeux, en écrivant
cet article, les écrits de Monsieur Rameau. Peut-être entend-il
simplement, par sous-dominante, la note qui est un degré
au-dessous de la dominante [...].<br>
[Subdominant. Name given by Rameau to the fourth note of the
key, which therefore is at the same descending interval from the
tonic as the dominant is ascending. I may be mistaken in the
acception of these two words [the text also discusses
"sous-médiante", submediant], not having under the eyes the
writings of Rameau as I write this article. He may understand by
subdominant simply the note that is one degree under the
dominant.]<br>
</blockquote>
It often is difficult to say how the term was understood. In French
today, and probably from Rameau and before, it means the degree
under the dominant, not the dominant under the tonic. The earliest
instance of the term that I know of is in Dandrieu's <i>Principes
de l'accompagnement</i>, <i>c</i>1719. That Dandrieu understood
"soudominante" as the degree under the dominant can be deduced from
his usage of "sudominante", the degree above it. This has been the
almost constant usage in French (and a few other languages) since
then. Note that the word does not occur in Rameau's Treatise of
1722, nor, for that matter, in Fétis' Treatise: they both merely
write "the 4th degree".<br>
<br>
I won't take position about this now. But I wanted to stress that
this kind of discussion has been going since centuries.<br>
<br>
Nicolas Meeùs<br>
Université Paris-Sorbonne<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>