<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div>Michael Luxner wrote:</div><div><div><blockquote type="cite"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; "><div lang="EN-US" link="blue" bgcolor="white" vlink="purple" style="margin-top: 4px; margin-right: 4px; margin-bottom: 1px; margin-left: 4px; font: normal normal normal 10pt/normal 'Segoe UI'; "><div style="font-family: Skia; font-size: medium; ">How do you feel about considering the dominant the "governing tone?" I don't think it's strange at all, and teach it that way all the time. </div></div></span></blockquote><br></div></div><div>This is exactly how I think of, and teach, the dominant function. In the common practice, the dominant goes to the tonic--so normatively that when it doesn't, we deem this "deceptive" or otherwise exceptional. The tonic, by contrast, has no "valency;" it does not "demand" anything of its successor sonority.</div><div><br></div><div>David Feurzeig</div><div>University of Vermont</div></body></html>