<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<font face="Calibri">Ildar,<br>
<br>
I don't quite see what you mean by saying that the fundamental
bass is 'real' and the singing bass 'not true'. What is certain is
that, whenever they are not the same, the continuo bass is that
written in the music and the fundamental bass is that imagined by
the theorist.<br>
<br>
Speaking of dissonances foreign to the harmony, you must realize
that the French Conservatoires were conceived in the early 19th
century as local branches of the Conservatoire </font><font
face="Calibri"><font face="Calibri">National </font>in Paris. The
Conservatoire National issued official manuals which were to be
used throughout the country. Most important for our discussion is
Catel's Traité d'harmonie, which became the official manual for
all conservatoires in France and which established the distinction
between "natural" dissonances and contrapuntal ones. Fétis has
been one of the most zealous advocates of this official, national
doctrine, but even today Conservatoire teachers and students
consider it Gospel. That is to say that to view dissonances as
"foreign to the harmony" is neither new – it dates back to the
18th century –, nor risible. In your place, I would very much
hesitate to call it "vulgar", especially in European circles were
I believe it to be very common.<br>
<br>
You cannot seriously claim that any embellishment bears
tonal-harmonic function. </font><font face="Calibri">This seems
obvious in the case of a diatonic scale as embellishment of a
chord: the passing notes in the scale have no other function in
that chord (or in harmony at large) than that of being passing
notes.</font><font face="Calibri"> Also, in the case, say, of a
4–3 suspension, where 4, however you consider it, is foreign to
the harmony. You may claim that its preparation, in the preceding
chord, belongs to that chord. But the preparation as such is not
an embellishment.<br>
You may mean that these embellishment, whether they have
'harmonic' function or not, certainly are loaded with musical
meaning, which would remind us of Schoenberg looking in vain for
all these little notes in Schenkerian reductions. But this is one
of the most essential misunderstandings about Schenkerian
analysis. Schenker never ceased repeating that it where the
embellishments that gave music its meaning. This had been one of
the main points of his Beitrag zur Ornamentik, in 1904, and remained
at the basis of his theory until the end, in Free Composition.<br>
<br>
If you believe that T–S–D–T can express a tonality, then you do
believe that it is an elaboration of a tonic (or, say, the
affirmation of a tonic) because that is what these terms mean. You
are bound to admit that the tonality exists at a level higher than
any of these four chords, even if it obviously results from
successions of this kind. T–S–D–T may be the mainframe component
of harmonic progression, but T is the mainframe component of
tonality.<br>
<br>
The whole idea of analytic reduction is that it is just that,
"analytic reduction". It aims at explaining what is happening in
the real music, not at replacing it. Besides, I never saw the
letters T, S, or D in real music either: these too belong to
analytic reduction.<br>
<br>
I think I will stop here, because our "discussion" turns to
monologues, and I see nothing of interest that could be added,
especially if you don't try to hear what I say.<br>
<br>
Yours,<br>
</font><br>
Nicolas Meeùs<br>
Université Paris-Sorbonne<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Le 11/03/2013 13:35, Ildar Khannanov a écrit :<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:1363023313.10643.YahooMailClassic@web125303.mail.ne1.yahoo.com"
type="cite">
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="font: inherit;" valign="top">
<div><br>
Dear Nicolas,</div>
<div> </div>
<div>thank you for this clarification. I enjoy reading
Rameau in the original. It dawned at me that he had a
stronger point than Schenker imagined. By the way,
Rameau does not seem to use the adjectives "real" and
"abstract." Apparently, it is your evaluation, from
Schenkerian standpoint. In Rameau's terms, basso
fondamentale is REAL, and singing bass is common, but
not true.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Yes, I know, that Fetis and some other French
teachers avoided Rameau's terminology. There must have
been some political reasons for that. Well, at the same
time, Fetis aknowledged the profound contribution of
Rameau to theory of tonality, including his own theory.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>It is common (and I would say, vulgar) to treat
non-chord tones as non-harmonic tones. This, however,
does not eliminate my question: are there true
non-HARMONIC tones? What is the reason to treat them as
non-HARMONIC? Perhaps, this is my fantasy, but the
question remains open, because, if to reverse Schenker's
argument, one can say that even the smallest
"embellishment" note in classical style bears
tonal-harmonic function (either T, or S, or D).</div>
<div> <br>
</div>
<div>In addition, to your response to Dimitar, I do not
think that T-S-D-T is an elaboration of tonic. There is
no such thing as "tonic" before T-S-D-T plays out. It is
clearly seen in modulation: we have not modulated until
the full functional circle T-S-D-T in a new key has
sounded. The T-S-D-T is the mainframe component of
harmonic progression. It can be reduced only on paper,
in ABSTRACT graphic analysis, but not in real living
music.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Best,</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Ildar Khannanov</div>
<div>Peabody Institute</div>
<div><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Solfeggio7@yahoo.com">Solfeggio7@yahoo.com</a> </div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>