<html><body><div style="color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:times new roman, new york, times, serif;font-size:12pt"><div><span>Dear Nicolas and the list,</span></div><div><span></span> </div><div><span>I find it very difficult to perceive that Riemann has been insensitive to directionality in tonal music. Au contraire, he was one of two (with Rameau) who suggested a superstructure, something above and behind the notes, which would drive music in time. How else could you explain that dominant triad SHOULD resolve to tonic triad? Are there any ideas beyond tonal-harmonic functionality that could explain this simple yet mysterious phenomenon?</span></div><div><span></span> </div><div><span>Made-up concepts, such as "syntax" which should unfold only in one direction, are just that -- made-up things. Who would ban the Subdominant-to-Tonic motion as functional and syntactic?</span></div><div><span></span> </div><div><span>As for
Erpf and Riemann--they both agreed with Rameau who called the upper fifth dominant and the lower fifth sous-dominant. This is the topic for the freshmen at the conservatory. The only one who did not understand that subdominant is located a fifth below tonic was Heinrich, who obsessively interpreted the subdominant note as an adjacency to dominant on every so-called voice leading graph. </span></div><div><span></span> </div><div><span>Ildar Khannanov</span></div><div><span>Peabody Institute</span></div><div><span>Johns Hopkins University</span></div><div><span>solfeggio7@yahoo.com</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;"> <div dir="ltr"> <div class="hr" style="margin: 5px 0px; padding: 0px; border: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); height: 0px; line-height: 0; font-size: 0px;"
contenteditable="false" readonly="true"></div> <font face="Arial" size="2"> <b><span style="font-weight: bold;">From:</span></b> Nicolas Meeùs <nicolas.meeus@scarlet.be><br> <b><span style="font-weight: bold;">To:</span></b> Dave Headlam <dheadlam@esm.rochester.edu> <br><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Cc:</span></b> "smt-talk@lists.societymusictheory.org" <smt-talk@lists.societymusictheory.org> <br> <b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Sent:</span></b> Thursday, August 29, 2013 3:59 PM<br> <b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Subject:</span></b> Re: [Smt-talk] Caution versus Generalization<br> </font> </div> <div class="y_msg_container"><br><div id="yiv3685832010">
<div>
<font face="Calibri">I think so too, even if perhaps in different terms.<br>
<br>
On the one hand, it is true that Erpf, reviving 18th-century
theories that the 7th of the dominant chord actually is the
subdominant degree (Rameau, d'Alembert, and more specifically
perhaps Jean Adam Serre), appears to reduce the opposition between
dominant and subdominant. It is in that sense that V11, even more
than V7, combines a bottom D and an upper S.<br>
<br>
</font><font face="Calibri">On the other hand I think that Erpf is
more sensible than Riemann ever was to the direction of the
movement. There is something strange in the fact that Riemann
opposes I–IV–I movements, on one hand, to I–V–I movements on the
other hand, while there seems to be an obvious analogy between
I–IV and V–I on the one hand, IV–I and I–V on the other hand. </font><br>
<br>
All this may be considered to weaken the opposition between dominant
and subdominant functions. I don't think it really does. But
certainly it does not "repudiate" any of them.<br>
<br>
Nicolas Meeùs<br>
Université Paris-Sorbonne<br>
<br>
<br>
<font face="Calibri"><br>
</font>
<div class="yiv3685832010moz-cite-prefix">Le 29/08/2013 16:14, Dave Headlam a
écrit :<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div class="yiv3685832010moz-cite-prefix">Frank et al -- There's some nuance to
be added here. Dan's text (p. 309) states that "First, he [
Erpf] remakes harmonic function from a three-termed into a
two-termed dualism--in other words, from a conception of a
central T and two lateral areas, S and D, to one involving an
'on' Tonic state and an 'off' non-Tonic state. Although both
traditional Subdominant and Dominant categories are retained,
they are now the two basic aspects of the non-Tonic state . . .
" Dan goes on to show Erpf's indications for the "off" state
differentiate S from D and major from minor, and that Erpf's
examples show elements of "both Dominants" ("Doppeldominanten")
within chords, such as a "V11" chord combining a bottom D and
upper S: G-B-D-F-A-C. <br>
<br>
Dave Headlam<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</div><br>_______________________________________________<br>Smt-talk mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Smt-talk@lists.societymusictheory.org" ymailto="mailto:Smt-talk@lists.societymusictheory.org">Smt-talk@lists.societymusictheory.org</a><br><a href="http://lists.societymusictheory.org/listinfo.cgi/smt-talk-societymusictheory.org" target="_blank">http://lists.societymusictheory.org/listinfo.cgi/smt-talk-societymusictheory.org</a><br><br><br></div> </div> </div> </div></body></html>