<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>exactly, the weak spot in theory in general is a conflict between what we see (a smooth parsimonious connection of IV to V, obvious semantics of Subdominant as Predominant and, as such, the adjacency to Dominant) and what real theory suggests: not to see what everyone sees and to see what no one can see. There is no abyss between Subdominant and Dominant, has never been and will never be. At least, it does not make Bach jump in a salto mortale over it: he always most gracefully steps from IV to V and this connection is one of the most musically enjoyable among all others. Counterpoint has never been based upon mere visual adjacency. Good counterpoint can create a maximally smooth connection of two tones at a m7, the
fifth is neither close, nor far from the fourth. The musical grammar (and syntax) is special, different from what an average well-educated person can see. And there is no way around it, no fast food lines, no contrivances, no smart concepts.</span></div><div><span></span> </div><div><span>In this sense, Der Quintengeist der Stufen just as "biological urge of tones" and double slurs remind me of ABGlucose, a tablet which mediaeval doctors prescribed as panacea from all diseases to humans as well to live stock. I wonder, why do we spend so much time learning music if it only takes the Spirit of the Fifth to dawn on us in a single act of epiphany?</span></div><div><span></span> </div><div><span>Best,</span></div><div><span></span> </div><div><span>Ildar Khannanov</span></div><div><span>Peabody Institute</span></div><div><span><a href="mailto:solfeggio7@yahoo.com">solfeggio7@yahoo.com</a></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> Ildar Khannanov <solfeggio7@yahoo.com> <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> Saturday, August 31, 2013 11:10 AM<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="yiv1611983829">
<div>
<font face="Calibri">Ildar,<br>
<br>
</font><font face="Calibri">1) That the dominant triad should
resolve to the tonic triad may be understood as the result of what
Schenker termed "the fifth-spirit of degrees", <i>der </i><i>Quintengeist
der Stufen</i>. It is for the same reason that Riemann first was
at loss to explain the direct progression from IV to V, that early
commentators of Rameau had said 'impossible' or 'forbidden'.
August Halm, a friend of Riemann, writes in his <i>Harmonielehre</i>
(1900, p. 32), speaking of IV and V: "between these two chords
there is an abyss"; I think to remember he had discussed this in a
correspondence with Riemann, but I cannot now find the reference.
Riemann eventually explained it as a feigned consonance by which
IV</font>
<style>
<!--
#yiv1611983829
_filtered #yiv1611983829 {font-family:AGaramond;panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
#yiv1611983829
#yiv1611983829 p.yiv1611983829MsoNormal, #yiv1611983829 li.yiv1611983829MsoNormal, #yiv1611983829 div.yiv1611983829MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:14.2pt;font-size:11.0pt;font-family:AGaramond;}
_filtered #yiv1611983829 {margin:70.85pt 70.85pt 70.85pt 70.85pt;}
#yiv1611983829 div.yiv1611983829Section1
{}
-->
</style>–V compared to II–V (a 5th-progression), but it remains a
weak spot in his theory (as it was in Rameau's "double emploi").<br>
<font face="Calibri"><br>
2) Schenker, as a native German speaker, understood <i>Unterdominante</i>
as meaning the dominant under, i.e. the lower fifth, merely
because that is what the term means in German. There is not a hint
to anything else in any of his writings. The notation of his
graphs makes this absolutely clear: he always underlines the T–S–D
(–T) progression with a slur with double curve, that he uses in no
other case (in particular, not in the case of I–III–V–I). He used
this special slur from 1926 onwards, and probably copied it from
vol. I of Afred Lorenz' <i>Das Geheimnis der Form</i> (1924, p.
19), where it represents a sine curve going from the tonic down to
the subdominant, up to the dominant and back to the tonic,
materializing the fact that the <i>Unterdominante</i> is "the
dominant under".<br>
<br>
3) The interpretation of the subdominant as an adjacency to the
dominant is a feature of French theory. Rameau, and several of his
followers, certainly understood it as the dominant a fifth under
the tonic. Jean-Jacques Rousseau, however, already wondered about
this: see his <i>Dictionnaire </i>(1767), vol. 2 pp. 200-201 of
the edition available on CHTML/TFM. The earliest mention of the
term that I have been able to find in French is in Jean-François
Dandrieu's <i>Principes de l'accompagnement</i>, c1719 – more
than ten years before Rameau, who did not use it before <i>Génération
harmonique. </i>Dandrieu gives names for the seven degrees of
the diatonic scale: <i>Finale</i>, <i>Sufinale</i>, <i>Mediante</i>,
<i>Soudominante</i>, <i>Dominante</i>, <i>Sudominante</i>, <i>Soufinale</i>,
where the use of <i>Sudominante</i> for degree VI certainly
denotes an adjacency to the dominant: this probably is true also
of <i>Soudominante</i>. This became and remains today the usage
of the Paris Conservatoire National, and I have been insulted in
the French journal <i>Analyse musicale</i> for having suggested
that one might prefer "sous-médiante" (submediant) to
"sus-dominante". On this point, see also my "</font>Teorie
musicali in epoca romantica", <i>Enceclopedia della musica</i>,
J.-J. Nattiez ed., vol. V, 2005, p. 627-644.<font face="Calibri"><big><span lang="FR" style="font-family: AGaramond; font-size: 11pt;"><i></i></span></big>
<style>
<!--
#yiv1611983829
_filtered #yiv1611983829 {font-family:AGaramond;panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
#yiv1611983829
#yiv1611983829 p.yiv1611983829MsoNormal, #yiv1611983829 li.yiv1611983829MsoNormal, #yiv1611983829 div.yiv1611983829MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:14.2pt;font-size:11.0pt;font-family:AGaramond;}
_filtered #yiv1611983829 {margin:70.85pt 70.85pt 70.85pt 70.85pt;}
#yiv1611983829 div.yiv1611983829Section1
{}
-->
</style> <br>
<br>
Yours,<br>
<br>
Nicolas Meeùs<br>
Université Paris-Sorbonne<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</font>
<div class="yiv1611983829moz-cite-prefix">Le 31/08/2013 10:44, Ildar Khannanov a
écrit :<br>
</div>
<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);">
<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><a class="yiv1611983829moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:solfeggio7@yahoo.com" target="_blank" rel="nofollow" ymailto="mailto:solfeggio7@yahoo.com">solfeggio7@yahoo.com</a></span></div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</div><br><br></div> </div> </div> </div></body></html>