On Jun 30, 2005, at 2:44 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
On 30 Jun 2005 at 0:14, Christopher Smith wrote:
On Jun 29, 2005, at 11:34 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
I don't know of anyone who uses "subdominant" to refer to ii, for
instance. They may talk about "subdominant function" chords, or the
group of chords that function as "predominants" but I don't hear
anyone explicitly calling a non-IV chord a subdominant.
You might have missed my backpedalling on that one. I meant to say
there is a tendency (right or wrong) to say "subdominant" or
"predominant" when what is really meant is subdominant or predominant
AREA or FUNCTION. Confusion can arise from the use of the same term in
two different contexts.
Picardy third (now often applied to ANY major-quality resolution chord
where a minor one is expected in the key, wrongly or not)
Well, that's one where I don't know of any more limited definition.
It used to be applied only to the i chord in a minor key, at a cadence.
But the effect shows up so much more often that it can be used on
pretty much any normally-minor chord, though traditional theorists
might not apply the term "Picardy" to it.
Toncisation (used to mean only with a secondary dominant, now can mean
articulating a temporary tonic by any applicable means) (on that
subject, what do you call a plagal resolution to a temporary tonic? A
"plagalisation"? I shudder at it, but it IS logical. Musicians who
play gospel (where it is most common) call it "backcycling", but that
is a bit obtuse IMHO. Drawing on "applied dominant" perhaps "applied
predominant"? Not clear. Applied how?)
I don't recognize the validity of your claim of the original
restriction -- that makes no sense. It could be that the term was
first used to talk about those progressions, but that doesn't mean it
can't easily be adapted to cover other progressions as well.
I agree that the goal is similar, but shouldn't there be a distinction
between approaching a chord by its dominant, and approaching it by some
other means? For that matter, I would LOVE to include viidim7/X as a
tonicisation (the regular one, using a dominant-area chord) but my
theory teachers didn't recognize it as a tonicisation. Maybe things
have changed a bit since then, or maybe I just had REALLY conservative
theory teachers (I mostly had problems understanding the connections
between what I was playing and writing, and what I was analysing in
theory class. It took me YEARS to work that out!)
If the term were "dominanticization" then you'd have a point.
Yes, I suppose you're right on that one.
Christopher
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
