Should sensible analysis show secondary functions fulfilling the supposed function?
This question started for me with an analysis using IV/IV.
It was analysis in Kostka/Payne for Mozart's K545, mv II, mm. 69-71...
G: I | IV6/IV V6/IV | IV
Instead of...
G: I |C: IV6 V6 | IV ... G:...
First that made me wonder how to show a tonicization rather than a modulation. I thought the C: change was easier to read, but is that reserved for the specific meaning of "modulation?" If tonicization is meant, the secondary slash notation should be used?
Next, should the secondary role be fulfilled? In the Mozart example it is. It eventually gets to IV.
By comparison, if I label a V/ii shouldn't it fulfill its dominant function in some way? Like V/ii-ii or V/ii-VI/ii. Hypothetically, if I had C A7 Am and labeled it I V/ii vi or I V/ii v/ii isn't that kind of silly? In what way is that A7 in context acting as a dominant?
If I had C f#o B7, wouldn't I iio/iii V7/iii at least make some sense? Because the subdominant function of iio at least fulfilled its role and moved to the dominant of iii - in other words f#o B7 is iio V7 in E minor.
harmony analysis
edited yesterday
Tim
96.4k1099246
asked yesterday
Michael Curtis
5,957326
add a comment |
This question started for me with an analysis using IV/IV.
It was analysis in Kostka/Payne for Mozart's K545, mv II, mm. 69-71...
G: I | IV6/IV V6/IV | IV
Instead of...
G: I |C: IV6 V6 | IV ... G:...
First that made me wonder how to show a tonicization rather than a modulation. I thought the C: change was easier to read, but is that reserved for the specific meaning of "modulation?" If tonicization is meant, the secondary slash notation should be used?
Next, should the secondary role be fulfilled? In the Mozart example it is. It eventually gets to IV.
By comparison, if I label a V/ii shouldn't it fulfill its dominant function in some way? Like V/ii-ii or V/ii-VI/ii. Hypothetically, if I had C A7 Am and labeled it I V/ii vi or I V/ii v/ii isn't that kind of silly? In what way is that A7 in context acting as a dominant?
If I had C f#o B7, wouldn't I iio/iii V7/iii at least make some sense? Because the subdominant function of iio at least fulfilled its role and moved to the dominant of iii - in other words f#o B7 is iio V7 in E minor.
harmony analysis
edited yesterday
Tim
96.4k1099246
asked yesterday
Michael Curtis
5,957326
1
Related: music.stackexchange.com/questions/24506/…
– Dom♦
yesterday
@Dom yes, your question was similar. Although, after this discussion, I now would say'at least two chords are needed to show a real function.' How to label something that' non-functional is another question.
– Michael Curtis
yesterday
add a comment |
This question started for me with an analysis using IV/IV.
It was analysis in Kostka/Payne for Mozart's K545, mv II, mm. 69-71...
G: I | IV6/IV V6/IV | IV
Instead of...
G: I |C: IV6 V6 | IV ... G:...
First that made me wonder how to show a tonicization rather than a modulation. I thought the C: change was easier to read, but is that reserved for the specific meaning of "modulation?" If tonicization is meant, the secondary slash notation should be used?
Next, should the secondary role be fulfilled? In the Mozart example it is. It eventually gets to IV.
By comparison, if I label a V/ii shouldn't it fulfill its dominant function in some way? Like V/ii-ii or V/ii-VI/ii. Hypothetically, if I had C A7 Am and labeled it I V/ii vi or I V/ii v/ii isn't that kind of silly? In what way is that A7 in context acting as a dominant?
If I had C f#o B7, wouldn't I iio/iii V7/iii at least make some sense? Because the subdominant function of iio at least fulfilled its role and moved to the dominant of iii - in other words f#o B7 is iio V7 in E minor.
harmony analysis
edited yesterday
Tim
96.4k1099246
asked yesterday
Michael Curtis
5,957326
This question started for me with an analysis using IV/IV.
It was analysis in Kostka/Payne for Mozart's K545, mv II, mm. 69-71...
G: I | IV6/IV V6/IV | IV
Instead of...
G: I |C: IV6 V6 | IV ... G:...
First that made me wonder how to show a tonicization rather than a modulation. I thought the C: change was easier to read, but is that reserved for the specific meaning of "modulation?" If tonicization is meant, the secondary slash notation should be used?
Next, should the secondary role be fulfilled? In the Mozart example it is. It eventually gets to IV.
By comparison, if I label a V/ii shouldn't it fulfill its dominant function in some way? Like V/ii-ii or V/ii-VI/ii. Hypothetically, if I had C A7 Am and labeled it I V/ii vi or I V/ii v/ii isn't that kind of silly? In what way is that A7 in context acting as a dominant?
If I had C f#o B7, wouldn't I iio/iii V7/iii at least make some sense? Because the subdominant function of iio at least fulfilled its role and moved to the dominant of iii - in other words f#o B7 is iio V7 in E minor.
harmony analysis
harmony analysis
edited yesterday
Tim
96.4k1099246
asked yesterday
Michael Curtis
5,957326
edited yesterday
Tim
96.4k1099246
asked yesterday
Michael Curtis
5,957326
edited yesterday
Tim
96.4k1099246
edited yesterday
Tim
96.4k1099246
edited yesterday
Tim
96.4k1099246
96.4k1099246
asked yesterday
Michael Curtis
5,957326
asked yesterday
Michael Curtis
5,957326
asked yesterday
Michael Curtis
5,957326
5,957326
1
Related: music.stackexchange.com/questions/24506/…
– Dom♦
yesterday
@Dom yes, your question was similar. Although, after this discussion, I now would say'at least two chords are needed to show a real function.' How to label something that' non-functional is another question.
– Michael Curtis
yesterday
add a comment |
1
Related: music.stackexchange.com/questions/24506/…
– Dom♦
yesterday
@Dom yes, your question was similar. Although, after this discussion, I now would say'at least two chords are needed to show a real function.' How to label something that' non-functional is another question.
– Michael Curtis
yesterday
1
1
Related: music.stackexchange.com/questions/24506/…
– Dom♦
yesterday
Related: music.stackexchange.com/questions/24506/…
– Dom♦
yesterday
@Dom yes, your question was similar. Although, after this discussion, I now would say'at least two chords are needed to show a real function.' How to label something that' non-functional is another question.
– Michael Curtis
yesterday
@Dom yes, your question was similar. Although, after this discussion, I now would say'at least two chords are needed to show a real function.' How to label something that' non-functional is another question.
– Michael Curtis
yesterday
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
Short Answer: Yes, the secondary role should be fulfilled. In other words, the analysis should show how a chord is functioning. It's not really functioning as a V/ii if it doesn't go to ii (or a VI/ii, or some other possible resolution).
One caveat to this is the notion of the back-relating dominant. In short, a back-relating dominant is a V chord that's connected to the I chord that precedes it, not a I chord that follows it. We can imagine something like C Dm A7 G, which could be viewed as I ii V7/ii V, with that A7 functioning as a back-relating dominant. It's more rare, but it does happen.
Longer Answers: In the Kostka/Payne example, I view that as what we often call an "extended tonicization." To me, a modulation must achieve a cadence in the new key, and a cadence must have both a root-position V and a root-position I. (Some people will disagree with me on those points, but the scholarly world of music theory is basically in agreement. Also keep in mind that this is Mozart, so the style is different than it is in 70s rock.) Since this example has an inverted V, it won't be a modulation; but since we can view multiple chords as pertaining to that IV, it's an extended tonicization.
The C: is typically reserved for modulation, but you can bracket underneath the applied chords to show an extended tonicization:
G: I | IV6 V6 | I
_____________/
IV
And yes, your hypothetical E-minor example is just another instance of what I would call an extended tonicization. Though out of context, since it's a root-position V7, it could be a modulation, but of course we'd need a real example (with meter, etc.) to determine whether it was a modulation or a tonicization.
answered yesterday
Richard
37.4k683160
That bracket is much easier to read that several slashed chords. Thanks!
– Michael Curtis
yesterday
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "240"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmusic.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f78281%2fshould-sensible-analysis-show-secondary-functions-fulfilling-the-supposed-functi%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Short Answer: Yes, the secondary role should be fulfilled. In other words, the analysis should show how a chord is functioning. It's not really functioning as a V/ii if it doesn't go to ii (or a VI/ii, or some other possible resolution).
One caveat to this is the notion of the back-relating dominant. In short, a back-relating dominant is a V chord that's connected to the I chord that precedes it, not a I chord that follows it. We can imagine something like C Dm A7 G, which could be viewed as I ii V7/ii V, with that A7 functioning as a back-relating dominant. It's more rare, but it does happen.
Longer Answers: In the Kostka/Payne example, I view that as what we often call an "extended tonicization." To me, a modulation must achieve a cadence in the new key, and a cadence must have both a root-position V and a root-position I. (Some people will disagree with me on those points, but the scholarly world of music theory is basically in agreement. Also keep in mind that this is Mozart, so the style is different than it is in 70s rock.) Since this example has an inverted V, it won't be a modulation; but since we can view multiple chords as pertaining to that IV, it's an extended tonicization.
The C: is typically reserved for modulation, but you can bracket underneath the applied chords to show an extended tonicization:
G: I | IV6 V6 | I
_____________/
IV
And yes, your hypothetical E-minor example is just another instance of what I would call an extended tonicization. Though out of context, since it's a root-position V7, it could be a modulation, but of course we'd need a real example (with meter, etc.) to determine whether it was a modulation or a tonicization.
answered yesterday
Richard
37.4k683160
That bracket is much easier to read that several slashed chords. Thanks!
– Michael Curtis
yesterday
add a comment |
Short Answer: Yes, the secondary role should be fulfilled. In other words, the analysis should show how a chord is functioning. It's not really functioning as a V/ii if it doesn't go to ii (or a VI/ii, or some other possible resolution).
One caveat to this is the notion of the back-relating dominant. In short, a back-relating dominant is a V chord that's connected to the I chord that precedes it, not a I chord that follows it. We can imagine something like C Dm A7 G, which could be viewed as I ii V7/ii V, with that A7 functioning as a back-relating dominant. It's more rare, but it does happen.
Longer Answers: In the Kostka/Payne example, I view that as what we often call an "extended tonicization." To me, a modulation must achieve a cadence in the new key, and a cadence must have both a root-position V and a root-position I. (Some people will disagree with me on those points, but the scholarly world of music theory is basically in agreement. Also keep in mind that this is Mozart, so the style is different than it is in 70s rock.) Since this example has an inverted V, it won't be a modulation; but since we can view multiple chords as pertaining to that IV, it's an extended tonicization.
The C: is typically reserved for modulation, but you can bracket underneath the applied chords to show an extended tonicization:
G: I | IV6 V6 | I
_____________/
IV
And yes, your hypothetical E-minor example is just another instance of what I would call an extended tonicization. Though out of context, since it's a root-position V7, it could be a modulation, but of course we'd need a real example (with meter, etc.) to determine whether it was a modulation or a tonicization.
answered yesterday
Richard
37.4k683160
That bracket is much easier to read that several slashed chords. Thanks!
– Michael Curtis
yesterday
add a comment |
Short Answer: Yes, the secondary role should be fulfilled. In other words, the analysis should show how a chord is functioning. It's not really functioning as a V/ii if it doesn't go to ii (or a VI/ii, or some other possible resolution).
One caveat to this is the notion of the back-relating dominant. In short, a back-relating dominant is a V chord that's connected to the I chord that precedes it, not a I chord that follows it. We can imagine something like C Dm A7 G, which could be viewed as I ii V7/ii V, with that A7 functioning as a back-relating dominant. It's more rare, but it does happen.
Longer Answers: In the Kostka/Payne example, I view that as what we often call an "extended tonicization." To me, a modulation must achieve a cadence in the new key, and a cadence must have both a root-position V and a root-position I. (Some people will disagree with me on those points, but the scholarly world of music theory is basically in agreement. Also keep in mind that this is Mozart, so the style is different than it is in 70s rock.) Since this example has an inverted V, it won't be a modulation; but since we can view multiple chords as pertaining to that IV, it's an extended tonicization.
The C: is typically reserved for modulation, but you can bracket underneath the applied chords to show an extended tonicization:
G: I | IV6 V6 | I
_____________/
IV
And yes, your hypothetical E-minor example is just another instance of what I would call an extended tonicization. Though out of context, since it's a root-position V7, it could be a modulation, but of course we'd need a real example (with meter, etc.) to determine whether it was a modulation or a tonicization.
answered yesterday
Richard
37.4k683160
Short Answer: Yes, the secondary role should be fulfilled. In other words, the analysis should show how a chord is functioning. It's not really functioning as a V/ii if it doesn't go to ii (or a VI/ii, or some other possible resolution).
One caveat to this is the notion of the back-relating dominant. In short, a back-relating dominant is a V chord that's connected to the I chord that precedes it, not a I chord that follows it. We can imagine something like C Dm A7 G, which could be viewed as I ii V7/ii V, with that A7 functioning as a back-relating dominant. It's more rare, but it does happen.
Longer Answers: In the Kostka/Payne example, I view that as what we often call an "extended tonicization." To me, a modulation must achieve a cadence in the new key, and a cadence must have both a root-position V and a root-position I. (Some people will disagree with me on those points, but the scholarly world of music theory is basically in agreement. Also keep in mind that this is Mozart, so the style is different than it is in 70s rock.) Since this example has an inverted V, it won't be a modulation; but since we can view multiple chords as pertaining to that IV, it's an extended tonicization.
The C: is typically reserved for modulation, but you can bracket underneath the applied chords to show an extended tonicization:
G: I | IV6 V6 | I
_____________/
IV
And yes, your hypothetical E-minor example is just another instance of what I would call an extended tonicization. Though out of context, since it's a root-position V7, it could be a modulation, but of course we'd need a real example (with meter, etc.) to determine whether it was a modulation or a tonicization.
answered yesterday
Richard
37.4k683160
edited yesterday
answered yesterday
Richard
37.4k683160
answered yesterday
Richard
37.4k683160
answered yesterday
Richard
37.4k683160
37.4k683160
That bracket is much easier to read that several slashed chords. Thanks!
– Michael Curtis
yesterday
add a comment |
That bracket is much easier to read that several slashed chords. Thanks!
– Michael Curtis
yesterday
That bracket is much easier to read that several slashed chords. Thanks!
– Michael Curtis
yesterday
That bracket is much easier to read that several slashed chords. Thanks!
– Michael Curtis
yesterday
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Music: Practice & Theory Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmusic.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f78281%2fshould-sensible-analysis-show-secondary-functions-fulfilling-the-supposed-functi%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
Related: music.stackexchange.com/questions/24506/…
– Dom♦
yesterday
@Dom yes, your question was similar. Although, after this discussion, I now would say'at least two chords are needed to show a real function.' How to label something that' non-functional is another question.
– Michael Curtis
yesterday