Post by Tom K.My recollection is that Piston doesn't put much emphasis on linking the
"secondary" (ii, ii [sic], vi, viio) chords with the "primary" (I, IV, V) >ones to
I realize this is just a typo. but I had to point it out to comment
that I don't recall the viio as being other than a substitute for the
V. Someone, I thought Piston (but could be mistaken) referred to this
chord as an incomplete V7 as that is its usual function (see next
comment) and if in the rare other times that this chord would go
someplace else, it would have been noted either to its function in
that particular instance or, most likely, as an embellishment chord of
some kind. I don't recall any vii -> iii chords being part of the
typical CPP normal progression (possibly in a cyclic 5th progression
during a common chord modulation) and as noted elsewhere, going to a
ii or from a V chord, was discouraged in the CPP era although they
could be used quite easily and accounted for in more modern music were
instead of a tonal functional movement, it could be used for a color
changing movement in a stable or "tonic" type of environment and could
be useful in a non functional sense to change the mood of the
composition while not suggesting functional movement.
... when I was teaching
Post by Tom K.harmony, I found the three basic harmonic functions of Tonic (stable),
Dominant (directed toward tonic) and Dominant Prep (directed toward
dominant) to be very compelling. The "secondary" chords would normally fall
into one of the primary function classes - except for the iii chord in
major, which could be considered as dominant function when
moving to vi, but
tonic function when moving to IV.
We always considered this to be summed up better with the
Classification as 1st class = dominant function or unstable, 2nd class
= proceeding to dominant function and of course Tonic being the more
stable. This simplified the nomenclature (although some used the
terminology of Tonic, Dominant and SubDominant function when
considering CPP functional harmony) when comparing "function" of the
harmony once the ties of CPP was broken. In my own educational
philosophy, I consider this approach as "preparation" for the student
to understand the "exceptions" to the CPP when considering the
function of more modern harmonic progression.
It also gives a connection to the harmony that is a result of
counterpoint in the earlier periods.
In general, we took a more universal approach to describing function.
The subtle differences of the various meanings of the old names made
discussion using them more complicated than necessary and served no
useful purpose.
Post by Tom K.Also, it was useful for the student to realize that a secondary chord could not proceed
to it's primary in the same function class (i.e. ii~IV, vi~I, etc.) where
the Schenker (and Piston, IIRC) approach would be to discourage most root
movements of an ascending third.
We considered this a characteristic that was breaking the traditions
of the CPP as the Romantic Period evolved into the music of Debussy
and other more modern composers.
But when faced with 6/4 chords or other
Post by Tom K.decorative chord successions, I was also quick to indicate their melodic
origins and generally used the Benjamin, Horvit, Nelson approach of labeling
them as one of 4 types of "linear" (embellishing) chords: passing,
neighboring, appoggiatura and suspension.
Certainly important to note the melodic implications and would be a
note if necessary for clarity in the Classification System I mentioned
above.
Post by Tom K.I had long ago forgotten that our American (British?) scale degree naming
conventions were not universal. Thanks for pointing that out.
Tom
LOL, you may have hit on the reason that McGee (our teacher) brought
this approach back from her teaching at the Paris Conservatory each
summer with Nadia. I got the impression that anything British was not
the automatically preferred approach by the French. LOL
Of course, I don't know if she had much faith in Schenker either.
Don't know if this is because he was German or because she didn't
quite buy into his system as bringing any clarity into the world of
theory. As I perceived the word from abroad, it just was limited in
its application in the harmonic sense and the melodic implications
were contained in the more traditional approach as well.
Personally, I consider his approach to be more useful in some
instances that outline his ideas and thus might help in describing the
music in those terms but that in other instances in music of the same
period, even the same composer and sometimes even in the same piece of
music, the Schenker system will then not be as apt to fit as well.
LJS