Re: Unanswered Question #1

On Fri, 04 Apr 2008 16:02:56 GMT, "Steve Latham" <llatham@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:

>
>"Danny Schorr" <.@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
>news:5rvav35jjnbko2nltfq04ab104uhe0e04b@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>
>> Is "applied" the standard term used for secondary dominants in
academia? I
>> have never seen the term, but it's an interesting idea - that the 
>> Secondary
>> Dominant is applied to the following chord. Just curious - that's a new

>> one
>> to this autodidact.
>
>It seems like it used to be. Many of the older professors I've met used
the 
>term "applied" when I was an undergrad. They had to keep reminding us
that 
>it was the same thing Kostka/Payne referred to as Secondary.
>
>"Applied" does have a nice conceptual basis - "you're applying the V7
from 
>the key of the V to the V chord".
>
>But conceptually, Secondary seems to cover more bases as we often see
those 
>chords "not part of the primary key" as "coming from" a secondary key, 
>rather than  being "applied to" a chord in the primary key. This is 
>especially good in situations where it's not necessarily a Dominant
function 
>chord - such as a progression like iv6/V - V/V. The iv6 from the key of
the 
>V doesn't seem to be being "applied" to the V chord, but the V chord of
the 
>key of the V (as iv6 has a pre-dominant function there). But both chords
do 
>reflect a progression in that Secondary key, so I think the latter has 
>caught on more widely.
>
>To "keep" the concept of "application", most people I encounter use 
>"intensify" to mean sort of the same thing, but it allows the inclusion
of 
>other chords from the secondary key - iv6/V - V/V "intensifies" the
Dominant 
>(by way of providing a progression that would ordinarily have a
significance 
>in the secondary key). It's not unlike the word Tonicize, but it seems
that 
>"tonicize" has simply come to mean "makes that chord from the primary key
a 
>tem****ary tonic" and not say as much about the chords from the secondary
key 
>approaching it.
>
>
>An interesting thought - is, V/ii - V/V an example of V/V - V in a
secondary 
>key, or is V/ii (which is V/V/V) a Tertiary Dominant!
>
>
>Steve 
>
Piston (or DeVoto) deals withy this type of stuff in a chapter called
"Problems of Harmonic Analysis".  I need to delve into this to better
understanding, but here's an excerpt from a quick glance:

He looks at  WTC I, Fugue 4, in 4 ways:

a-As modulating
b-. as Literal roots in C#
c. with secondary dominants
d. functions in one key, by extension of the secondary dominant principle.
d is close to what you are getting at here: you should see it -
IV/IV/IV/IV
to V/IV/IV/IV

It says that each analysis is correct on it's own terms, and the
preference
for one should not mean a rejection of what the others have to offer..
Then
he goes thru the pro's and con's, which, at a glance ,are beyond me right
now, to tell ya the truth. 

But it's interesting food for thought.

Danny