Re: Unanswered Question #1

On Apr 4, 11:02 am, "Steve Latham" <llat...@[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".

I understand you to be saying here is that you are applying the
FUNCTION  of Dominant to the chord in the tem****ary or as might have
been said during the CPP, the Transient Key (In this example, V key).

>
> 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.

There must be a better way to word this, but the meaning is still
understandable. We would have simply written this in the score as:
"Key of V: iv6 V I  "if the music justified it. We simply referred to
it as a Key Area. Why did we call it that? My best guess is that
Piston had coined the phrase Secondary Dominant in his theory book in
1941. I think he started using the "V of" terminology in 1939 in one
of his writings. This was a break from a chord functioning as such to
be referred to as a "transient modulation" as it had since the
beginnings of the CPP until that time by theorists. In order to update
the terminology, some thought that Transient Modulation was a
contradiction of terms (personally, I do not)  and a more modern way
of thinking about these short modulations. I remember Gretchen saying
that Nadia would refer to these kinds of "extended secondary
progressions" as Key Areas. I don't know the exact French that she
used, maybe Alain can help here. I don't think that Nadia would have
ever considered coining a word like "tonicize". I got the impression
that she considered French a very precise language already and would
not make up new words. I do like the "Key Area" as it allows for
progressions that do not go to tonic as well as those that do.

>
> 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.

Doesn't this intensify the  "Key Area" rather than the Dominant? The
"area" or progression, as a whole seems to be what is being
intensified.  The departure from the primary key seems to be the area
of focus that would be  intensified rather than only the dominant
chord. OR (If I am incorrectly understanding your reference to V) if
you are referring to the Dominant Area as in your example rather than
say a V/vi or a iv6/vi - V/vi? In this case, I would think that it is
the departure to the area of the vi that is the focus rather than just
the Dominant of vi. (now, this could be probably re worded for clarity
as I mentioned to you above :-) But the idea is that it is not just
the V chord of the new area that is im****tant. It only functions to
give a clear definition of the target key. It is that target key
itself (or Key Area) that is emphasized by the inclusion of more
chords to establish its function.

LJS

>
> 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