Re: Unanswered Question #1

On Apr 5, 2:44 pm, "David Webber" <d...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
> "LJS" <ljsche...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
> news:b158c822-d0d7-4d93-9d8c-9a0006999698@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > Yes, the Picardy third or Tierce de Picardie does seem to be an
>
> example. It is a chord that borrows from the Major Mode.<
>
> It introduces a major third.  In that it was used in pieces in Dorian
mode,
> before the major/minior prominance we are now used to, it cannot really
be
> said to "borrow from the major mode".    That is a post-hoc
construction.
>
> Dave
>
> --
> David Webber
> Author of 'Mozart the Music Processor'http://www.mozart.co.uk
> For discussion/sup****t
seehttp://www.mozart.co.uk/mozartists/mailinglist.htm

Well, if you go back, it was not me that introduced this into the
thread. That said, it is a way to account for this and this is
sup****ted by others that I have found in researching modal borrowing
and interchange. There are many different ways to account for things.
Personally, I don't agree that this is an example of modal borrowing
as such. But I am not one to tell another that he is wrong in that
view that is based on an event that parallels the concept that he
cites as by more modern definitions it certainly can be called modal
borrowing and often has been called "borrowing the major tonic from
the parallel major".

You may be correct that it could be based on post-hoc construction,
but so are a lot of views that are common in our more modern view that
differ from the original concept. I certainly did not want to quibble
with the poster that claimed it to be used in that manner as it really
doesn't matter what the inventor of the Picardy 3rd intended! In this
case, it matters what the composer of the piece got from the Picardy
3rd and if he used an extension of this in his composition. So in the
true context of this statement, it is NOT based on a post-hoc
assumption, but rather on what Pujol's intention was concerning the
ending in Major.
LJS