Re: Unanswered Question #1

On Apr 6, 7:52 pm, ttw6...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
> F. H. Shephard used the term "attendant chord" in 1889 to describe
> what we now call a secondary dominant. Composers had been using the
> construct for a couple of hundred years before that (without
> necessarily naming it.) I don't have an earlier reference yet.

Interesting! I got my reference from Dolmetsch online. I will be happy
to forward any information you have to them. I don't know how
responsive they will be. I don't remember if I copied and pasted the
reference in that post or if I sumarized. IIRC they stated that
theorists referred to this altered chord that resolved to a chord in
the key as a transient modulation and that Piston originated the
phrase "Secondary Dominant" in his writings in 1939 and then in his
book in 1941. If I was not that specific in the reference, I
apologize. I was interested in the notion that they said that it was
called a transient modulation. I don't know from your post if
Shephard's use of the term contradicts this or not. Dolmetsch also
said that the usage of the altered chord was around but that it was
considered a modulation. Did Shephard still consider the "attendant
chord" and I suppose the "attendee chord" (for a  lack of a better
name) together as a transient modulation or did he specifically point
out that it was something else? I don't see that much difference
myself. A rose by any name will still place an emphasis on that other
target chord. and if we have one more chord in the  functional chain
before that I certainly consider it a "tem****ary key area" (some say
tonicazation) and if the progression is longer than that it certainly
should be considered a modulation of some sort. The whole concept just
seeme to me to be quibbling over how much of a functional emphasis has
to be there before it is considered im****tant!  I have been challenged
from time to time for placing im****tance on these short diversions
from the home key and was pointing out that the people of the CPP
considered them to be a modulation in their own era. I think that they
are interesting and im****tant for analysis in that they often show a
broader functional base than simply the movement away from tonic and
the return through the functional conventions on a chord by chord
basis. Often these short "key areas" and "Secondary Dominant"
modulations outline a function of their own that I find im****tant in
the over all construction and help to give depth and substance to the
composition.

I don't really care what they are called. I am interested as a teacher
that the concept is understood and recognized in the analysis of
music. That, to me is the im****tant thing.

Thanks for the citation. I am truly curious as to the exact nature of
his Attendant Chord. It certainly sounds as though it grouped it with
a target chord. Did he allow for the use of a longer progression with
two or more Attendant Chords leading to a target note? or did he only
allow one chord to be a part of this concept?
Thanks for the citation.
LJS