Due to changing needs and technologies, the SMT Executive Board has decided to retire SMT Discuss (effective Nov. 9, 2021). Posts will be preserved for archival purposes, but new posts and replies are no longer permitted.
napulen
About
- Username
- napulen
- Joined
- Visits
- 22
- Last Active
- Roles
- Guest
- First Name
- Nestor
- Last Name
- Napoles Lopez
Comments
-
What I mean merely is that in a progression like II#–V–I, if you write it as V/V–V–I, there is (or there should be) no modulation involved. In V/V–V, V is not I of the dominant key, but merely V of the tonic key – it is a dominant chord, and it is …
-
Dear Nicolas, Thank you for your input here. I am curious about this: One might understand otherwise, as "the dominant (chord) or the dominant (key)", but that will not work in all cases. Can you share an example where "the dominant (chord) o[f?] t…
-
It seems that Shepard's "Attendant" chord system has been described in a previous publication, "How to modulate" (1890).
-
Neither Schenker nor Schoenberg appear to write V/V or anything of the kind. Schoenberg however did indicate altered chords by a stroke through the Roman numeral, which at times indicated an applied dominant, but not always. Schoenberg uses Nebendom…
-
Thank you, Nicolas! I will go through these books you recommended more in depth. The idea is to write a small section called "a brief history of Roman numeral analysis" in my dissertation. I am not a music theorist myself (more of a computer scienti…
SMT Discuss Manager: smtdiscuss@societymusictheory.org