Contraccordo

...I was just about to ask that 😵

I would say that the subject is very intricate and a bit complex to deal with, but one can say something... at least I hope 😉

Practically, it is a chord called tonic of the leading tone; usually you find the “l” placed after the “T” (tonic) which derives from the German “leitton” (which means leading tone), thus indicating the semitonal melodic relationship between the note C of the tonic chord and the note B of the tonic of the leading tone chord, i.e., the III degree chord

To understand with an example, considering C as the reference tone:

- tonic chord: C E G (T)

- parallel tonic chord, i.e., VI degree chord: C E A (Tp)

- tonic of the leading tone chord, i.e., III degree chord: B E G (Tl)

which analogously for the minor mode:

- minor tonic chord: A C E (°T)

- parallel minor tonic chord, i.e., III degree chord of the natural scale: G C E (°Tp)

- minor tonic of the leading tone chord, i.e., VI degree chord: A C F (°Tl)

See the essay by Ernst Kirsch: "Nature and structure of the theory of harmonic functions"

In some texts you may find different conventions, such as the letter “g” instead of “l”, naming the respective chords not as leading tone chords, but rather as “sub-chords” (see the Harmony Manual by Diether de la Motte).

Frank, too difficult for me ... I didn't understand much, but I suspected it. I was curious about the term and thought of a "clash"... basically, I was speaking in metaphors.

maybe you can take a look at this handout on DeLaMotte, it's free 😉

http://www.maurobouvet.it/BIBLIOGRAFIA_files/M.Bouvet%20TEORIA%20FUNZIONALE%20DELL%E2%80%99ARMONIA.pdf

AleGozzo wrote:

maybe you can take a look at this handout on DeLaMotte, it's free 😉

http://www.maurobouv...0%99ARMONIA.pdf

Thanks Ale

Frank, why is the sensitive one not in °TI?

Talentuoso wrote:

Frank, why is the leading tone not present in the major key?

In the major mode, in reality, there also exists the subdominant of the leading tone chord, which is the VI degree chord: E A C (Sl)

Moving forward with the example of the minor mode:

- minor subdominant chord: D F A (°S)

- parallel minor subdominant chord, i.e., the VI degree chord: C F A (°Sp)

- minor subdominant of the leading tone chord, i.e., the lowered II degree chord (Neapolitan scale): D F Bb (°Sl)

- minor dominant chord: E G B (°D)

- parallel minor dominant chord, i.e., the VII degree chord of the natural scale: D G B (°Dp)

- minor dominant of the leading tone chord, i.e., the III degree chord of the natural scale: E G C (°Dl)

In the minor mode, the "L" appears:

- minor tonic of the leading tone chord, i.e., the VI degree chord

- minor subdominant of the leading tone chord, i.e., the lowered II degree chord (Neapolitan scale)

- minor dominant of the leading tone chord, i.e., the III degree chord of the natural scale

Functional theory owes its birth to Hugo Riemann, a scholar from the second half of the 19th century; I am proposing considerations in relation to subsequent revisions, which corrected some rigid settings of the original formulation, adapting it more effectively to musical practice and the actual and evident characteristics of musical pieces in tonal literature.

What matters is the function that a chord represents within a key, both at the primary level and at the secondary level:

1. the tonic function is represented at the primary level by the I degree harmony, and at the secondary level by the III and VI degree harmonies;

2. the subdominant function is instead represented mainly by the IV degree harmony, and secondarily by the II and VI degree harmonies;

3. the dominant function is represented at the primary level by the V degree harmony and at the secondary level by that of the III degree

As you note... "leading tone or non-leading tone", chords are united by a certain function and returning to Riemann (in his essay he uses Roman numerals to indicate chords), he states that all harmonic successions can be traced back to well-defined models:

T-S-D-T

T-S-T-D-T

and every succession can be varied and/or expanded through certain procedures, among which is the "Replica."

This is a challenging passage:

defining S-T as "antithesis" and D-T as "synthesis", the replica of antithesis and/or synthesis consists in duplicating the respective pairs of harmonies with an equal number of pairs of corresponding secondary harmonies, to be placed before the main pair or to follow them in succession

--------------------

Example:

in T-S-T-D-T there will be T-S-T-Sp-Tp-Dp-Tp-D-T

Sp-Tp represents the secondary pair of S-T (i.e., Sp : S = Tp : T), therefore the replica of the antithesis, following it

Dp-Tp represents the secondary pair of D-T (i.e., Dp : D = Tp : T), which in this case precedes the main pair.

--------------------

Obviously, it is not necessary for the secondary harmonies to all be parallel, as they can be either parallel or of the leading tone, provided that the succession makes musical and harmonic sense.

I hope I have answered your question.

Really very clear, thank you.

Is there something specific about Riemann?

Other material

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:7ZHuHHVGLQgJ:fabio734.interfree.it/Teoria%2520funzionale.PDF+armonia+funzionale+di+hugo+reiman&hl=it&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESiefI4Ykyu6AwEbCIYwU_MgFxin3dVi2pFeB5Rl4SNfzBkt9ULD9vAaJ_IQXuOUB6Pfn1TAUe3XzKFb2IdFKclDPstBGdk7YuVkSs12wiOuJ8zkgbzjwkW84K9Oh6CeS0b_Foc0&sig=AHIEtbTNuyvRG--kfp4yn4gzQ1N59gqHLg

Talentuoso wrote:

Is there something specific about Riemann?

I should look into it; Riemann certainly firmly believed in the physical existence of subharmonics, something that was already disproven while he was still alive... a very fascinating aspect of his theories.

Thanks to everyone for the beautiful explanations... not an easy topic where I have never truly understood it completely....