Talk:Secondary dominant

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] History of terminology

It should be noted that Walter Piston should not be credited for inventing the theories concerned with secondary dominants. Arnold Schoenberg's Harmonielehre (Theory of Harmony) contains a chapter titled "Secondary Dominants and other Non-diatonic Chords Derived from the Church Modes" in which he clearly presents these chords and their funtions in a manner which is widely acceptable today. Harmonielehre was first published in 1911 which pre-dates Walter Piston's theory by 30 years. It should also be noted that Schoenberg, himself, added a disclaimer to his theory that states he has no responsibility for the invention of the term "Secondary Dominant". Given these facts, it seems that no individual should be given sole propietership of it's invention. Should I edit the history section to include both Piston and Schoenberg, without giving responsibility to either? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Craigmizzle (talk • contribs)

By all means rewrite the History section, if you have corrected information! That would be infinitely better than adding a sentence in the body of the article saying: "No, the above is untrue..." --which can appear confusing, not to say quarrelsome, in a reference work such as Wikipedia.

As the author of this section, I will say that if, indeed, Schoenberg used the term "secondary dominant" in 1911, it didn't seem to have much influence at the time on other theorists. If you look at theoretical works through the 1920s and 1930s, you see the same sort of confusion--authors are either looking for a good description of the phenomenon, or are reverting to the old "transient modulation" explanation. After Piston's work appeared in 1939, however, all the confusion seems to have stopped--theorists (with a few old hold-out exceptions, such as McHose) embrace the secondary dominant theory exactly as Piston defined it.

Now, did Piston borrow the idea from Schoenberg? Or come up with it on his own? If you can rewrite this section in such a way as to clear all this up, more power to you. I'll be watching for it.Dr-t 02:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)Dr-t

The section begins "The concept of the secondary dominant was not recognized in writings on music theory prior to 1939." -- thus the subject seems to be historical priority, not of historical influence as you argue above. In Schoenberg's STRUCTURAL FUNCTIONS OF HARMONY his "artficial dominants" fill the same role as secondary dominants (and are labeled as such in the book's index). He may have been building on Riemann's "Zwischendominante" (which are similarly labeled "secondary dominants" in the German Wikipedia "Zwischendominante" article). Which of these usages has historical priority? That would seem to require "original research" to determine, and thus would be outside the scope of a Wikipedian. Paramucho 4 April 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.8.26 (talk) 05:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello Dr-t, First I want to note that I did not post the argument under the history section; apparently someone else had taken the liberty of doing such. The only thing I have contributed to this page is here in the discussion section. I just wanted some feedback before editing anything. I will take a shot at rewriting the history section after a friend returns my copy of Harmonielehre (I want to use his specific terminology in regards to Secondary Dominants and "transient modulations" so there is no mistaking the intent of his theory). I have studied the entire Piston text as well, so I should be able to differentiate. One thing I will say about comparing the two texts is that practically every concept presented by Piston (Secondary Dominants, augmented sixths, Neapolitan sixths, chromatic alterations, and extensions) is clearly present in Schoenberg's book. The main invention of Piston's is the consistent use of Roman numeral analysis, and particularly the nomenclature of the secondary dominants in Roman numerals (i.e. V7 of VI). Anyway, I highly reccomend Shoenberg's book to you. If you are interested in the origin of voice leading and modulations, there seems to be no other text so exhaustive. Historically it is in the league of Rameau's Treatise on Harmony. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Craigmizzle (talk • contribs) 06:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)