Re: tonic subdominant dominant stuff

Jerry

> >Tonic harmony: I, vi, and sometimes iii
> >Dominant harmony: V, vii, and sometimes iii6
> >Subdominant harmony: IV and ii
>

This is the way I was brought up. For some reason, I just thought
'thats the way it is'. I always viewed it from "number of common
tones". So I attaches to vi and iii by two common tones, IV
attaches to ii (and vi) by two common tones, and V attaches
to vii (and iii).

> I. Sure, and also according to Forte, it can "substitute" for a I.
> However, I much prefer Forte's description of the vi as "dominant
> preparation" since Pythagorean chain progressions such as I-vi-ii-V-I are

the whole thing about "dominant preparation"... well, the way I was
brought up, you could go

T -> S
T -> D
S -> T
S -> D << dominant preparaton
D -> T

Basically, Dominant to Subdominant wasn't considered cool, although
I once I reealized that 'music theory' was an 'approximate statistical'
science, I gave up oon finding answers without prominant contradictions.

So

I- vi- ii-V-I
T [T,S] S D T

> iii-vi- ii -V-I.

T [T,S] S D T

some might say...

D T S D T

but I don't know why. (Are these tuning questions?)

Bob Valentine