> 2.1: although this solution (putting here V) looks neat and simple, I still hear here the tonic... and an applied dominant on 2 on a non-chordal bass resolving in the preceding measure. I think this measure should be reconsidered. #9

sokertal · 2022-02-21T20:30:34Z

2.1: although this solution (putting here V) looks neat and simple, I still hear here the tonic... and an applied dominant on 2 on a non-chordal bass resolving in the preceding measure. I think this measure should be reconsidered.

Are you thinking of only "I" on 2.1?

Originally posted by @adriannagel in #5 (comment)

I think it is an ambiguous beat, but not yet a V.

…cal key), and 33: V(#9#7)/iii => V/V/iii.

davor-k added a commit that referenced this issue Apr 4, 2022

31-34: labeled these measures with a pedal point V/iii (VII in the lo…

863f677

…cal key), and 33: V(#9#7)/iii => V/V/iii.

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

> 2.1: although this solution (putting here V) looks neat and simple, I still hear here the tonic... and an applied dominant on 2 on a non-chordal bass resolving in the preceding measure. I think this measure should be reconsidered. #9

> 2.1: although this solution (putting here V) looks neat and simple, I still hear here the tonic... and an applied dominant on 2 on a non-chordal bass resolving in the preceding measure. I think this measure should be reconsidered. #9

sokertal commented Feb 21, 2022

> 2.1: although this solution (putting here V) looks neat and simple, I still hear here the tonic... and an applied dominant on 2 on a non-chordal bass resolving in the preceding measure. I think this measure should be reconsidered. #9

> 2.1: although this solution (putting here V) looks neat and simple, I still hear here the tonic... and an applied dominant on 2 on a non-chordal bass resolving in the preceding measure. I think this measure should be reconsidered. #9

Comments

sokertal commented Feb 21, 2022