Talk:Submediant

Requested audio

I have added an audio example to the article. Hyacinth (talk) 20:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup

Why and where does this article need to be cleaned up? How should it be cleaned up? Hyacinth (talk) 06:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Why does the image placement of this article need to be cleaned up? How should it be cleaned up? Hyacinth (talk) 00:55, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to unify the layout of scale-degree pages

WikiProject Music Theory is spearheading a proposal to unify the layout of the scale-degree pages. The discussion can be found here. Since these pages not only include discussion of the scale-degrees, but also occasionally discuss triads and seventh chords built on these scale-degrees, it is important to systemize these pages. This will also curtail the creation of pages for each individual triad and seventh chord, some which may not necessarily contain enough content to be expanded beyond a stub. I invite you to comment on the proposal with thoughts, criticisms, or suggestions. Thanks! — Devin.chaloux (chat) 19:05, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

"Susan McClary says that modulation to the lowered submediant (in C: A♭) represents a dream-like state of escape."

Desperately needs a citation, even though I can think of some examples that might lead to this kind of conclusion. Double sharp (talk) 15:31, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Relative minor

In all this discussion of the various ways that the submediant / VI / vi / la relates to the tonic, why is there no mention of the very basic fact that vi is the relative minor of I? Given the importance of this fundamental* fact and the significance of the relative minor key and chord in all tonal genres of western music from classical onward,** this is one heck of a gap.

* (Sorry, no pun intended.)

** The relative minor of a particular major key, or the relative major of a minor key, is the key which has the same key signature but a different tonic; this is as opposed to parallel minor or major, which shares the same tonic. Relative keys are closely related keys, the keys between which most modulations occur, in that they differ by no more than one accidental (none in the case of relative keys). (Relative key)

--Thnidu (talk) 21:03, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

@Thnidu: The reason seems to be that the article is about the submediant degree, VI or vi, while it is only the key of vi (and, by extension, the chord of vi) that is the relative minor of I. The article has somewhat puzzling statements to this effect, namely:

"Submediant" also refers to a relationship of musical keys. For example, relative to the key of C major, the key of A major (or A minor) is the submediant. Modulation (change of key) to the submediant is relatively rare, compared with, for instance, modulation to the dominant, and gives a feeling of relaxation. Susan McClary says that modulation to the lowered submediant (in C: A♭) represents a dream-like state of escape.

One may wonder what the writer(s) of this meant by "relative to the key of C major". Did they mean "in relation to the key of C major, the key of A [...] is the submediant"? Probably. But they could also have meant "The key of A minor, [the] relative to that of C major, ...". The statement that modulation to the submediant is "relatively [!] rare" is without justification or reference. The mention of "a feeling of relaxation" really should need justification. And the "dream-like state of escape" ... well, I am not a fan of Susan McClary, but I hope for her she did not write that! The article goes on:

In German theory derived from Hugo Riemann the submediant in major is considered the tonic parallel (US relative), Tp, and the minor the subdominant parallel, sP.

This does not make it entirely clear that in music the English (not particularly US, that I know) term "relative" is the translation of the German parallel. Note that this is a reversible (or reciprocal) relation: the tonic key is the relative of its submediant as much as the submediant key is that of its tonic.

But you are right and all this requires some tidying. I'll think of it. Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 09:51, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I fully reorganized the article. I did it trying to keep as much as possible from the existing version, even if there remain some puzzling statements. I had no time for further research. I am afraid many of the musical examples disappeared in this rewriting; but I don't think they really belonged in this article. For what I have been able to see, many of them are also used in other articles. – Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 16:58, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

PS. I am somewhat puzzled by the mentions of tonic parallel and subdominant parallel in the article (and by the corresponding articles), apparently to denote the relatives of the tonic and the subdominant. It seems to me that, in Neo-Riemannian theory at least, "parallel" refers to the chord or key of opposed mode, but on the same note. I am not sure enough of the American usages to do anything about this. If it were to be corrected, this would involve renaming both the tonic parallel and subdominant parallel articles. – Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 17:09, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

@Hucbald.SaintAmand: Thank you for the editing. The article reads much clearer now. -- BTW, did you come here from WikiProject Music theory? That project is near-dormant. I hope you can find a music theorist fully familiar with the terms and willing to help edit here. --Thnidu (talk) 01:26, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

@Thnidu: Yes, I came here from your message on WikiProject Music theory. Submediant wasn't yet in my watchlist; it is now. The project Music Theory indeed is near-dormant; it has been so since quite some time, the reason being (IMO) that American theorists (I am thinking of the members of the Society for Music Theory) have been cooled by the propensity of some to revert good modifications... As to English terminology, I am in fact quite certain that "parallel" means "of the same tonic but opposed mode" and not "relative". The Subdominant parallel article refers to Percy Goetschius, where I cannot find "parallel" in the meaning of "relative"; it also refers to books about guitar and jazz/rock, a domain that I don't know (but at least one of these books is translated from the German). Early versions of the tonic parallel and subdominant parallel articles refer more clearly to German theory (and to Riemann in particular); but their title might then be given in German, Tonikaparallele and Subdominantparallele. Perhaps their original author, @Hyacinth:, might clarify this, here and there. – Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 10:25, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Riemannian theory should probably mention "Contrast chord" and a few other subjects. See: Diatonic function#Functions in the minor mode. Hyacinth (talk) 08:37, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

The use of "relative" and "parallel" isn't very rational. Aren't all scales parallel each other? Hyacinth (talk) 09:53, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

@Hyacinth: Yes, and one might add that even the lines of the staff are parallel to each other ;–)). "Parallel" is from the Greek, para alleilos, "beside each other", and "relative" from the Latin relativus, itself from relatus, past participle of referre. The musical usages therefore are not as irrational as may seem. And, in any case, our aim is not to discuss the rationality of the terminology, but to report it as accurately as possible. The reason why I asked you to come in the discussion mainly was to ask you to what extent, when you created the tonic parallel and subdominant parallel articles, you had Riemann'theory in view. My impression was that the link to Riemann was rather clear in the earlier formulation of the articles, and became less clear through their revisions.

The New Grove Online gives the following definitions:

Relative key: A key with the same key signature as another: C major is the relative major of A minor; E minor is the relative minor of G major.

and

Parallel key: A minor key having the same tonic as a given major key, or vice versa; C major and C minor are parallel keys.

The WP articles Relative key and Parallel key conform to this terminology, and so does neo-Riemannian theory. On the other hand, it is true that German theory, as early as the 18th century, always described the relative key as the Paralleltonart, and the usage seems alluded to in some books in English. Even so, the English terminology seems rather clear. Yet, Submediant still refers to tonic parallel and subdominant parallel, and this remains somewhat puzzling. – Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 15:05, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

The tonic parallel and subdominant parallel articles read like they where cut and paste from a longer article which does not mention them such as Riemannian theory. What does "referre" mean? Hyacinth (talk) 00:01, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

What does "beside each other" mean? If we where talking about parking spaces I would know what that meant. Applying a spatial metaphor to the relationship between pitches, I would assume that the note "parallel" to C would be D (or B, maybe G or F), if "parallel" meant "beside each other". Since all notes have a relationship, I would also assume that all notes are relatives of each other. Hyacinth (talk) 00:15, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Since, on Wikipedia, having been challenged, and gone undefended for a while, is all it takes to remove material, it is our job to explain the rationality, or lack thereof, the second anyone says, "this can't be true, it makes no sense." Hyacinth (talk) 03:53, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Superdominant

As with pretty much all terms in music theory save the most common ones (and sometimes not even then), this one has also acquired a completely incompatible meaning – in this case, V of V (see for example p. 12 of Max Reger's Supplement to the Theory of Modulation in the English translation by John Bernhoff). Double sharp (talk) 14:02, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

If I'm correct, that would be a D major chord in a piece whose home key is C major. Note that V of V and ii have the same root, but (in major keys) they're not the same chord. The ii chord in the key of C major is D minor. The V of V is D7, with an F♯. Georgia guy (talk) 14:16, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

@Double sharp:, @Georgia guy: Unless for the introduction, where he writes of "sub- and super-dominant" (in Bernhoff's translation), Reger always speaks of the "2nd super-dominant" (obviously meaning the dominant of the dominant) when he refers to the the IId degree. Oberdominante in German is a synonym for Dominante, meaning "the dominant above" exactly as "subdominant" means "the dominant below". Reger uses Oberdominante, wherever Bernhoff translates as "super-dominant", obviously to avoid any confusion. In the French translation by Calvacoressi (1922), however, Oberdominante always is translated as dominante, precisely because another confusion would otherwise arise with what the French call sus-dominante, which Prout says at times is used in English as "superdominant".

This apparent "completely incompatible meaning", as you term it, actually reflects an ambiguity that exists from the 18th century, from the creation of the term "subdominant" probably by Jean-François Dandrieu in Principes de l'accompagnement du clavecin, c1719. Jean-Jacques Rousseau wonders in his Dictionnaire (vol. II, 1772, p. 222) whether sous-dominante refers to the fifth below the tonic or to the second below the dominant: "What makes me doubt, he writes, is that in both cases the subdominant is the same note fa in the key of ut", but he adds that the same would not be true of the two possible meanings of sous-médiante, either as the mediant below the tonic (the English and American submediant) or the second below the mediant. He concludes that the meaning "fifth below the tonic" is best "for the usage of composition", but this did not become the prefered meaning in French.

To makes things short, Bernhoff's "super-dominant" is the translation of Reger's Oberdominante, while Prout refers to a possible translation of the French susdominante. – Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 16:17, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

A is the note "above" G. Metaphors and translations may not always produce a logical and/or consistent use of terms. Hyacinth (talk) 00:08, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Thus, in C, A is superior to the dominant, G. In Riemannian theory it is also the root of the D minor triad. Hyacinth (talk) 03:49, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

@Hyacinth: If this is what you mean, no, the German Oberdominante never refers to the 2nd degree, in Riemannian theory no more than anywhere else. When Reger wants to describe the 2nd degree, he writes "the 2nd super-dominant", meaning the (super-)dominant of the (super-)dominant. In German (as in English, for that matter), Dominante ("dominant") is short for Oberdominante ("superdominant"). In French on the other hand (and in Italian), susdominante (or in Italian sopradominante) means the degree above the dominant (in the same way as "supertonic" in English means the degree above the tonic). This is not a matter of whether the terminology is logical or rational, but a matter of differences between languages. – Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 09:47, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Weird things

In the lead: "It is also the third factor of the subdominant (IV) triad." Why is this sufficiently important to state in a three-line lead paragraph? I note that the uppercase IV is used without explanation, but unless someone can come up with a convincing reason to retain the whole clause, I think it should go.

"It is occasionally called superdominant". Again, is this worth stating right at the top? I'm a music-theory professional, and I've gone through life never having heard that term. Non-expert readers might be served better by not cluttering up the lead with synonymous terms that ... well ... aren't very common.

"Am is the vi chord in the C major scale"—goodness, can't it be just: "A minor is chord vi in C major"? Why mix up scale-degree with key in the same clause? Tony (talk) 12:51, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Additional questions

• What is the point of calling the third in a chord its third "factor"? Does it mean something different than "its third"? Is it because "factors" denote pitch classes?

• "Superdominant" obviously comes from the French, where indeed degree VI (or ^6) is called susdominante. This should be said somewhere: this discrepancy of names goes back to the 18th century. "Superdominant" in English was probably more common in the 19th century (in the time of E. Prout) than it is today.

• "The submediant chord is symbolized by the Roman numeral VI if it is major or vi if it is minor." Well, not everybody agrees with this distinction between major (capitals) and minor (lower case Roman numerals). Let's say that it is "often" symbolized so.

• Similarly, the submediant degree is at times symbolized by – Wikipedia even includes a special tag to notate this.

• "Am is the vi chord in the C major scale". I don't quite see what is "a chord in a scale". Shouldn't it be "in the key of C major"? (Or "on the white keys"?) And what follows goes worse and worse. The explanation about the relatives is confused, and at "F is the VI chord in the A (natural) minor scale" one could be completely lost.

Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 17:17, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

New questions

Is this reference to the French really appropriate almost at the opening, while trying to introduce a tricky concept to non-experts? "It is occasionally called superdominant,[3] as the degree above the dominant. This is its normal name (sus-dominante) in French."? Tony (talk) 07:00, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

The reason of this mention of the French usage is that it explains why Prout uses it. As I mentioned above, this usage may have been more common in English in the 19th century. The term is still used in W. Apel, Harvard Dictionary of Music, 1950, art. Scale degrees, p. 664: "Scale degrees. Special names and signs used in harmonic analysis to denote the various tones of the scale as they occur as the roots of triads, seventh chords, etc. These names are: tonic (I), supertonic (II), mediant (III), subdominant (IV), dominant (V), submediant or superdominant (VI), subtonic (VII)." Whether this is a sufficient reason, I'll leave others decide. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 10:36, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

OK, perhaps it could go into the section "Name" at the bottom, where German usage is also discussed. I can't help feeling that simplicity is important at the start. Tony (talk) 12:47, 18 December 2021 (UTC)