Open allorens opened 4 years ago
in contexts where 'added notes' do not exist
Could you please explain what kind of contexts you have in mind? What would be your guidelines for distinguishing V9
from V7(9)
and V7(+9)
?
I had in mind some early 18th-century pieces where added notes hardly feature (some suspensions for clear expressive purposes from time to time, but never of the 9
type, i.e. with the root present at the same time, and in any case no added notes). There I've found 9th chords quite frequently, which made me think that, given the context, perhaps one should not treat the 9th as an addition. But of course this will remain open to discussion and theoretisation.
(this is one of such instances)
To my view, V7(9)
would always be followed by a V7
so the (9)
funtions as a proper suspension. Both V9
and V7(+9)
can resolve in any other chord. The distinction between them is a matter of classification criteria: do 5-note chords 'exist' as a category or are they just formed by a tetrad + an added note?
Although you already considered (and then discarded) the option of including 9th chords in the syntax, I'm still willing to leave the issue open. They appear quite early (already in the 1720s) over
V
orviio
where the 9th is neither a passing note nor a suspension, and in contexts where 'added notes' do not exist. Do you think this would complicate the syntax excessively becasue of the many types and inversions?Preliminary idea:
V9
,V76
,V54
,V32
(or other figured bass simplifications?)Vm9
,Vm76
,Vm54
,Vm32
i9
,i76
,i54
,i32
im9
,im76
,im54
,im32
VM9
,VM76
,VM54
,VM32
viio9
,viio76
,viio54
,viio32
vii%9
,vii%76
,vii%54
,vii%32