=== === ============= ====
=== === == == ==
== == ==== == == =
== ==== === == == ==
== == == == = ==
== == == == ==
== == == ====
M U S I C T H E O R Y O N L I N E
A Publication of the
Society for Music Theory
Copyright (c) 1994 Society for Music Theory
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| Volume 0, Number 9 July, 1994 ISSN: 1067-3040 |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
All queries to: mto-editor@husc.harvard.edu
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
AUTHOR: Klumpenhouwer, Henry
TITLE: Some Remarks on the Use of Riemann
Transformations
KEYWORDS: Riemann, harmonic dualism, Wagner
Henry Klumpenhouwer
University of Alberta
Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2C9
userklum@mts.ucs.ualberta.ca
ABSTRACT: The essay examines Lewin's and Hyer's
use of transformations derived from Riemann's
work, and suggests a number of revisions. An
expanded collection of transformations is
introduced and used in an short analysis of
excerpts from Wanger's *Ring*.
ACCOMPANYING FILES: mto.94.0.9.klumpenhouwer.fig
mto.94.0.9.klumpenhouwer.app
[Editorial Note: The examples referred to in the essay are in
the ".fig" file. Three appendices are located at the end of the
essay, following the bibliography. A separate copy of the
appendices is available as: mto.94.0.9.klumpenhouwer.app.]
[1] In this paper I suggest revisions to an
analytical methodology developed in Lewin 1987,
1992 and Hyer 1989. Their work draws upon
certain themes in Riemann's writings in order to
construct procedures for investigating harmonic
relationships in Wagner, procedures that also
engage transformational approaches to analysis.
My revisions also refer explicitly to Riemann's
writing, but they refer to an earlier stage in
his career, and in particular to his *Skizze
einer Neuen Methode der Harmonielehre* (Riemann
1880).
I. Chord Models and Chord Transformations.
[2] Hyer (1989) develops a group of
transformations on triads from a collection of
four relations generally associated with
Riemann's work: parallel, relative,
leittonwechsel, and dominant. Lewin (1987,
1992) begins with a somewhat larger number of
basic transformations. A few originate in
Riemann (parallel, relative, leittonwechsel).
Others (mediant, submediant) are adapted from
other theorists. And still others (slide
relation) are constructed by Lewin himself.
[3] Example 1 investigates how these transfor-
mations interact with the triads or klangs they
relate. Example 1a is a network of three arrows
labelled with Riemann transformations, and three
nodes containing klangs. The relationship
between C major and E minor is interpreted as
leittonwechsel (L), defined by Lewin as a
transformation on triads that maintains the two
pitches that form a minor third (mod 8ve), and
moves the remaining pitch one semitone so as to
form another triad (1992, 49). The network
interprets the relationship between E minor and
G major as an instance of the relative
transformation (R), which maintains the two
pitches that form a major third (mod 8ve), and
moves the remaining pitch a whole tone so as to
form another triad. The arrow that extends from
C major to the G major is labelled with the
subdominant transformation (S), which transposes
a klang by a perfect fifth up. The network
suggests the following functional equality: L
followed by R yields S.
[4] Aside from node content, the network given
in example 1b is very similar to the network in
example 1a. Both networks have leittonwechsel
and relative labels on corresponding arrows.
But while the arrow on example 1a that extends
from C major to G major is labelled with the
subdominant transformation (S), the
corresponding arrow on example 1b (extending
from A minor to D minor) is labelled with the
dominant transformation (D), which transposes a
klang up a perfect fifth down. The network in
example 1b, contrary to the network in example
1a, suggests that L followed by R yields D.
[5] The difference bothers me because the
difference (and other similar differences in the
system) is brought about by separating dualist
chord models from dualist transformations
(leittonwechsel, relative) and then using those
transformations in conjunction with functions or
relations (dominant, subdominant, submediant,
mediant) derived from fundamental-bass
conceptions of chord structure. My point here
is not that Hyer and Lewin have been unfaithful
to the wishes of Riemann. My point is that
technical properties of leittonwechsel and
relative transformations--in particular the
property that they are their own inverses--
induce what amounts to a dualist relationship
between major and minor chords. For instance,
as one examines the values and arguments on the
relevant function table of the leittonwechsel
transformation, one sees that in general the
transformation changes the modality of a major
triad to its parallel minor and transposes a
major third up, while it changes the modality of
a minor triad to its parallel major and
transposes a major third *down*. The reversal
of direction that accompanies the reversal in
modality is the imprint of dualist thinking.
The imprint is indelible: the only way to avoid
the dualism is to redefine the transformation so
that its function table reverses the modality of
a triad and transposes it a certain directed
interval regardless of modality. But that would
simply turn leittonwechsel either into Lewin's
SUBM (submediant) transformation or into his M
(mediant) transformation, depending on the
chosen directed interval.
[6] I have not faulted Hyer and Lewin with
having misrepresented Riemann's work because I
do not count that as a fault, and because there
is a sense in which an uncomfortable
juxtaposition of dualist and non-dualist
thinking is a prominent characteristic of
Riemann, particularly of his later work: the
well-known contemporary critique of Riemann in
Belinfante 1904 makes this very point. In fact,
it could be fairly argued that in what follows
it is *I* who will be misrepresenting Riemann.
My own distortions (as far as I can tell)
involve projecting a particular ideational
structure on Riemann's transformations (as they
appear in the *Skizze einer Neuen Methode der
Harmonielehre*), and then appropriating the
transformations for analytical purposes other
than those discussed by Riemann, who seems most
interested in using transformations to chart out
the topographies of his *Dur-Moll* and *Moll-
Dur* systems. Following Lewin and Hyer, I will
be interested in extending the use of Riemann's
transformations to seek out repetitions of
harmonic patterns, which are then presented as
motivic.
[7] Accordingly, my proposed revision of the
analytical methodology involves firstly turning
away from non-dualist transformations adapted
from dominant, subdominant, mediant, and
submediant relations, and secondly identifying
in Riemann 1880 a less conflicted group of
transformations.
[8] Since the transformations I shall be
discussing *do* compel a dualist conception of
triads, it will be worthwhile to establish at
least the dominant features of such a view. But
because Riemann's own explanation of chord
dualism is premised on the existence of harmonic
undertones, I shall use an alternative yet
functionally equivalent explanation, developed
from Hauptmann's discussion of major and minor
triads (1853, 25-35).
[9] Hauptmann assigns three "functions" to
pitches that constitute major and minor triads:
unity (*Einheit*); duality or separation (*Zwei-
heit*); union (*Verbindung*). The three func-
tions are labelled respectively I, II, and III
for reference, and are assigned to triad members
according to two rules:
1) I and II form a perfect fifth (mod 8ve);
2) I and III form a major third (mod 8ve).
The rules stipulate that only the pitch that
acts as I or the *Einheit* participates in both
the perfect fifth (mod 8ve) and the major third
(mod 8ve) relationships.
[10] Example 2 distributes the three symbols
I, II, III among the pitches that form a major
triad. Example 2a calculates which two pitches
may be assigned I and II under the first rule
above. Since the formalism asserts only that I
and II form a perfect fifth, a perfect fourth,
or one of their compounds, we cannot determine
the assignment of function labels beyond what is
shown in the example: F is either I or II; Bb is
also either I or II. To decide which is I and
which is II, we need to carry out rule 2.
Example 2b calculates which pitches may be
assigned I and III under the second rule above.
Since the formalism asserts only that I and III
form a major third, a minor sixth, or one of
their compounds, we cannot determine the
assignment of function labels beyond what is
shown in the example: Bb is either I or III; D
is also either I or III. But by combining the
results of the rule assignments in examples 2a
and 2b, we know that Bb must be I: only Bb par-
ticipates in a perfect fifth (mod 8ve) relation-
ship and a major third (mod 8ve) relationship.
If Bb is I, F must be II, and D must be III.
[11] Examples 3a, 3b, and 3c carry out on a
minor triad the procedures for assigning the
functions I, II, and III. Example 3a calculates
which pitches may be assigned I and II under the
first rule above. Since the formalism asserts
only that I and II form a perfect fifth, a
perfect fourth, or one of their compounds, we
cannot determine the assignment of function
label beyond what is shown in the example: F is
either I or II; Bb is also either I or II. To
decide which is I and which is II, we need to
carry out the second rule. Example 3b calcu-
lates which pitches may be assigned I and III
under rule 2. Since the formalism asserts only
that I and III form a major third, a minor
sixth, or one of their compounds, we cannot
determine the assignment of function beyond what
is shown in the example: F is either I or III;
Db is also either I or III. But by combining
the results of the rule assignments in examples
3a and 3b, we know that F must be I: only F
participates in a perfect fifth (mod 8ve) rela-
tionship and a major third (mod 8ve) relation-
ship. And if F is I, Bb must be II, and Db must
be III.
[12] Comparing the assignment of function
labels in minor triads and major triads,
Hauptmann analyzes the constitutive perfect
fifths and major thirds as intervals directed
upwards: in major klangs the two intervals
extend respectively from I to II and from I to
III; in minor klangs the two intervals extend
respectively from II to I and from III to I. In
major klangs, says Hauptmann, the pitch that
acts as I *has* a perfect fifth and major third,
while in minor klangs the pitch that acts as
I *is* a perfect fifth and major third.
[13] Under Hauptmann's explanation, a dualist
model organizes aural sensations in roughly the
following way: When listening to a triad, pick
out a major third or its inversion, and pick out
a perfect fifth or its inversion; when you do,
you will become aware that one pitch in the
triad member is overdetermined, and thereby
seems more prominent than the others. By way of
contrast, a fundamental bass model organizes
sensations in roughly the following way: When
listening to a triad, reorganize it so that it
takes up the smallest registral space and so
that only thirds and fifths are formed; assign
prominence to the lowest pitch and take note of
the quality of the third between that pitch and
the next lowest. And a figured bass model orga-
nizes aural sensations in roughly the following
way: When listening to a triad, concentrate on
the lowest-sounding pitch, and assign it promi-
nence; imagine a third and a fifth above the
lowest pitch (the qualities of which are deter-
mined by a contextual diatonic collection);
pitches that do not lie a diatonic third or
fifth above the prominent pitch are momentarily
displacing the pitches that do. The degree to
which figured bass and fundamental bass proto-
cols have been hypostatized by theorists (to the
extent that many will claim that one or the
other defines more or less the response end of a
reflex arc) is something worth worrying about.
[14] In the course of this paper we shall
represent klangs as ordered pairs. The first
element defines Hauptmann's I-function or
*Einheit* (*not* the *Grundton*). The second
element defines the klang's modality. "+"
represents a major (or over or super) klang, or
a "positive" *Einheit* Hauptmann calls it. "-"
represents a minor (or under or sub) klang, or a
"negative" *Einheit*. The klangs in examples 2c
and 3c are respectively represented as (Bb,+)
and (F,-).
II. Schritts and Wechsels.
[15] Having established the relevant chord
model, we can now investigate appropriate
transformations. We begin by examining
Riemann's Schritts, the first of two classes of
transformations he presents in *Skizze einer
Neuen Methode der Harmonielehre*. Quintschritt
(abbr. Q) transposes a klang by the directed
interval that extends from I to II. In the case
of (C,+), where C functions as I and G as II,
the relevant interval is a perfect fifth up.
Accordingly, Q(C,+) = (G,+). In the case of
(C,-), where C functions as I and F as II, the
relevant interval is a perfect fifth down.
Accordingly, Q(C,-) = (F,-), i.e., a Bb minor
triad.
[16] Gegenquintschritt (abbr. -Q) transposes a
klang by the directed interval that extends from
II to I. In the case of (C,+), where G
functions as II and C as I, the relevant
interval is a perfect fifth down. Accordingly,
-Q(C,+) = (F,+). In the case of (C,-), where F
functions as II and C as I, the relevant
interval is a perfect fifth up. Accordingly,
-Q(C,-) = (G,-). Q and -Q are inverse-related
transformations.
[17] Terzschritt (abbr. T) transposes a klang
by the directed interval that extends from I to
III. In the case of (C,+), where C functions as
I and E functions as III, the relevant interval
is a major third up. Accordingly, T(C,+) =
(E,+). In the case of (C,-), where C functions
as I and Ab functions as III, the relevant
interval is a major third down. Accordingly,
T(C,-) = (Ab,-).
[18] Leittonschritt (abbr. L) transposes a
klang by the directed interval yielded by the
composing the relevant directed intervals of Q
and T. In the case of (C,+), the composition of
Q (a perfect fifth up) and T (a major third up)
produces a major seventh up. Accordingly,
L(C,+) = (B,+). In the case of (C,-), the
composition of Q (a perfect fifth down) and T (a
major third down) produces a major seventh down.
Accordingly, L(C,-) = (Db,-).
[19] Ganztonschritt (abbr. G) transposes a
klang by twice the directed interval that
extends from I to II. Hence, G = Q2. In the
case of (C,+), where C functions as I and G as
II, the relevant interval is two perfect fifths
up, viz., a (compounded) whole tone up.
Accordingly, G(C,+) = (D,+). In the case of
(C,-), where C functions as I and F as II, the
relevant interval is two perfect fifths down,
viz., a (compounded) whole-tone down.
Accordingly, G(C,-) = (Bb,-).
[20] Kleinterzschritt (abbr. K) transposes a
klang by the directed interval that extends from
II to III. In the case of (C,+), where G
functions as II and E functions as III, the
relevant interval is a minor third down.
Accordingly, K(C,+) = (A,+). In the case of
(C,-), where F functions as II and Ab functions
as III, the relevant interval is a minor third
up. Accordingly, K(C,-) = (Eb,-).
[21] Riemann only discusses these six
schritts. Following the pattern established by
the pair quintschritt/gegenquintschritt, we can
define four more schritts: gegenterzschritt
(abbr.-T), gegenleittonschritt (abbr. -L),
gegenganztonschritt (abbr. -G), and
gegenkleinterzschritt (abbr. -K), which will be
inversely-related to terzschritt,
leittonschritt, ganztonschritt, and
kleinterzschritt respectively. Two others,
which we shall call identity (abbr. I) and
tritonusschritt (abbr. R) are generated by
demands of group structure. Appendix I lists
all twelve schritts, and provides paradigms for
each. Those not explicitly defined by Riemann
are given in angle brackets.
[22] The names of the transformations help us
remember their particular effect: an X-schritt
transposes by the *magnitude* X (where X is a
German interval designation) in the direction
determined by the operand: major (or over)
klangs extend X upwards; minor (or under) klangs
extend X downwards. Gegen-X-schritt may be
taken either to reverse the direction of X, or
to replace the magnitude X with its inverse.
Accordingly, X-schritt and gegen-X-schritt are
inverses. Kleinterzschritt and its gegen-form
are the only schritts that do not follow the
pattern: one needs provisionally to take
kleinterz as signifying a major sixth.
[23] Schritts combine according to the
following rule:
Xschritt*Yschritt = (X+Y)schritt
In other words, summing the directed intervals
of composed schritts (and reducing any
compounds) yields the appropriate product
schritt. For example, Composing K and T in the
context of major klangs yields -L, since a major
sixth up (the directed interval by which K
transposes major klangs) and a major third up
(the directed interval by which T transposes
major klangs) sum to a minor ninth up, a
compound of a minor second up (the relevant
directed interval by which -L, the inverse of L,
transposes major klangs). Composing K and T in
the context of minor klangs still yields -L,
since a major sixth down (the directed interval
by which K transposes minor klangs) and a major
third down (the directed interval by which T
transposes minor klangs) sum to a minor ninth
down, a compound of a minor second down (the
relevant directed interval by which -L, the
inverse of L, transposes minor klangs).
[24] Since schritts are quantities that
combine under simple addition, the group is
commutative: in general X*Y = Y*X.
[25] But schritts only relate klangs of the
same genus. Wechsels, the second class of
transformations presented in Riemann 1880,
relate klangs of opposing genera.
[26] Seitenwechsel (abbr. W) inverts a klang
about I (or about I and I). The transformation
reflexively maps the major klang and the minor
klang whose I-functions are executed by the same
pitch. In other words, it exchanges "positive"
and "negative" forms of the same *Einheit*, so
that W(C,+) = (C,-), and W(C,-) = (C,+).
Seitenwechsel appears in Goetschius 1917 (114)
as his "stride relation," defined as "a perfect
fifth downward from any major keynote, and
upward from any minor keynote, with a change in
mode."
[27] The remaining wechsels may be construed
as the composition of some schritt and
seitenwechsel. Terzwechsel (abbr. TW)
transposes a klang by the directed interval that
extends from its I to its III, that is, applies
terzschritt, and then inverts the result around
its I, that is, applies seitenwechsel. One
might then understand the designation
"terzwechsel" as an elision of
"terzschrittseitenwechsel." Terz(schritt) only
affects the first element of an order pair;
(seiten)wechsel only affects the second element.
In the case of (C,+), TW(C,+) = W(E+) = (E,-);
in the case of (C,-), TW(C,-) = W(Ab,-) =
(Ab,+). TW is functionally equivalent to
Lewin's and Hyer's relative transformation
(abbr. R), and may be alternatively defined as
the inversion of a klang about I and III.
[28] Leittonwechsel (abbr. LW) is the
composition of leittonschritt (L) and
seitenwechsel (W). In the case of (C,+),
LW(C,+) = W(B,+) = (B,-); in the case of (C,-),
LW(C,-) = W(Db,-) = (Db,+). LW may be
alternatively defined as the inversion of a
klang about II and III.
[29] Riemann defines three more wechsels:
quintwechsel (abbr. QW), ganztonwechsel (abbr.
GW), and tritonuswechsel (abbr. RW).
Quintwechsel is functionally equivalent to
Lewin's and Hyer's parallel transformation
(abbr. P), and may alternatively defined as
inversion of klang about I and II. Six more
wechsels are constructed by extending the idea
of composing gegenquintschritt,
kleinterzschritt, gegenkleinterzschritt,
gegenleittonschritt, gegenterzschritt, and
gegenganztonschritt in turn with seitenwechsel.
Appendix II lists all twelve wechsels, and
provides paradigms for each. Those not defined
explicitly by Riemann are given in angle
brackets. Appendix III provides rules and
relevant examples for combining the twenty-four
schritts and wechsels given in the first two
appendices. The group is simply-transitive: in
particular, for any two klangs j and k, there
exists a unique member of the schritt-wechsel
group S such that S(j)=k. The analytical use of
groups with the property are considered in Lewin
1987.
III. Analysis.
[30] Examples 4 and 5 investigate some
possibilities of schritts and wechsels by using
them as arrow labels on network analyses of two
excerpts from Wagner's *Ring*. Both networks
are developed from analyses recently presented
in Lewin 1992: example 6 is based on Lewin's
figure 3b, which studies the harmonic structure
of the Valhalla theme as it appears in *Das
Rheingold* sc.2; example 7 is based on Lewin's
figure 4b, which studies the harmonic structure
of the same theme as it appears in *Die
Walkuere*, act II, sc. 2. The networks are not
exactly as they appear in the cited figures in
Lewin 1992. The networks that appear in
examples 6 and 7 were designed to have the same
node-and-arrow configurations, viz., to contain
the same number of nodes and arrows, with
corresponding arrows extending in the same
direction, while Lewin's figures were
constructed to serve other analytical purposes
that did not require identical node-and-arrow
configurations. In any case the divergences
from Lewin's figures are slight and the networks
in examples 6 and 7 are well-formed according to
standards of the relevant methodologies.
[31] The nodes in examples 6 and 7 are filled
with triads construed according to the
fundamental bass model, and are represented by
the relevant fundamental bass and an indication
of the third's quality. The arrow labels are
Lewin's designations: L represents
leittonwechsel; P, parallel; S, subdominant; D,
dominant. LP represents the composition of L
and P. Comparing the left sides of example 6
and 7, we see that they are identical except for
node content, and are thus strongly isographic
structures. The right sides of examples 6 and 7
are not identical: while the node and arrow
configurations are the same, the corresponding
arrow labels are different. The transformations
L and LP on the left side of both networks
invoke dualism on the relevant nodes. (P is
neutral with respect to chord model.) Traveling
to the right side of each network, one is
constrained by the transformations S and D to
adopt a non-dualist conception of major and
minor chords, to shift from Riemann to Rameau.
Accordingly the Bb major/Bb minor nodes in
example 6 and the E major/E minor nodes in
example 7 are ideational pivots that need to be
conceived within both frameworks.
[32] Example 4 adapts example 6 to conform to
the present methodology: harmonies are
represented by the dualist ordered pair format,
and arrows are relabelled with the appropriate
schritt or wechsel. Only leittonwechsel appears
on both example 6 (as L) and example 4 (as LW).
Quintwechsel (QW) replaces parallel (P), and
terzschritt (T)--which uses as its paradigm the
directed interval the extends from I (Gb) to III
(Bb) in the (Gb,+) klang--replaces LP, the
composition of L and P. Quintschritt (Q) and
its inverse, gegenquintschritt (-Q),
transformations premised on the interval between
I and II, replace the two S arrow labels.
[33] Example 5 carries out similar changes on
example 7. Comparing examples 4 and 5, one sees
that the corresponding arrow labels are strictly
identical. The shift from the analysis in
examples 6 and 7 to the analysis in examples 4
and 5 allow us then to assert a strong isography
between the harmonic relations in two Valhalla
themes. With respect to node content, one could
assert that the network in example 4 is a
positive or major form of the network in example
5.
[34] I will not pretend that schritt and
wechsel transformations are the only way to
establish a link between the two Valhalla
themes. One could replace L and LP on example 6
by Lewin's submediant transformation (SUBM) and
the composite transformation SUBMP respectively,
and replace L and LP on example 7 by Lewin's
mediant transformation (M) and the composite
transformation MP respectively, thereby shifting
the networks entirely into the discourse of
fundamental bass theory. Corresponding arrows
on example 6 and 7 would then be labelled by
inverse-related (Rameau-) transformations.
Bibliography
Balinfante, Ary. 1904. De leer der tonale
functien in conflict met die der polaire
tegenstelling. *Orgaan van de Vereeniging
van Muziek-Onderwijzers en -Onderwijzeressen*
IV.9: 1-2.
Goetschius, Percy. 1917. *The Theory and
Practice of Tone-Relations*. New York:
Schirmer.
Lewin, David. 1987. *Generalized Musical
Intervals and Transformations.* New Haven:
Yale University Press.
---. 1992. Some Notes on Analyzing Wagner:
*The Ring* and *Parsifal*. *19th Century
Music* 16.1:49-58.
Hauptmann, Mortiz. 1853. *Die Natur der
Harmonik und der Metrik*. Leipzig: Breitkopf
und Haertel.
Hyer, Brian. 1989. "Tonal Intuitions in
'Tristan und Isolde'.* Ph.D. diss., Yale
University.
Riemann, Hugo. 1880. *Skizze einer Neuen
Methode der Harmonielehre*. Leipzig:
Breitkopf und Haertel.
---------------------------------------------
APPENDIX I
Schritts
[I]
(C,+) --> (C,+); (C,-) --> (C,-)
[-L]
(C,+) --> (Db,+); (C,-) --> (B,-)
Ganztonschritt [G]
(C,+) --> (D,+); (C,-) --> (Bb,-)
[-K]
(C,+) --> (Eb,+); (C,-) --> (A,-)
Terzschritt [T]
(C,+) --> (E,+); (C,-) --> (Ab,-)
Gegenquintschritt [-Q]
(C,+) --> (F,+); (C,-) --> (G,-)
[R]
(C,+) --> (F#,+); (C,-) --> (F#,-)
Quintschritt [Q]
(C,+) --> (G,+); (C,-) --> (F,-)
[-T]
(C,+) --> (Ab,+); (C,-) --> (E,-)
Kleinterzschritt [K]
(C,+) --> (A,+); (C,-) --> (Eb,-)
[-G]
(C,+) --> (Bb,+); (C,-) --> (D,-)
Leittonschritt [L]
(C,+) --> (B,+); (C,-) --> (Db,-)
APPENDIX II
Wechsels
Seitenwechsel [W]
(C,+)<-->(C,-)
[-LW]
(C,+)<-->(Db,-)
Ganztonwechsel [GW]
(C,+)<-->(D,-)
[-KW]
(C,+)<-->(Eb,-)
Terzwechsel [TW]
(C,+)<-->(E,-)
[-QW]
(C,+)<-->(F,-)
Tritonuswechsel [RW]
(C,+)<-->(F#,-)
Quintwechsel [QW]
(C,+)<-->(G,-)
[-TW]
(C,+)<-->(Ab,-)
[-KW]
(C,+)<-->(A,-)
[-GW]
(C,+)<-->(Bb,-)
Leittonwechsel [LW]
(C,+)<-->(B,-)
APPENDIX III
Rules for Combining Schritts and Wechsels
Xschritt * Yschritt = (X*Y)schritt
Q*L = Q+L = R
Xschritt * Ywechsel = (X*Y)wechsel
Q*LW = (Q+L)W
Xwechsel * Yschritt = (X*-Y)wechsel
QW*L = (Q-L)W = -TW
Xwechsel * Ywechsel = (X*-Y)schritt
QW*LW = (Q-L) = -T
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
Copyright Statement
[1] Music Theory Online (MTO) as a whole is Copyright (c) 1994,
all rights reserved, by the Society for Music Theory, which is
the owner of the journal. Copyrights for individual items
published in (MTO) are held by their authors. Items appearing in
MTO may be saved and stored in electronic or paper form, and may be
shared among individuals for purposes of scholarly research or
discussion, but may *not* be republished in any form, electronic or
print, without prior, written permission from the author(s), and
advance notification of the editors of MTO.
[2] Any redistributed form of items published in MTO must
include the following information in a form appropriate to
the medium in which the items are to appear:
This item appeared in Music Theory Online
in [VOLUME #, ISSUE #] on [DAY/MONTH/YEAR].
It was authored by [FULL NAME, EMAIL ADDRESS],
with whose written permission it is reprinted
here.
[3] Libraries may archive issues of MTO in electronic or paper
form for public access so long as each issue is stored in its
entirety, and no access fee is charged. Exceptions to these
requirements must be approved in writing by the editors of MTO,
who will act in accordance with the decisions of the Society for
Music Theory.
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
END OF MTO ITEM