I almost fell off my chair. Fellow Whitman fiends, be forewarned!
And in other news, music theory is eating my brain. Explain to me why a (ii) chord has to be called a secondary leading chord of (III) when followed by (III) even though it's the same damn chord?! Prof says that technically it's only a (ii) if followed by something in the circle of fifths (ie - V). Um. Have you met Beethoven? Chopin? Britten? Anyone who wrote after the Classical era? They scoff at your petty circle of fifths! I'm in favor of calling a spade a spade, and a two chord a two chord. If it's altered, then we can talk.
/grumble
And in other news, music theory is eating my brain. Explain to me why a (ii) chord has to be called a secondary leading chord of (III) when followed by (III) even though it's the same damn chord?! Prof says that technically it's only a (ii) if followed by something in the circle of fifths (ie - V). Um. Have you met Beethoven? Chopin? Britten? Anyone who wrote after the Classical era? They scoff at your petty circle of fifths! I'm in favor of calling a spade a spade, and a two chord a two chord. If it's altered, then we can talk.
/grumble