This question started for me with an analysis using IV/IV
.
It was analysis in Kostka/Payne for Mozart's K545, mv II, mm. 69-71...
G: I | IV6/IV V6/IV | IV
Instead of...
G: I |C: IV6 V6 | IV ... G:...
First that made me wonder how to show a tonicization rather than a modulation. I thought the C:
change was easier to read, but is that reserved for the specific meaning of "modulation?" If tonicization is meant, the secondary slash notation should be used?
Next, should the secondary role be fulfilled? In the Mozart example it is. It eventually gets to IV
.
By comparison, if I label a V/ii
shouldn't it fulfill its dominant function in some way? Like V/ii-ii
or V/ii-VI/ii
. Hypothetically, if I had C A7 Am
and labeled it I V/ii vi
or I V/ii v/ii
isn't that kind of silly? In what way is that A7
in context acting as a dominant?
If I had C f#o B7
, wouldn't I iio/iii V7/iii
at least make some sense? Because the subdominant function of iio
at least fulfilled its role and moved to the dominant of iii
- in other words f#o B7
is iio V7
in E
minor.