Deviation (German: Ausweichung) is usually defined as a short-term departure to another key, not fixed by a cadence (micromodulation). However, at the same time, the phenomena are put in one row. order – gravitation towards a common tonal center and a much weaker gravitation towards a local foundation. The difference is that the tonic of ch. tonality expresses tonal stability in own. sense of the word, and the local tonic in deviation (although in a narrow area it is similar to the tonal foundation) in relation to the main one completely retains its function of instability. Thus, the introduction of secondary dominants (sometimes subdominants) – the usual way of forming O. – essentially does not mean a transition to another key, since it is direct. the feeling of attraction to the general tonic remains. O. enhances the tension inherent in this harmony, i.e. deepens its instability. Hence the contradiction in the definition (possibly acceptable and justified in harmony training courses). A more correct definition of O. (coming from the ideas of G. L. Catoire and I. V. Sposobin) as a secondary tonal cell (subsystem) within the framework of the general system of this mode of tone. A typical use of O. is within a sentence, a period.
The essence of O. is not modulation, but the expansion of tonality, i.e. an increase in the number of harmonies directly or indirectly subordinate to the center. tonic. Unlike O., modulation in own. meaning of the word leads to the establishment of a new center of gravity, which also subjugates the locals. O. enriches the harmony of a given tonality by attracting non-diatonic. sounds and chords, which in themselves belong to other keys (see the diagram in the example on strip 133), but in specific conditions they are attached to the main one as its more distant area (hence one of the definitions of O .: “Leaving in secondary tonality, performed within the main tonality ”- V. O. Berkov). When delimiting O. from modulations, one should take into account: the function of a given construction in the form; the width of the tonal circle (the volume of the tonality and, accordingly, its boundaries) and the presence of subsystem relations (imitating the main structure of the mode on its periphery). According to the method of performance, singing is divided into authentic (with subsystemic relations D-T; this also includes SD-T, see an example) and plagal (with ST relations; the choir “Glory” from the opera “Ivan Susanin”).
N. A. Rimsky-Korsakov. “The Tale of the Invisible City of Kitezh and the Maiden Fevronia”, Act IV.
O. are possible both in close tonal areas (see the example above), and (less often) in distant ones (L. Beethoven, violin concerto, part 1, final part; often found in modern music, for example, in C . S. Prokofiev). O. can also be part of the actual modulation process (L. Beethoven, connecting part of the 1st part of the 9th sonata for piano: O. in Fisdur when modulating from E-dur to H-dur).
Historically, the development of O. is associated mainly with the formation and strengthening of the centralized major-minor tonal system in Europe. music (main arr. in the 17th-19th centuries). A related phenomenon in Nar. and ancient European prof. music (choral, Russian Znamenny chant) – modal and tonal variability – is associated with the absence of a strong and continuous attraction to a single center (therefore, unlike O. proper, here in the local tradition there is no attraction to the general). The development of the system of introductory tones (musica ficta) may already lead to real O. (especially in the music of the 16th century) or, at least, to their preforms. As a normative phenomenon, O. were entrenched in the 17th-19th centuries. and are preserved in that part of the music of the 20th century, where traditions continue to develop. categories of tonal thinking (S. S. Prokofiev, D. D. Shostakovich, N. Ya. Myaskovsky, I. F. Stravinsky, B. Bartok, and partly P. Hindemith). At the same time, the involvement of harmonies from subordinate keys into the sphere of the main one historically contributed to the chromatization of the tonal system, turned the non-diatonic. O.’s harmony in the directly subordinate center. tonic (F. Liszt, the last bars of the sonata in h-moll; A. P. Borodin, the final cadano of “Polovtsian Dances” from the opera “Prince Igor”).
Phenomena similar to O. (as well as modulations) are characteristic of certain developed forms of east. music (found, for example, in the Azerbaijani mughams “Shur”, “Chargah”, see the book “Fundamentals of Azerbaijani Folk Music” by U. Hajibekov, 1945).
As a theoretical the concept of O. is known from the 1st floor. 19th century, when it branched off from the concept of “modulation”. The ancient term “modulation” (from modus, mode – fret) as applied to harmonic. sequences originally meant the deployment of a mode, movement within it (“the following of one harmony after another” – G. Weber, 1818). This could mean a gradual departure from Ch. keys to others and return to it at the end, as well as the transition from one key to another (I. F. Kirnberger, 1774). A. B. Marx (1839), calling the entire tonal structure of a piece modulation, at the same time distinguishes between transition (in our terminology, modulation itself) and deviation (“avoidance”). E. Richter (1853) distinguishes two types of modulation – “passing” (“not completely leaving the main system”, i.e. O.) and “extended”, gradually prepared, with a cadence in a new key. X. Riemann (1893) considers the secondary tonics in vocals to be simple functions of the main key, but only as preliminary “dominants in brackets” (this is how he designates secondary dominants and subdominants). G. Schenker (1906) considers O. a type of one-tone sequences and even designates a secondary dominant according to its main. tone as a step in Ch. tonality. O. arises, according to Schenker, as a result of the tendency of chords to tonicize. Interpretation of O. according to Schenker:
L. Beethoven. String quartet op. 59 No 1, part I.
A. Schoenberg (1911) emphasizes the origin of side dominants “from church modes” (for example, in the C-dur system from the Dorian mode, i.e. from the II century, the sequences a-h-cis-d-c-b come -a and related chords e-gb, gbd, a-cis-e, fa-cis, etc.); like Schenker’s, secondary dominants are designated by main. tone in the main key (for example, in C-dur egb-des=I). G. Erpf (1927) criticizes the concept of O., arguing that “signs of someone else’s tonality cannot be a criterion for deviation” (example: side theme of the 1st part of Beethoven’s 21st sonata, bars 35-38).
P. I. Tchaikovsky (1871) distinguishes between “evasion” and “modulation”; in the account in harmony programs, he clearly contrasts “O.” and “transition” as different types of modulation. N. A. Rimsky-Korsakov (1884-1885) defines O. as “modulation, in which a new system is not fixed, but only slightly affected and left immediately to return to the original system or for a new deviation”; prefixing diatonic chords. a number of their dominants, he receives “short-term modulations” (i.e. O.); they are treated as being “inside” ch. building, the tonic to-rogo is stored in memory. On the basis of the tonal connection between tonics in deviations, S. I. Taneev builds his theory of “unifying tonality” (90s of the 19th century). G. L. Catuar (1925) emphasizes that the presentation of the muses. thought, as a rule, is associated with the dominance of a single tonality; therefore, O. in the key of diatonic or major-minor kinship are interpreted by him as “mid-tonal”, main. the tonality is not abandoned; Catoire in most cases relates this to the forms of the period, simple two- and three-part. I. V. Sposobin (in the 30’s) considered speech to be a kind of one-tone presentation (later he abandoned this view). Yu. N. Tyulin explains the involvement in the main. the tonality of alteration introductory tones (signs of related tonality) by “variable tonicity” resp. triads.
References: Tchaikovsky P.I., Guide to the practical study of harmony, 1871 (ed. M., 1872), the same, Poln. coll. soch., vol. III a, M., 1957; Rimsky-Korsakov HA, Harmony Textbook, St. Petersburg, 1884-85, the same, Poln. coll. soch., vol. IV, M., 1960; Catuar G., Theoretical course of harmony, parts 1-2, M., 1924-25; Belyaev V. M., “Analysis of modulations in Beethoven’s sonatas” – S. I. Taneeva, in the book: Russian book about Beethoven, M., 1927; Practical course of harmony, part 1, M., 1935; Sposobin I., Evseev S., Dubovsky I., Practical course of harmony, part 2, M., 1935; Tyulin Yu. N., Teaching about harmony, v. 1, L., 1937, M., 1966; Taneev S.I., Letters to HH Amani, “SM”, 1940, No7; Gadzhibekov U., Fundamentals of Azerbaijani folk music, Baku, 1945, 1957; Sposobin I. V., Lectures on the course of harmony, M., 1969; Kirnberger Ph., Die Kunst des reinen Satzes in der Musik, Bd 1-2, B., 1771-79; Weber G., Versuch einer geordneten Theorie der Tonsezkunst…, Bd 1-3, Mainz, 1818-21; Marx, A. V., Allgemeine Musiklehre, Lpz., 1839; Richter E., Lehrbuch der Harmonie Lpz. 1853 (Russian translation, Richter E., Harmony Textbook, St. Petersburg, 1876); Riemann H., Vereinfachte Harmonielehre …, L. – NY, (1893) (Russian translation, Riemann G., Simplified Harmony, M. – Leipzig, 1901); Schenker H., Neue musikalische Theorien und Phantasien, Bd 1-3, Stuttg. – V. – W., 1906-35; Schönberg A., Harmonielehre, W., 1911; Erpf H., Studien zur Harmonie und Klangtechnik der neueren Musik, Lpz., 1927.
Yu. H. Kholopov