Welcome to the Piano World Piano Forums
Over 2 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers (it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!

SEARCH
the Forums & Piano World

This custom search works much better than the built in one and allows searching older posts.
(ad 125) Sweetwater - Digital Keyboards & Other Gear
Digital Pianos at Sweetwater
(ad) Pearl River
Pearl River Pianos
(ad) Pianoteq
Latest Pianoteq add-on instrument: U4 upright piano
(ad) P B Guide
Acoustic & Digital Piano Guide
PianoSupplies.com (150)
Piano Accessories Music Related Gifts Piano Tuning Equipment Piano Moving Equipment
We now offer Gift Certificates in our online store!
(ad) Estonia Piano
Estonia Piano
Quick Links to Useful Stuff
Our Classified Ads
Find Piano Professionals-

*Piano Dealers - Piano Stores
*Piano Tuners
*Piano Teachers
*Piano Movers
*Piano Restorations
*Piano Manufacturers
*Organs

Quick Links:
*Advertise On Piano World
*Free Piano Newsletter
*Online Piano Recitals
*Piano Recitals Index
*Piano Accessories
* Buying a Piano
*Buying A Acoustic Piano
*Buying a Digital Piano
*Pianos for Sale
*Sell Your Piano
*How Old is My Piano?
*Piano Books
*Piano Art, Pictures, & Posters
*Directory/Site Map
*Contest
*Links
*Virtual Piano
*Music Word Search
*Piano Screen Saver
*Piano Videos
*Virtual Piano Chords
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 >
Topic Options
#1160261 - 03/09/09 07:18 PM Is it right? (harmony theory)
keystring Online   content
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member

Registered: 12/11/07
Posts: 11674
Loc: Canada
I'm near the beginning. This is the first time I'm working with melodic minor. The question shows the top voice and I had to put in the other three voices including the bass. I only know how to do first inversion, so that's a limitation I guess. I can't quite tell if I've done it correctly, and I'm especially unsure about the second phrase.



I've assumed it's melodic minor because of the A natural in the top voice at the beginning, and the G# A# bar 7. Am I right to assume that all the other notes would have the same pattern, i.e. a Gnat & Anat for descending notes, and G# A# for ascending? The book says that the dominant chord in the cadence is an exception because it has to highlight the key note through the leading note.

Thanks in advance.

Keystring

Top
Piano & Music Acc. / Sheet Music


Sheet Music Plus Homepage
#1160304 - 03/09/09 08:17 PM Re: Is it right? (harmony theory) [Re: keystring]
Harmosis Offline
Full Member

Registered: 02/15/07
Posts: 308
Loc: California
Hi keystring,
A few things:

1) You've got parallel 5ths and octaves in mm 1,2,3, & 7 (let me know if you have any trouble finding these).

2) The harmonic progression itself could be better (that is, it could make a little more sense functionally).

3) The spacing between the soprano and alto is too much in m 5, beat 1 (keep it to an octave or less).

Overall the voice leading is a little awkward, although, your V-I cadence at the end is good. Before I comment further, can you tell me if the inversions and accidentals are yours or were they given by the book?

Top
#1160343 - 03/09/09 09:57 PM Re: Is it right? (harmony theory) [Re: Harmosis]
keystring Online   content
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member

Registered: 12/11/07
Posts: 11674
Loc: Canada
Thanks, Harmosis.

1) I've found all the parallels except for in measure 2. In the measure the soprano and tenor have similar motion (D,B - B,G) but that's a compound third, so I can't find parallel fifth or octave in m. 2.

3) I know better, feel stupid. Thanks.

2) I was not certain about that part. The cadences are clear: "nn-V" for the first, and "V-I" for the second, always in root position. The book suggests Ib VIIb Ia or Ia VIIb Ib for the beginning if possible. Whatever comes before the cadence is pre-cadential (?) and I'm not quite sure what I'm doing in the middle of each phrase.

In m. 5 I was especially uncertain about the first chord.

Quote:
Overall the voice leading is a little awkward

In other words, every voice should be singable or playable, not just the soprano? Or does awkwardness mean something else? If I'm using the wrong chords / functions, might that be affecting what I can do with voice leading as well?

Quote:
Before I comment further, can you tell me if the inversions and accidentals are yours or were they given by the book?

The book gave only a top soprano voice. The inversions are my own. I only have root position and 1st inversion to work with. The accidentals from the soprano aren't my choice, of course.

In case it wasn't clear, this is how the question looked:


I wonder now if I do understand what I'm doing in terms of functional chords beyond cadences. I've done 6 of these exercises. Should I post 2 or 3 to check if I'm lost or just stay with this one, I wonder (??)

Many thanks, by the way. smile

KS



Top
#1160496 - 03/10/09 03:39 AM Re: Is it right? (harmony theory) [Re: keystring]
Harmosis Offline
Full Member

Registered: 02/15/07
Posts: 308
Loc: California
1) m2 is involved in parallel 5ths across the barline: tenor & alto, m1 beat 2 to m2 beat 1; and parallel octaves: bass & alto, m2 beat 2 to m3 beat 1. Also, you have direct 5ths between the alto and soprano, m2 beat 1 to m2 beat 2. The rule here is to avoid similar motion to a 5th or octave when the soprano is leaping.

2) Yes, I think your cadences work just fine. In tonal music VII (as opposed to viiº) is not normally used to return to i in any inversion. It is typically used in descending motion only (i.e., i VII VI V). It is more common to use V or viiº to resolve to i. So for the beginning, I would go i V65 i (or something like that). Also, you've got a iiº (m6, beat 1) moving to a i63. As a pre-dominant chord, you'd normally see iiº move to a dominant chord (V or viiº). When I say “awkward” voice leading, I’m talking about the parallel 5ths and octaves, the direct 5ths in m2, the tritone leap in the bass at m6 beat 2 to m7 beat 1 – things like these. I don't want you to get the idea that your chord choices are bad, just think about what the harmonic progression is doing functionally. Also, consider each line separately as a melody. I think you would really benefit from going through several of Bach's chorales and doing harmonic analyses. Then you could see which chord/inversion tends to go to which other chord/inversion.

As to the individual voices, the melodic interest should be in the soprano and bass (since they stand out more), while keeping the common tones in the tenor and alto as much as possible. In general, avoid awkward leaps like tritones and augmented 2nds. Yes, voice leading is tied to functional harmony in the sense that if you use proper voice leading, functional harmony is easy to achieve. Again, I don't want to say that you're using the "wrong" chords - just put some thought into what your chords are doing, how they function. The only chord that I would say is "wrong," is the VII (subtonic) moving to i because you’d be hard-pressed to find it in the common practice literature.

Have you done figured bass realization? If not, I would advise you to get proficient with that before harmonizing any more melodies. In figured bass, the harmony is dictated by the figures so you don’t have to try to figure out the “right” chords. After doing several of these, you will become more familiar with common harmonic progressions, and then harmonizing melodies will be much easier!

Top
#1160553 - 03/10/09 07:58 AM Re: Is it right? (harmony theory) [Re: Harmosis]
keystring Online   content
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member

Registered: 12/11/07
Posts: 11674
Loc: Canada
I wonder if, before going any further, I should tell what I am using. I suspect that some things are being introduced gradually and of course I don't have the overview as a learner. If I have tritones and such, (do I?) then those shouldn't be there because the last chapter did deal with it.

I am using "The Basis of Harmony", F.K. Horwood, Gordon V. Thompson Music, U.S.A. 1948. Horwood was Canadian. I am on chapter VII, and believe I have the other chapters down pat. If you are familiar with the book, you will know what, how & why he has introduced - and what that might mean.

I'll be going over what you wrote before saying or asking more.

Many thanks

KS

Top
#1160696 - 03/10/09 01:40 PM Re: Is it right? (harmony theory) [Re: keystring]
Harmosis Offline
Full Member

Registered: 02/15/07
Posts: 308
Loc: California
I'm not familiar with that text, but I did find a partial copy on Google. Aside from some non-standard labeling, the book seems pretty solid. There are figured bass exercises at the ends of Chps. IV, V, and VI (pp. 11, 17, 23). I highly recommend doing these exercises if you have not done so.

Top
#1160720 - 03/10/09 02:44 PM Re: Is it right? (harmony theory) [Re: Harmosis]
keystring Online   content
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member

Registered: 12/11/07
Posts: 11674
Loc: Canada
I have done every exercise in the preceding chapters. So far I'm seeing a couple of things that I can control. 1. Intervals between tenor and alto are less apparent to me because it's across clefs and I simply need to be attentive. 2. I had not considered looking across bars. smirk 3. I have been mostly concerned about contrary motion of bass to soprano, and haven't paid enough attention to parallel fifths, octaves, and bad intervals such as tritones. But it's possible that this is the first time that this risk existed since before the bass was always set up for me. I can do something about these three things.

Re:
Quote:
In tonal music VII (as opposed to viiº) is not normally used to return to i in any inversion.

I'm not sure if this is the same thing. Ch. VI stresses the idiom Ia-VIIb-Ib (I-vii6-I6?) and Ib-VIIb-Ia, suggesting that it be used as much as possible to begin phrases. That is what I tried to do - but I have a dim. 7 because it's a descending melodic minor scale.

Ch. 5 deals with secondary triads but only in root position. It gives me the following functions (I'm using the Roman numerals generically without distinguishing major/minor etc. via I, i etc.)
II - for imperfect cadence II-V
..... "excellent approach to perfect cadence" II-V-I, which I assume is pre-cadential.
VI- as substitute for I. role in deceptive cadences.
III - its indefinite nature. role in descending scale passage.

What is good and bad motion for root movement.
- a fourth or fifth is good
- rising a third is weak, but ok on weak beat
- falling a third is good
- rising a second is good except IIa to IIIa

All of these are before first inversions are mentioned, and I cannot know whether they also apply to inversions.

Ch. 6 Introduces first inversions.
- New chords are possible for minor keys
- It suggests that inversions are good for step-wise runs

These are what I have memorized and worked with. I have also leaned heavily on the suggestion to use 3 in the soprano when 1 is in the bass, and 1 when 3 is in the bass. I have used that as a hint as to which triad to choose, and was not sure if that was sound.

The role of VII is not described.
"Pre-cadential" is mentioned but I could only get it by extrapolating from the exercises in that chapter - these, in fact: you'll see the notes in my book as I worked through them.



Chapter 7 harmonizes the melodic line for the first time and warns that because of limitations, it won't be "interesting" yet. It suggests:
1. write bass of cadence at the end of each phrase
2. write bass of pre-cadential chord, preferably using IIa or IIb; if not possible, IVa, VIa or Ib.
3. complete bass using a "reasonable no. of 1st inversions" (no role given)
4. Try to use idiom Ia-VIIb-Ib if possible at beginning of phrase.
5. Don't repeat a chord over bar-line except at beginning of phrase. (I might have restricted myself, by not noticing the "except" part).
6. Try to write root of chord in bass when 3rd is in melody, and vice versa. (I may have over-applied this). Aim for contrary motion to soprano, but "If bass and treble move by similar motion, a series of first inversions is good".

I'm not sure that I applied everything to the melodic minor: maybe it scared me because it was melodic minor.



Do I have enough to work with? I am wondering whether I should also get "Harmony, a revised approach" (RCM's choice) and work with both books.

I had the uneasy feeling when I reached this chapter that I was missing something. Maybe it's not much.


Edited by keystring (03/10/09 03:05 PM)
Edit Reason: The sentence "It seemed that I had the beginning and end, but didn't know what to do with the middle." didn't make sense so I deleted it.

Top
#1160734 - 03/10/09 03:07 PM Re: Is it right? (harmony theory) [Re: keystring]
Betty Patnude Offline
4000 Post Club Member

Registered: 06/11/07
Posts: 4896
Loc: Puyallup, Washington
Keystring,

Can I ask the key signature of the posted music in the first posting, please? I'm questioning how you identified it.

Did you set up your scale with note first according to the degrees of the scale(1-8) on a piece of manuscript paper as the model? I would suggest treble clef only as it can then be interpreted and transposed to the bass clef easily. But, do give a model of each chord (not more than one clef - too much information!)

Then, did you draw the root positions (triad)as they appear above the note?

This gives you a base of information before you start the work.

From the questions you have asked I think this basic form might be missing from your analysis. Having an extrinsic model will help you move more accurately through the work. It is obvious that the intrinsic understanding of what you are doing is still wobbly.

I'm not sure all of your questions to Harmosis are relevant to doing the work in the first example.

Why clutter to the big picture when it is it's essence you want. Just because something can be explained as such does not mean it applies to your thinking while you are doing it. Too many tracks going on at once. Unnecessarily complicated, I think.

Of course, I'm not having your experiences personally, and I don't understand why all the questions either. If one knows the task and has learned the process the doing is a matter of doing. But, that is not the perspective you are working from it seems.

To do this work, you should already have a very clear idea of the first step to the last. Otherwise, how can you process through this.

It's like attacking algebra and geometry when you are not finished with your times tables and fractions to percentages, etc. back in 3rd grade of elementary school.

I wonder if this is producing a shaky or faulty result for you?
Or, a long and tediously slow thinking process?
Working from understood fact is where you should be, I think, and I am cautioning that here.

Betty Patnude

Top
#1160859 - 03/10/09 06:49 PM Re: Is it right? (harmony theory) [Re: Betty Patnude]
keystring Online   content
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member

Registered: 12/11/07
Posts: 11674
Loc: Canada
Betty, I just have time to answer one question for now.
Quote:
Can I ask the key signature of the posted music in the first posting, please? I'm questioning how you identified it.


I have been given the soprano line only to work with. There are two sharps, it is in B minor and the model I am working with has been written in melodic minor form. We know it is melodic minor (as opposed to harmonic) because of the descending A natural in bar 3, and again the ascending G# A# in bar 7 leading to the tonic B. The sixth and seventh degree note have been raised by a semitone as is done for melodic minor.

Addition: I assessed it to be minor than major for the following reasons when examining the soprano line:

Bar 4 (F#) is one of the notes of the dominant triad of B minor, but it does not occur in the dominant triad of D major. That suggests B minor as the key. Bar 8 features B as the final note in the soprano, which is where it would be for an authentic perfect cadence completing a sentence, if it is B minor. If it were D major, we would be seeing a D as the final soprano note. Bar 7 also suggests a cadence leading to B minor and not D major.

Is this also your assessment?

more later & thx

KS


Edited by keystring (03/10/09 07:48 PM)

Top
#1160927 - 03/10/09 09:10 PM Re: Is it right? (harmony theory) [Re: keystring]
Betty Patnude Offline
4000 Post Club Member

Registered: 06/11/07
Posts: 4896
Loc: Puyallup, Washington
Yes, I concur with a lot of your decisions about the piece.

I wonder if that was easy for you to see almost immediately or if it has been painful labor and conflicting thoughts? I have reason to ask these questions, and appreciate you taking my questions with a good attitude, Keystring.

Can you answer the questions I had about did you prepare the "crib sheets" - "models" of the triads in the Bminor key.

My next comment may hurt a little, but I am wondering why there is so much dialog about what you are working on - is this your thinking through it voice?

In your thinking and analyzing voice, your decisions should be quite clear to you if not at a glance. To do the work fairly easily and accurately, having had all the scales run competently through your fingers would give you a head start. I am assuming you know about scales and are very curious about the minors, but perhaps it is not a triple based learning with the reading of the grand staff, the fingering, the keyboard locations, the precision of the moving scales. In other words, "acing" the scale process before going into the analysis and the transposing, and the voicings, and figured bass.

Such a tast you are willing to take on. My big question is what kind of time does this take, and is it really helping you to add "building blocks" to your music making.

Theory and the piano workout need to go together in my opinion, and then when that is well versed, the notations coming from your own head and hand (such as you are doing) will fall into place better. Saving time, saving effort, and showing you that all the preparatory work was worth doing for such a grand outcome as to be able to take on challenges like this.

It really helps to have played pieces in the keys you are writing in, too. Classical pieces combine best with these kinds of classical standards of theory - they also create special sounds and effects in the playing of them.

The posting in this thread was very interesting, but it was not a formula or system for getting to the outcome you were working toward, it was more of a checking afterwards to verify. But it was full of questions, and in my opinion, the way you really could approach the "mental exercises".

I don't admit to doing these kinds of detailed works all the time, but I have earlier in my life and I felt there must be a better way then, too.

I look at teaching as a why do we need to know, when do we need to know, and is the student going to profit or loss from this experience at this time? The purpose and practice of what you are doing is highly regarded but I wonder about the check points surrounding your project.

Betty

Top
#1160940 - 03/10/09 09:32 PM Re: Is it right? (harmony theory) [Re: Betty Patnude]
currawong Offline
5000 Post Club Member

Registered: 05/15/07
Posts: 5929
Loc: Down Under
Originally Posted By: Betty Patnude
Such a tast you are willing to take on. My big question is what kind of time does this take, and is it really helping you to add "building blocks" to your music making.

I'm not sure why you seem to be questioning the idea of studying harmony. In my experience the study of harmony and the playing of the piano assist each other, but advanced playing skills are not essential. When I did my degrees there were a number of students for whom piano was not their first instrument, and they managed harmony perfectly well. The ear's the thing.
_________________________
Du holde Kunst...

Top
#1160957 - 03/10/09 10:10 PM Re: Is it right? (harmony theory) [Re: currawong]
Betty Patnude Offline
4000 Post Club Member

Registered: 06/11/07
Posts: 4896
Loc: Puyallup, Washington
Currawong,

The study of harmony is a great undertaking, but it works best if a person has piano in their background to be able to get their hands on the keyboard because it is the best of visual tools and aural tools and tactile tools for understanding harmony.

I was taught theory/harmony by an instrumental teacher, and it was never put on the piano in that whole years class. It came from book learning with no practical approach other than to hear sound in scale like progression, half steps, whole steps. I was missing the tactile part which in my learning style was the most important to me, and the fact that I would apply anything learned in theory/harmony to the piano.

It wasn't until I was 27 that all the facts came into being in my body and mind. I could recite this and that and explain it via the book without being able to demonstrate it with confidence. This breakthrough came with the understanding of the Major-minor-diminished-augmented and 6th 7th 8th degrees of the scale. Mainly because I could finally finger them and reach for them and play them with good piano technique. Finally.

The grand staff, the entire keyboard, and myself as the physical instrument came together.

So, you can know a lot of things, I passed a lot of tests satisfactorily, and then still didn't know it in all ways it can be expressed simultaneously.

The pianist is constantly measuring the distance between intervals with their fingers - automatically.

I think the pianist is the one who has to "reign" at his instrument otherwise it doesn't come across as a "sound" performance.

I agree ears are very important! That is all the voice student has to rely on.

It is better, in my opinion, that these abilities stay at a unilateral level (as much as possible) while the student is in development levels. I would also say that someone playing with advanced skill is the only way that you can say about a learning musician, that he has "learned" and "can use" the building blocks he needs to be competent at his instrument.

The piano is simply an extension of our thought processes.

It's doable as long as you don't leave any important links out, and as long as you don't go terribly far over your ability to read and shape the musical output.

You know I can say and even sing: "The square of the hypoteneuse of the right triangle is equal to the sum of the square of the two adjacent sides." I doesn't get me any where.

I really thing theory, harmony, technique are great unto themselves, but when they are combined in one person, there will be no doubt you are in the presence of a "mastered" musician.

I admire your musical degrees, Currawong, that has not been my good fortune in life to have achieved, but I'm still in the game here until the day I die, I think I learn each and every day. It's that quote by John Dewey, "Education is more than preparation for life, it is life itself."

Anyway, I wanted to say that I don't question the idea of studying harmony, it's the why and when of it that needs to be taken into consideration. It needs a mind that's truly ready for it, I think. I said a whole lot more, sorry.

Betty

Top
#1160973 - 03/10/09 10:50 PM Re: Is it right? (harmony theory) [Re: Betty Patnude]
currawong Offline
5000 Post Club Member

Registered: 05/15/07
Posts: 5929
Loc: Down Under
Originally Posted By: Betty Patnude
Anyway, I wanted to say that I don't question the idea of studying harmony, it's the why and when of it that needs to be taken into consideration. It needs a mind that's truly ready for it, I think. I said a whole lot more, sorry.


Yes, I basically agree that the "why and when" need to be taken into consideration. But the mind which is ready for it is (IMO) any mind with a desire to learn, and the ability to turn what they're writing on paper into sound, and what they hear as sounds onto paper - or even the ability to begin to do that. And I maintain that advanced piano skills are certainly useful - just not essential.

I totally agree with you about the teaching of harmony by rules and "book learning" alone without reference to sound. Luckily I wasn't taught harmony like that, neither do I teach it like that myself. Maybe your experience has made you unduly wary of the sort of exercises keystring is doing here. But Harmosis has already suggested playing the figured bass exercises to ensure a connect between the notation and the sound. Anyone who's ever asked a harmony question around here would know that Harmosis always gives clear and sound (haha) advice on harmony, and I always wait for his responses with interest. In fact I don't usually answer harmony queries - I just wait for Harmosis smile

Now, sorry keystring, I'll stop derailing your thread smile
_________________________
Du holde Kunst...

Top
#1160976 - 03/10/09 10:55 PM Re: Is it right? (harmony theory) [Re: currawong]
Betty Patnude Offline
4000 Post Club Member

Registered: 06/11/07
Posts: 4896
Loc: Puyallup, Washington
Currawong said: "Now, sorry keystring, I'll stop derailing your thread"

Me, too. I guess I didn't realize it was derailing. Duh!

Betty

Top
#1160995 - 03/10/09 11:34 PM Re: Is it right? (harmony theory) [Re: Betty Patnude]
keystring Online   content
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member

Registered: 12/11/07
Posts: 11674
Loc: Canada
Quote:
Harmosis has already suggested playing the figured bass exercises to ensure a connect between the notation and the sound

Oops, I missed that part. Is that what "figured bass realization" means?

I play what I've written to check, and I've played a fair number of the Bach chorales. Does this mean music where the figures alone have been written out instead of the notes? Does that exist?

KS

Top
#1161300 - 03/11/09 02:06 PM Re: Is it right? (harmony theory) [Re: keystring]
Harmosis Offline
Full Member

Registered: 02/15/07
Posts: 308
Loc: California
Hi keystring,
A figured bass is a bass line plus the figures. "Realizing" a figured bass means to supply the correct harmony to the bass line based on the figures given. In the Baroque period, keyboardists did this in real time, in the performance. As an academic study, we write in the harmony in SATB format.

At this point, I would advise you to look at the figured bass exercises that you've already done, and take note of the harmonic progresisons - you should be coming up with similar progressions when when you harmonize a melody. I also think it would be very beneficial to analyze some Bach chorales for the same reason. Go back to that B minor melody and re-harmonize it. Don't worry about the mistakes you've made, or the mistakes you will make - that's a part of the learning process.

Just to clear up what I was saying about the chord on the 7th: Your book uses upper-case Roman numerals to label all chords, regardless of the quality. A lot of books do this, but it can make things a bit confusing. When I use "viiº," that means A# C# E (in our key of Bm). The book simply uses "VII." I use "VII" to mean the subtonic chord, A C# E. So when the book suggests using "VIIb," for the 2nd chord, thats "viiº6" (A#dim in 1st inversion). I agree that there should be a dominant-function chord there, so make sure the A is sharped.

Again, just clean up the issues we've already addressed and take another crack at it:)

Top
#1161330 - 03/11/09 02:57 PM Re: Is it right? (harmony theory) [Re: Harmosis]
keystring Online   content
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member

Registered: 12/11/07
Posts: 11674
Loc: Canada
Thanks Harmosis. I caught on late last night that you meant specifically the quality of VII, and *then* I realized that since the first part is ascending, an A# should have been there = viiº. And FROM there: I would get a dim5 in the middle rather than actual parallel fifths, and that particular sequence is allowed in that case. My ear also accepts it.

Quote:
I agree that there should be a dominant-function chord there, so make sure the A is sharped.

I've reasoned that the 7th should be raised because it is ascending melodic minor, and you state that it should be raised because it is dominant-function. Do the two perspectives mesh? I would think so since we raise the 7th to pull to the tonic which matters for ascending, and then the 6th for mel. min. to smooth out the melodic line (6th doesn't matter for this question).

I realized that I understand less about melodic minor than I thought. The whole passage would be in that one kind of minor constantly, I imagine, but it would be governed by the melody line. For example, if a lower voice is descending, but the melody is ascending, we are raising the 6th & 7th degrees governed by the top voice, never the bottom. This should be obvious but I'd like to double check.

I will indeed go back to it. Your musical explanations have put a needed perspective and I've turned my ear back on esp. horizontally. I still don't have much of a vertical ear. I expect three tries in all at minimum.

Quote:
"Realizing" a figured bass means to supply the correct harmony to the bass line based on the figures given. In the Baroque period, keyboardists did this in real time, in the performance.

This would mean an existing melodic line and figures beneath? The figures would not mean Roman numerals - I am limited to the number 6 and accidentals currently.

I have toyed with the thought, if it existed, of working with such a score at the piano in (slow) real time. It seemed it might be something nice to be developed. I'm not limiting myself to paper exercises.
Quote:
I also think it would be very beneficial to analyze some Bach chorales for the same reason.

I've considered this, but since Horwood feeds things in progressively and I only have first inversions, no modulations yet, I was wondering whether it might be too early for that.

There is also a lot that I have not absorbed in those two chapters which would have helped me. I will indeed go back to the B minor. And mistakes rock - I like mistakes = growth. wink

In regards to naming: I've made myself familiar with the various forms. I think if we stay with the old music then IIb etc. is good enough since it is so structured and predictable - the second degree of a major scale will be minor in most cases, why write it out? But in later music it gets complicated.

I'm familiar with upper/lower case to designate quality. I know theoretically that 64 designates a second inversion though I'm not there yet. I also know what Barbara Wharram calls 'popular' i.e. for ""viiº6" (A#dim in 1st inversion)" you can feel free to write "A#dim/C" --- It's still new but I have the gist.

An extra question:
How did you create the raised "o" in viiº6?

Many thanks! smile

KS

Top
#1162447 - 03/13/09 06:20 PM Re: Is it right? (harmony theory) [Re: keystring]
keystring Online   content
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member

Registered: 12/11/07
Posts: 11674
Loc: Canada
A correction to the above post which I can no longer edit. A#dim/C should say A#dim/C#

KS

Top
#1168716 - 03/25/09 04:33 PM Re: Is it right? (harmony theory) [Re: keystring]
keystring Online   content
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member

Registered: 12/11/07
Posts: 11674
Loc: Canada
This is my second try. Am I any closer this time?


KS


Edited by keystring (03/25/09 04:59 PM)
Edit Reason: added question

Top
#1169066 - 03/26/09 08:36 AM Re: Is it right? (harmony theory) [Re: keystring]
Kreisler Offline


Registered: 11/27/02
Posts: 13789
Loc: Iowa City, IA
Much better! Only problem I see are parallel octaves in bass and alto from measure 2-3.
_________________________
"If we continually try to force a child to do what he is afraid to do, he will become more timid, and will use his brains and energy, not to explore the unknown, but to find ways to avoid the pressures we put on him." (John Holt)

www.pianoped.com
www.youtube.com/user/UIPianoPed

Top
#1169115 - 03/26/09 10:23 AM Re: Is it right? (harmony theory) [Re: Kreisler]
keystring Online   content
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member

Registered: 12/11/07
Posts: 11674
Loc: Canada
Thanks, Kreisler - I'll go tackle that part then.

A side question I've been curious about in regards to this kind of choral music when it has melodic minor. It "sounds odd" to me - sort of ancient-music-ish. I can't quite tell if it's what I'm doing or the nature of the resulting harmonies. I've had a thought that since a descending melodic minor is essentially a natural minor scale, if that makes it sound like it belongs to the Renaissance period. I've played it over and over, and I cannot tell whether it sounds good to me because of this "oddness" impression.

KS

Top
#1169189 - 03/26/09 11:51 AM Re: Is it right? (harmony theory) [Re: Kreisler]
keystring Online   content
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member

Registered: 12/11/07
Posts: 11674
Loc: Canada
To my chagrin, I just noticed that the parallel octaves you pointed out, Kreisler, are the same notes and error as the first time around. blush

Top
#1169253 - 03/26/09 01:24 PM Re: Is it right? (harmony theory) [Re: keystring]
keystring Online   content
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member

Registered: 12/11/07
Posts: 11674
Loc: Canada
Third try - changes to measures 2 & 3.


Keystring

(attempt to sharpen image - edit)


Edited by keystring (03/26/09 01:28 PM)
Edit Reason: corrected measure no.

Top
#1170546 - 03/28/09 09:56 PM Re: Is it right? (harmony theory) [Re: keystring]
Harmosis Offline
Full Member

Registered: 02/15/07
Posts: 308
Loc: California
Hi keystring,
It is better, but you've still got a few issues:

1] Tritone leaps in the bass (G to C#) - m2 beat 2 to m3 beat 1; m6 beat 1 to beat 2 to m7 beat 1. These really stand out - get rid of them.

2] Doubling - m2 beat 2, you've got an Em in the 1st inversion but with the 5th doubled. The root should be doubled. In 2nd inversion chords, you double the 5th. There are times to double the 3rd (usually to avoid doubling dissonant tones, or parallel 5ths in some resolutions) but as a general rule, double the root. Also, the chords on m3 beats 1 & 2, m5 beat 2, and m6 beat 2 need correct doubling. In m7 beat 1, you've got a G natural in the tenor but a G# in the soprano creating an augmented octave - if you want this chord to be a C#m, then you need to double the C#.

3] Tendency tones in your vii to i resolution (m1 beat 2 to m2 beat 1) - the E in the alto should resolve to D (fa-me), leaving DDBB (SATB) - this is a case where doubling the 3rd is entirely appropriate (in both the tension chord and resolution chord). Also, sharp the A in m5 beat 1 (because it's the leading tone).

Furthermore, keep an eye on the functional aspect of this - mm5-6 are a little strange. Correcting the above problems will actually help you with this.

All these issues are why your realization sounds "odd." Again, you've successfully addressed some of the problems, but take another pass at it - you're getting closer. smile

Top
#1170578 - 03/28/09 11:09 PM Re: Is it right? (harmony theory) [Re: Harmosis]
keystring Online   content
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member

Registered: 12/11/07
Posts: 11674
Loc: Canada
Thank you, Harmosis - I'll get on to it. This is *very* much appreciated.

A few questions:
Quote:
In m7 beat 1, you've got a G natural in the tenor but a G# in the soprano...

Q1: Convention re: accidentals. I understand there are two conventions. (?) When I sharped the G# in soprano, this was to affect all G's in that bar, so the tenor would be read as G# as well. The other convention states only the note on the same line or space is affected = the one you applied? Is the first obsolete or I have it wrong?
- I will use a C# as you suggest, but want to clear up the convention.

Q2: I'd like to check (improve) what I learned about doubling: I memorized that in 1st inversion, it is "recommended" to double roots for I, IV, V (primary triads), but thirds for the secondary triads (II, III, VI, VII). I followed it blindly, as you can see. (The doubled fifth being the exception - that's pure error)
- So I think I understand that the recommendation actually leads to avoidance of dissonance. I should be watching for dissonance rather than thinking of these degree numbers, correct? Apparently my following this rule blindly led to three errors and funny sounding music.

For the rest, you've given me something to work with. Applying "fa-mi" to harmony is new to me, but I'm familiar with the idea from adjusting pitches on the violin.

I appreciate this immensely. smile smile

KS

Top
#1170641 - 03/29/09 02:44 AM Re: Is it right? (harmony theory) [Re: keystring]
Harmosis Offline
Full Member

Registered: 02/15/07
Posts: 308
Loc: California
Re Q1: In the context of SATB, we have 4 voices so each voice needs its own accidentals. So, the G# in the soprano only affects the rest of the measure in the soprano voice. The thing to remember is that the goal of notation is clarity. So if anything seems ambiguous, try to make it very clear.

Re Q2: It's difficult to make a solid rule for doubling in 1st inversion, and not all theory books agree. Some books say double the bass, some say double as you described above, some say it's at your discretion. The bottom line is that voice-leading should really dictate the doubling. Above, I said to double the root, but that is really a "beginner" rule to simplify the issue. I recommend doubling the root where possible, but let voice-leading be the primary deciding factor.

Top
#1170754 - 03/29/09 11:56 AM Re: Is it right? (harmony theory) [Re: Harmosis]
keystring Online   content
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member

Registered: 12/11/07
Posts: 11674
Loc: Canada
Thank you, Harmosis. Everything is clear now and I'll post the results when I've worked it through.

KS

Top
#1170788 - 03/29/09 01:18 PM Re: Is it right? (harmony theory) [Re: keystring]
keystring Online   content
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member

Registered: 12/11/07
Posts: 11674
Loc: Canada
Sorry, I discovered I have another question that I need to straighten out:
Quote:
the E in the alto should resolve to D (fa-me),


Do you, by any chance, call the tonic of the minor "do" instead of "la"?

Top
#1170830 - 03/29/09 02:28 PM Re: Is it right? (harmony theory) [Re: keystring]
Harmosis Offline
Full Member

Registered: 02/15/07
Posts: 308
Loc: California
Yes, I use the movable-Do system, so the tonic is always "Do."

Top
#1170851 - 03/29/09 02:54 PM Re: Is it right? (harmony theory) [Re: Harmosis]
keystring Online   content
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member

Registered: 12/11/07
Posts: 11674
Loc: Canada
I can function with this, but I'd like to fill you in. I was taught movable do in the early 1960's and it was my only reference for decades. Two years ago this was tweaked in ear training in a violin context.

In this movable do, you acquire a sense of the "flavours" or colours of the degree-relationships within the two modes we call major or minor. That's quite developed in me because it's the only thing I had. In "mi-fa" (major scales) the "fa" is pulled heavily toward the "mi", the distance between the two notes is smaller than a semitone and is part of that pull. I know that this is also explained in the various temperament systems (equal, just, etc.) It is also a reality of how I hear and produce music: these "flavours" exist within the syllables for me.

In the movable do I learned, the minor scale's tonic begins with the syllable "la". The IV-III of a melodic minor scale are a whole tone apart, so the tight semitone + pull do not exist as a flavour. To me, they are "re do" - and I feel this as a flavour. If I read "mi fa" also expect the semitone relationship and that flavour - does this make sense? I audiate. AS LONG AS I KNOW the system you are using I'm fine. I'll just translate what you are saying and enter a system where the minor scale tonic is do, and the flavours don't apply.

I tested this out, now that I know officially that IV resolves into III melodically in minor scales. When I hear "re - do" in my mind, I still want it to pull to the III (do, for me in my old system) because it's like a secondary tonic. So this feeling for the music works for me and I can use it. Otherwise I'd go strictly theoretical and not use my inner ear.

I know that there are two systems for naming movable do: the one where "la" is the tonic for the minor, and the one where "do" is the tonic for the minor. When discussing music with others I have to go by their conventions. I don't know when or where it changed historically.

My ability to audiate, btw, used to be only within solfege - I guess I perceived like people a few centuries ago. I must be "semi-modal" or something and am trying hard to catch up with the rest of the world. wink But I have since trained in pitch and pure intervals. I do, however, hear and sing the notes in solfege for certain situations and it's a tool I use. I was 49 years old before I learned to read notes, and even then it took another few years to realize I was not really reading them.

This is ultimately unimportant since I have to adjust to how things are named here and now. I do still encounter funny hiccups though, as with the "mi fa" yesterday, and that's when I have to ask strange questions.

KS


Edited by keystring (03/29/09 03:10 PM)
Edit Reason: last par. added

Top
#1170862 - 03/29/09 03:09 PM Re: Is it right? (harmony theory) [Re: keystring]
ROMagister Offline
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 04/26/08
Posts: 518
Loc: Bucuresti, Romania
Very interesting from you both !

I have a Romanian 'Elements of Tonal Harmony' book (I think 1st year university level at a private univ., not the State Conservatory; meant it was easier than Conservatory) that has lots of exercises like that. One line plus a few numbers here and there (esp. the some 6's; other 5's are just assumed) to produce a full 4-voice chorus-like sound.

Only that it doesn't have explicit the principles behind it. Guess that's where the seminar instructor closely works with students showing them more hands-on examples ?

Top
#1176692 - 04/08/09 12:55 PM Re: Is it right? (harmony theory) [Re: keystring]
keystring Online   content
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member

Registered: 12/11/07
Posts: 11674
Loc: Canada
Deleted - I forgot to transcribe some of the accidentals. Corrected version coming shortly. (sorry blush )


Edited by keystring (04/08/09 01:23 PM)

Top
#1176722 - 04/08/09 01:33 PM Re: Is it right? (harmony theory) [Re: keystring]
keystring Online   content
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member

Registered: 12/11/07
Posts: 11674
Loc: Canada
(link works again)
Fourth try - with corrections pointed out by Harmosis, and worked on measures 5 - 8.




KS


Edited by keystring (04/08/09 04:10 PM)
Edit Reason: Edited to make link work & state that it now works.

Top
#1176894 - 04/08/09 05:43 PM Re: Is it right? (harmony theory) [Re: keystring]
Harmosis Offline
Full Member

Registered: 02/15/07
Posts: 308
Loc: California
So much better! Only a couple things to correct here:

1] The viiº6 chord, in m6 beat 1, needs to be resolved correctly - the E in the alto should resolve down to D (it can still move to E in the next beat without any problems).

2] The ii chord, in m7 beat 1, is in root position but with a doubled 5th. Make the tenor a C# instead of G# (double the root). Move the bass to F# above, instead of down, in the next beat to avoid parallel octaves (tenor and bass will be at the same pitch on beat 2). You can make the voice-leading even a little smoother by keeping the alto on E, making the V chord a V7 (this is optional, though).

Good job smile

Top
#1176948 - 04/08/09 07:23 PM Re: Is it right? (harmony theory) [Re: Harmosis]
keystring Online   content
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member

Registered: 12/11/07
Posts: 11674
Loc: Canada
Thank you once again! smile
For:
Quote:
1] The viiº6 chord, in m6 beat 1, needs to be resolved correctly - the E in the alto should resolve down to D

I would then want to make the tenor in that chord an F#. Otherwise the chord would sound too thin having only D's and B's. Is there any problem doing that?

Top
#1176970 - 04/08/09 07:52 PM Re: Is it right? (harmony theory) [Re: keystring]
Harmosis Offline
Full Member

Registered: 02/15/07
Posts: 308
Loc: California
Originally Posted By: keystring
Thank you once again! smile
For:
Quote:
1] The viiº6 chord, in m6 beat 1, needs to be resolved correctly - the E in the alto should resolve down to D

I would then want to make the tenor in that chord an F#. Otherwise the chord would sound too thin having only D's and B's. Is there any problem doing that?



No, the F# (5th) is not needed. It's better to have the doubled root instead of the inclusion of the 5th. You could go to F# in the tenor, as you propose, but the strongest resolution, resolving the tendency tones, is the way I described. There are times when it's better for an inner voice to resolve from the leading tone down to the 5th, but this is not one of them.

Top
#1176988 - 04/08/09 08:23 PM Re: Is it right? (harmony theory) [Re: Harmosis]
keystring Online   content
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member

Registered: 12/11/07
Posts: 11674
Loc: Canada
I think I understand. The B in the tenor is part of a resolution in that A# goes to B in the tenor. If I use that F# as I first proposed, I lose that resolution of the tendency tone. Do I have that correct?

I think I understand the meaning of tendency tone.

Top
#1177076 - 04/08/09 10:48 PM Re: Is it right? (harmony theory) [Re: keystring]
Harmosis Offline
Full Member

Registered: 02/15/07
Posts: 308
Loc: California
Yes, that's right.

Top
#1177400 - 04/09/09 03:04 PM Re: Is it right? (harmony theory) [Re: Harmosis]
keystring Online   content
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member

Registered: 12/11/07
Posts: 11674
Loc: Canada
Final version? And one question if I may:
I researched tendency tones this morning and learned about the tendency tones of 4=>3, 6=>5 and of course 7=>8. It's not totally new since "fa-mi" goes that way in solfege, and the minor harmonic has the tight semitone between ^6 and ^5 which I would also sing as "fa-mi" (tonic as "la").

The ^4^3 in major scales has an interval of a semitone, as do ^7^8, but in minor scales there is a whole tone interval. I'm not sure that I feel as much of a pull. Same for 6^5^ in major scales (whole tone).

So is there a difference? Is the idea of tendency tone more "forgiving" among the degrees of scales where the two notes are separated by a whole tone? And then I wondered for minor scales if you don't also have a pull from ^2 into ^3 ascending?

I must admit that the term was new to me, although I knew it (without the term) for the leading note. That was a big hole in my knowledge. Many thanks once again. smile

Top
#1177496 - 04/09/09 06:20 PM Re: Is it right? (harmony theory) [Re: keystring]
Harmosis Offline
Full Member

Registered: 02/15/07
Posts: 308
Loc: California
It looks good but you should resolve the A# in the tenor (m6, beat 1) to B in order to resolve the tritone, A# to E, properly. Again, there are cases where you want to move from the leading tone to the 5th but this is not one of them.

As for tendency tones, yes, the whole step does not pull as much as the half step. However, voice leading considerations (i.e., resolving a tritone) are still present.

Top
#1177523 - 04/09/09 07:31 PM Re: Is it right? (harmony theory) [Re: Harmosis]
keystring Online   content
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member

Registered: 12/11/07
Posts: 11674
Loc: Canada
Thank you. smile

Top
#1177623 - 04/09/09 11:18 PM Re: Is it right? (harmony theory) [Re: keystring]
Harmosis Offline
Full Member

Registered: 02/15/07
Posts: 308
Loc: California
You're welcome smile

Top
#1177773 - 04/10/09 10:21 AM Re: Is it right? (harmony theory) [Re: Harmosis]
keystring Online   content
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member

Registered: 12/11/07
Posts: 11674
Loc: Canada
Harmosis, I'd like to tie up some loose ends, since my purpose is not just to produce the right answer, but learn the principles behind what I'm doing.

In your last correction you proposed B in the tenor (m. 7) in order to resolve the tritone. I could see the tritone, which is tension, that gets resolved. I would have thought the B must be placed there because the preceding A# is a leading note which must be followed by the tonic that it "leads into". You will tell me that both views apply: in voice leading we have the leading note moving into the tonic, and in harmony we have a dissonance that must be resolved. The two work together simultaneously. correct? I can resolve the dissonance simply through a consonant chord, but the choice of B involves the leading note. Similarly ^4 leads into ^3, and ^6 leads into ^5; and ^1, ^5 and ^3 are "strong" degrees. I think that I have a good understanding of that part now (hopefully).

I'd like to double check about this part since I'm applying what I've learned:
Quote:
As for tendency tones, yes, the whole step does not pull as much as the half step. However, voice leading considerations (i.e., resolving a tritone) are still present.

Is the tritone an example taken from the present exercise, or do tendency tones always involve tritones? ^7 (if maj7) always does, of course. But we also have ^4 and ^6. I want to make sure that I understand what you have said correctly.

In regards to suggestions you made a while back, I've begun studying the Riemenschneider chorales which I happen to own. I will be looking for the types of things I have learned in this thread while doing the rest of the chapter. the next chapter involves passing notes, which I imagine rests on the foundation of the present work and I suspect would go well as long as this one is mastered first.

Many thanks as always.

KS


Top
#1178027 - 04/10/09 03:56 PM Re: Is it right? (harmony theory) [Re: keystring]
Harmosis Offline
Full Member

Registered: 02/15/07
Posts: 308
Loc: California
Quote:
You will tell me that both views apply: in voice leading we have the leading note moving into the tonic, and in harmony we have a dissonance that must be resolved. The two work together simultaneously. correct?


Yes, you have to keep in mind the melodic aspect of each voice, and the harmonic implications thereof (since harmony is really multiple melodies occuring simultaneously).

Quote:
do tendency tones always involve tritones?

No, but tritones, as dissonances, are generally resolved a certain way: Resolve diminished 5ths "inward," and resolve augmented 4ths "outward" (one is just the inversion of the other). Part of the reason for this is to create contrary motion, which gives the voices more independence (melodic reason), and gives a more satisfying resolution. Also, harmonically, you wouldn't want a dissonce "resolving" to another dissonance (i.e., an aug 4th moving to a perfect 4th, like E-A# moving to F#-B).The more voices you have to work with, the more you can go around some rules (which is why there are situations where you can resolve the tritone in similar motion). But if you can follow these rules, then you should - it really will sound better.

Top
#1178060 - 04/10/09 04:48 PM Re: Is it right? (harmony theory) [Re: Harmosis]
keystring Online   content
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member

Registered: 12/11/07
Posts: 11674
Loc: Canada
Thank you, this is very helpful. I have done 6 questions like this altogether including this one. I will go through them with a fine tooth comb applying what I have learned here.
Quote:
But if you can follow these rules, then you should - it really will sound better.

Yes - both vertically and horizontally. I have been playing and listening as I went along. It really does make a difference.
Quote:
i.e., an aug 4th moving to a perfect 4th

It always seem strange that a P4 should be dissonant since it sounds so ... er .... harmoniously pleasant. wink

Top
#1178070 - 04/10/09 05:04 PM Re: Is it right? (harmony theory) [Re: keystring]
Harmosis Offline
Full Member

Registered: 02/15/07
Posts: 308
Loc: California
Quote:
It always seem strange that a P4 should be dissonant since it sounds so ... er .... harmoniously pleasant.


Right - in organum, it's certainly not a dissonance!

Top
#1209190 - 05/31/09 12:28 PM Re: Is it right? (harmony theory) [Re: Harmosis]
keystring Online   content
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member

Registered: 12/11/07
Posts: 11674
Loc: Canada
This is a new one that I had a bit of a struggle with so I'm hoping to double check again. I'm hoping to have learned something from the last time in doing this one.

The ending of the proposed melody seems odd: does this kind of ending happen in music of any particular kind?

Edit: The tenor looks weird now in bar 7: E D# / E ?
(I kept getting tritones or parallel octaves and was ready to throw in the towel last night)

[edit: there is an error in this one which I've fixed in a post below it. The error is in the A# in m. which I transcribed wrongly from my rough copy. It should be G#)


Edited by keystring (05/31/09 05:23 PM)

Top
#1209204 - 05/31/09 01:30 PM Re: Is it right? (harmony theory) [Re: keystring]
Kreisler Offline


Registered: 11/27/02
Posts: 13789
Loc: Iowa City, IA
I'm pretty sure the melody is incorrect at the end. Either that, or the harmony that's specified is incorrect. The A# suggests a secondary dominant, but none occurs, so either it's wrong or incomplete.
_________________________
"If we continually try to force a child to do what he is afraid to do, he will become more timid, and will use his brains and energy, not to explore the unknown, but to find ways to avoid the pressures we put on him." (John Holt)

www.pianoped.com
www.youtube.com/user/UIPianoPed

Top
#1209207 - 05/31/09 01:39 PM Re: Is it right? (harmony theory) [Re: Kreisler]
keystring Online   content
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member

Registered: 12/11/07
Posts: 11674
Loc: Canada
Kreisler, the exercise consists of solely the melody, and I am to provide the harmony. Would you suggest that I skip this particular 8-bar exercise, in the sense of it being a poorly crafted exercise?

Having said that - is there anything incorrect in what I've done? I am thinking of changing the tenor in bars 7 to 8 to E D# E because as voice leading what I've done doesn't work (I think).


Edited by keystring (05/31/09 02:19 PM)
Edit Reason: Took out unnecessary statement about the melody sounding bizarre.

Top
#1209240 - 05/31/09 02:47 PM Re: Is it right? (harmony theory) [Re: keystring]
keystring Online   content
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member

Registered: 12/11/07
Posts: 11674
Loc: Canada
Oops, I made an error in transcribing. That A# in the melody in bar 8 should have been a G#. I've also changed the tenor in bars 7 & 8 to what I wrote before. The original is in (brackets)

Top
#1209503 - 05/31/09 11:34 PM Re: Is it right? (harmony theory) [Re: keystring]
Harmosis Offline
Full Member

Registered: 02/15/07
Posts: 308
Loc: California
Hi keystring,
You've got several problems here:


1] Tripled 5th, no root (m5, beat 2) - the only note you should ever triple is the root, and then only in cadential situations. Also, you need to have a root here.

2] Parallel octaves (m5, beat 2 to m6, beat 1) between the bass and alto

3] Spacing (m6, beats 1 & 2) between the alto and soprano

4] Augmented 2nd (m7, beat 1 to 2) in the alto

5] Doubled leading tone (m7, beat 2) in the tenor and alto - never double a sensitive tone or dissonant tone (like the leading tone or the 7th of a chord).

You've got the right idea with the chords you're going for, but you need to clean up the voice leading. Also, watch your doubling - you should be looking to double the root in 1st inversion chords.

Top
#1209575 - 06/01/09 02:48 AM Re: Is it right? (harmony theory) [Re: Harmosis]
Gary D. Offline
4000 Post Club Member

Registered: 08/30/08
Posts: 4801
Loc: South Florida
Harmosis,

Using the melody provided, can you do something with those last four bars that breaks no "rules" but also stays within the limitation of no 2nd inversion chords, etc.? I absolutely suck at this kind of voice leading, but I could not come up with anything that worked myself. After KS is through with this, I would be curious to see a workable solution.
_________________________
Piano Teacher

Top
#1209734 - 06/01/09 11:07 AM Re: Is it right? (harmony theory) [Re: Gary D.]
Kreisler Offline


Registered: 11/27/02
Posts: 13789
Loc: Iowa City, IA
I think the melody is a good exercise, it just has some tricky spots. I'll play with it and see what I can come up with. I'd be interested in seeing Harmosis' version, too.
_________________________
"If we continually try to force a child to do what he is afraid to do, he will become more timid, and will use his brains and energy, not to explore the unknown, but to find ways to avoid the pressures we put on him." (John Holt)

www.pianoped.com
www.youtube.com/user/UIPianoPed

Top
#1209741 - 06/01/09 11:19 AM Re: Is it right? (harmony theory) [Re: Kreisler]
keystring Online   content
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member

Registered: 12/11/07
Posts: 11674
Loc: Canada
Kreisler, if you're duplicating my task, I am still limited to root position and first inversions. I understand that it gets easier when there are more choices. I would be very interested in seeing what the experts come up with and think I would learn something by studying your approaches.

Of course I will have another go at it myself. I seem to get hung up every time the melody has a melodic minor. I was constantly getting parallel octaves and fifths or tritones. Every time I managed to fix one part, the other part collapsed. Reminded me of an old tent we used to have - the minute the fourth leg was up, the other three would collapse. The answer was to buy another tent. wink

I appreciate the help.

Top
#1209753 - 06/01/09 12:22 PM Re: Is it right? (harmony theory) [Re: keystring]
Kreisler Offline


Registered: 11/27/02
Posts: 13789
Loc: Iowa City, IA
Okay, here's my version. The first is the bass line - I always do bass lines first. A good bass line just makes the rest easier. Next, I fill in the inner voices. You're right, the last 4 measures are tricky - it's always a bit of an issue when you have a scale in the melody and you're limited in the inversions you can use.

I think what I have is legal and sounds okay. (We'll let Harmoisis check my work to make sure I didn't miss anything.)

_________________________
"If we continually try to force a child to do what he is afraid to do, he will become more timid, and will use his brains and energy, not to explore the unknown, but to find ways to avoid the pressures we put on him." (John Holt)

www.pianoped.com
www.youtube.com/user/UIPianoPed

Top
#1209804 - 06/01/09 02:07 PM Re: Is it right? (harmony theory) [Re: Kreisler]
Harmosis Offline
Full Member

Registered: 02/15/07
Posts: 308
Loc: California
Only root position and 1st inversion? That's pretty restrictive but I'll do one.

Kreisler: Yours looks good except the doubling on the iiº in m3, beat 1. The root and 5th are dissonant to each other, so double the 3rd here (Also, your iiø in the next beat breaks the inversion restriction! wink.) Another thing just to be aware of is the direct 5ths between the alto and soprano in m1 beat 2 - but since the harmony is NOT changing, this is not a big deal.

I'll get mine posted as soon as I get it done.

Top
#1209840 - 06/01/09 03:18 PM Re: Is it right? (harmony theory) [Re: Harmosis]
keystring Online   content
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member

Registered: 12/11/07
Posts: 11674
Loc: Canada
Yes, I haven't been given a lot of tools yet, so those are my limitations.

It may take me a few days: I'm a freelancer and something large has come up taking every free moment. I'll post and do mine when I can. But I'll keep popping in briefly to look.

Harmosis, what does this symbol mean? iiø (the part after ii)?

KS

Top
#1209841 - 06/01/09 03:20 PM Re: Is it right? (harmony theory) [Re: Harmosis]
Harmosis Offline
Full Member

Registered: 02/15/07
Posts: 308
Loc: California
OK, here's mine. I also broke an inversion restriction with V42/iv (it's ridiculous be restricted to 6/3 chords without being able to use 4/2 chords!).



Top
#1209843 - 06/01/09 03:23 PM Re: Is it right? (harmony theory) [Re: keystring]
Harmosis Offline
Full Member

Registered: 02/15/07
Posts: 308
Loc: California
Quote:
Harmosis, what does this symbol mean? iiø (the part after ii)?


The ø sign means half-diminished.

Top
#1209845 - 06/01/09 03:28 PM Re: Is it right? (harmony theory) [Re: Harmosis]
Harmosis Offline
Full Member

Registered: 02/15/07
Posts: 308
Loc: California
Ah! I just found parallel octaves in mine (tenor & soprano m3, beat 2 to m4, beat 1)! This is what these inversion restrictions lead to! wink

Top
#1209853 - 06/01/09 03:57 PM Re: Is it right? (harmony theory) [Re: Harmosis]
Kreisler Offline


Registered: 11/27/02
Posts: 13789
Loc: Iowa City, IA
I know! The first 3 versions I did were all plagued by parallels. I spent a half hour on that thing this morning, and I used to teach the darn class!
_________________________
"If we continually try to force a child to do what he is afraid to do, he will become more timid, and will use his brains and energy, not to explore the unknown, but to find ways to avoid the pressures we put on him." (John Holt)

www.pianoped.com
www.youtube.com/user/UIPianoPed

Top
#1209860 - 06/01/09 04:15 PM Re: Is it right? (harmony theory) [Re: Harmosis]
keystring Online   content
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member

Registered: 12/11/07
Posts: 11674
Loc: Canada
A quick question on this one:
Quote:
1] Tripled 5th, no root (m5, beat 2) - the only note you should ever triple is the root, and then only in cadential situations. Also, you need to have a root here.


If it were to be iv (A C# E) then the A (root) would be missing since there is no A. But it was meant to be VI (C# E G) in first inversion (the 6 indicates 1st inversion, the bass note is E which would be the 3 of the chord, implying C# as bass)?? and if so, what got doubled was the 3 and not the 5 (just to identify it; not implying correctness). If I intended to use the VI-chord, did I miss doing so, and was it an incorrect chord choice? I assume the root should still have been doubled (meaning the C#, if using VI was correct).

KS

Top
#1209864 - 06/01/09 04:18 PM Re: Is it right? (harmony theory) [Re: keystring]
keystring Online   content
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member

Registered: 12/11/07
Posts: 11674
Loc: Canada
If you guys, who are experts, are finding it hard to do this exercise under those restrictions, then I feel better about my struggles. smile I am also thinking that three chapters down the road some things might actually become easier.

The thing is that it's not so much a restriction as a limitation for me: I can't choose what I haven't learned to use yet.

Top
#1209876 - 06/01/09 04:53 PM Re: Is it right? (harmony theory) [Re: Kreisler]
Harmosis Offline
Full Member

Registered: 02/15/07
Posts: 308
Loc: California
OK, here's a better (if less interesting) one, with all the rules and restrictions intact! wink


Top
#1209882 - 06/01/09 05:04 PM Re: Is it right? (harmony theory) [Re: Harmosis]
Gary D. Offline
4000 Post Club Member

Registered: 08/30/08
Posts: 4801
Loc: South Florida
What about the perfect 4th from end of bar two to beginning of bar three? F#-B moving to E-A? I thought parallel 4ths and 5ths are to be avoided? No criticism. It's better than I could do. smile


Edited by Gary D. (06/01/09 05:05 PM)
_________________________
Piano Teacher

Top
#1209886 - 06/01/09 05:08 PM Re: Is it right? (harmony theory) [Re: keystring]
Harmosis Offline
Full Member

Registered: 02/15/07
Posts: 308
Loc: California
Originally Posted By: keystring
A quick question on this one:
Quote:
1] Tripled 5th, no root (m5, beat 2) - the only note you should ever triple is the root, and then only in cadential situations. Also, you need to have a root here.


If it were to be iv (A C# E) then the A (root) would be missing since there is no A. But it was meant to be VI (C# E G) in first inversion (the 6 indicates 1st inversion, the bass note is E which would be the 3 of the chord, implying C# as bass)?? and if so, what got doubled was the 3 and not the 5 (just to identify it; not implying correctness). If I intended to use the VI-chord, did I miss doing so, and was it an incorrect chord choice? I assume the root should still have been doubled (meaning the C#, if using VI was correct).

KS


OK, yes you do want to double the 3rd in the VI when moving V-VI, but you have tripled the E, not doubled it. In this particular case, since there is a raised 6th (C#), it implies a IV more so than a vi or viº. You can still go to viº, but make sure to only double the 3rd, not triple it. You can use two roots and two thirds; or root, fifth, and two thirds, depending on how your voice-leading is going.

Top
#1209889 - 06/01/09 05:12 PM Re: Is it right? (harmony theory) [Re: Gary D.]
Harmosis Offline
Full Member

Registered: 02/15/07
Posts: 308
Loc: California
Originally Posted By: Gary D.
What about the perfect 4th from end of bar two to beginning of bar three? F#-B moving to E-A? I thought parallel 4ths and 5ths are to be avoided? No criticism. It's better than I could do. smile


No, parallel 4ths are OK here. Now, in Renaissance counterpoint, we'd have to give this a little more care. Parallel 5ths are definitely to be avoided here, though.

Top
#1209891 - 06/01/09 05:16 PM Re: Is it right? (harmony theory) [Re: Harmosis]
Gary D. Offline
4000 Post Club Member

Registered: 08/30/08
Posts: 4801
Loc: South Florida
Interesting. I know what you wrote SOUNDS fine, though of course rather dull due to the limitations imposed. It turns out that at least one of my solutions did work, because I was trying to avoid the 4ths. wink
_________________________
Piano Teacher

Top
#1209892 - 06/01/09 05:18 PM Re: Is it right? (harmony theory) [Re: keystring]
Harmosis Offline
Full Member

Registered: 02/15/07
Posts: 308
Loc: California
Originally Posted By: keystring
If you guys, who are experts, are finding it hard to do this exercise under those restrictions, then I feel better about my struggles. smile I am also thinking that three chapters down the road some things might actually become easier.

The thing is that it's not so much a restriction as a limitation for me: I can't choose what I haven't learned to use yet.


Yes, it certainly is more difficult with the inversion restrictions, especially when you're used to not having any! Another thing that makes this melody more difficult is the repeated notes, which translates into common tones in the soprano (where you would normally NOT want them).

I personally don't think that harmonizing a melody should be done before all the inversions are learned, and realizing figured bass mastered. Also, analyzing the Bach chorales is essential.

Top
#1209915 - 06/01/09 06:01 PM Re: Is it right? (harmony theory) [Re: Harmosis]
keystring Online   content
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member

Registered: 12/11/07
Posts: 11674
Loc: Canada
Quote:
OK, yes you do want to double the 3rd in the VI when moving V-VI, but you have tripled the E, not doubled it. In this particular case, since there is a raised 6th (C#), it implies a IV more so than a vi or viº. You can still go to viº, but make sure to only double the 3rd, not triple it. You can use two roots and two thirds; or root, fifth, and two thirds, depending on how your voice-leading is going.

Thx. I'm going to play with this (literally - at the keyboard) to hear why the raised 7th implies the IV. I think the E got tripled in a moment of exasperation in trying to solve something that went parallel, or a voice that wanted to lead somewhere else.

Top
#1209933 - 06/01/09 06:26 PM Re: Is it right? (harmony theory) [Re: Harmosis]
keystring Online   content
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member

Registered: 12/11/07
Posts: 11674
Loc: Canada
Quote:
Yes, it certainly is more difficult with the inversion restrictions, especially when you're used to not having any! Another thing that makes this melody more difficult is the repeated notes, which translates into common tones in the soprano (where you would normally NOT want them).

I personally don't think that harmonizing a melody should be done before all the inversions are learned, and realizing figured bass mastered. Also, analyzing the Bach chorales is essential.

Well, first off it tells me that if I was having a hard time it was less due to a lack of understanding than to what I had to work with. I began to suspect as much. I don't even have sevenths yet, which gives me one less note to play with than you used.

I have started analyzing Bach chorales; I have the whole Riemenschneider set. Everything is still on a shoe string for a bit, so I have to use what I have.

I'd like to get the book which the RCM uses for the first level. I can't judge about Horwood because I don't have the expertise. My feeling is that he is coming from a different angle, introducing things in small bits and that they start coming together a few chapters later. Either it means that I should only take this chapter as far as I can bring it and not fuss about it because it will make sense as more pieces come together. Or it means that from here on in I risk getting lost. wink I don't feel lost, though. I feel that I don't have enough to work with yet. It means either I don't use Horwood, or in the least, I don't use only Horwood.

In any case, I have printed out both your versions and have been playing them on the piano. There is a lot to be learned from that - I'll probably end up with some questions if that's ok. Many thanks to the three of you. smile

Top
#1209944 - 06/01/09 06:48 PM Re: Is it right? (harmony theory) [Re: keystring]
Harmosis Offline
Full Member

Registered: 02/15/07
Posts: 308
Loc: California
The Riemenschneider is great - that's what everyone uses. I remember #188 was the first chorale that I analyzed in college (oh, the odd details one remembers).

Yes, use whatever materials you have. The only advice I'd give you is to do a lot more figured bass realizations, and a lot more harmonic anlaysis of Bach's chorales. Also, get real solid on voice leading rules.

Ask any questions you want; this is fun.

Top
#1209947 - 06/01/09 06:57 PM Re: Is it right? (harmony theory) [Re: Harmosis]
Kreisler Offline


Registered: 11/27/02
Posts: 13789
Loc: Iowa City, IA
I'm on board, too. Let's have some more examples - I could stand to brush up on my 4-part harmony.
_________________________
"If we continually try to force a child to do what he is afraid to do, he will become more timid, and will use his brains and energy, not to explore the unknown, but to find ways to avoid the pressures we put on him." (John Holt)

www.pianoped.com
www.youtube.com/user/UIPianoPed

Top
#1209983 - 06/01/09 08:36 PM Re: Is it right? (harmony theory) [Re: Kreisler]
keystring Online   content
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member

Registered: 12/11/07
Posts: 11674
Loc: Canada
Thanks guys. smile Ok, questions. These are mostly to check my understanding.

Kreisler's sample. In m. 7 beat 2 to m. 8 beat 1, tenor: the leading notes D# goes down to B. I thought it was a tendency tone that had to go up to the tonic E - are three exceptions?

I don't know why the alto line from m. 5 & 6 bothers me or whether it should. It's a little niggle, not a big one.

Harmosis, I won't try to understand your first four bars: I'm not there yet. Since I don't have sevenths yet, is the 2nd half still possible without the V7 in m. 6? That's where I had the parallel octaves because I didn't have that handy A. On the other hand, the V7 would have been a solution for me becuase it gives an extra note to play with.

In other words, is it even possible to create error-free harmony if you have only root position, first inversion, and no sevenths? Would either of you be able to do it for the last 4 bars ... and should I even try?

Quote:
I'm on board, too. Let's have some more examples - I could stand to brush up on my 4-part harmony.

There are 8 questions a - h. I've done 7 of them. I started asking for help at # e. this one is g. Would you like me to post the questions? smile


Edited by keystring (06/01/09 08:40 PM)

Top
#1209993 - 06/01/09 08:52 PM Re: Is it right? (harmony theory) [Re: keystring]
keystring Online   content
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member

Registered: 12/11/07
Posts: 11674
Loc: Canada
A P.S. It's really cool playing three versions of harmonizing one and the same melody. There is such a different "personality" between Kreisler's and Harmosis'. they both sound good in their own way. Music is awesome, isn't it? smile
KS

Top
#1210072 - 06/01/09 10:34 PM Re: Is it right? (harmony theory) [Re: keystring]
Kreisler Offline


Registered: 11/27/02
Posts: 13789
Loc: Iowa City, IA
Originally Posted By: keystring
Kreisler's sample. In m. 7 beat 2 to m. 8 beat 1, tenor: the leading notes D# goes down to B. I thought it was a tendency tone that had to go up to the tonic E - are three exceptions?

I don't know why the alto line from m. 5 & 6 bothers me or whether it should. It's a little niggle, not a big one.


As for the first point, you're correct, leading tones do usually go up to the tonic, but this is one of those cases where it's common enough in the literature to be considered allowable.

As for the 2nd point, that line bugs me, too, but of all the things I tried, it was the least bad. laugh

And sure, go ahead and post some of the other exercises, I'd be happy to have a look.
_________________________
"If we continually try to force a child to do what he is afraid to do, he will become more timid, and will use his brains and energy, not to explore the unknown, but to find ways to avoid the pressures we put on him." (John Holt)

www.pianoped.com
www.youtube.com/user/UIPianoPed

Top
#1210142 - 06/02/09 02:09 AM Re: Is it right? (harmony theory) [Re: Kreisler]
Harmosis Offline
Full Member

Registered: 02/15/07
Posts: 308
Loc: California
Originally Posted By: Kreisler
Originally Posted By: keystring
Kreisler's sample. In m. 7 beat 2 to m. 8 beat 1, tenor: the leading notes D# goes down to B. I thought it was a tendency tone that had to go up to the tonic E - are three exceptions?

I don't know why the alto line from m. 5 & 6 bothers me or whether it should. It's a little niggle, not a big one.


As for the first point, you're correct, leading tones do usually go up to the tonic, but this is one of those cases where it's common enough in the literature to be considered allowable.


Right. The rule here is that if the leading tone is in an inner voice (alto or tenor), then it can go to the 5th of the tonic chord instead of the root. This is done to make a complete chord instead of leaving the 5th out as I did. But, if you're going to do this, then it must make sense melodically as it does in Kreisler's tenor.

Top
#1210149 - 06/02/09 02:37 AM Re: Is it right? (harmony theory) [Re: keystring]
Harmosis Offline
Full Member

Registered: 02/15/07
Posts: 308
Loc: California
Quote:
Harmosis, I won't try to understand your first four bars: I'm not there yet. Since I don't have sevenths yet, is the 2nd half still possible without the V7 in m. 6? That's where I had the parallel octaves because I didn't have that handy A. On the other hand, the V7 would have been a solution for me becuase it gives an extra note to play with.

In other words, is it even possible to create error-free harmony if you have only root position, first inversion, and no sevenths? Would either of you be able to do it for the last 4 bars ... and should I even try?


Well, I was able to do it without 7ths, but not without a leap of a 7th in the bass (which I wouldn't want). So, it is "possible" but not with the best voice leading. There is no point in adhering to these restrictions if you can't use the best possible voice leading. Not being able to voice a V7 or iiø is completely unrealistic. I think the melody is just fine as an exercise, but you should allow yourself to use common chords and in common inversions.

Top
#1210182 - 06/02/09 06:41 AM Re: Is it right? (harmony theory) [Re: Harmosis]
keystring Online   content
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member

Registered: 12/11/07
Posts: 11674
Loc: Canada
Wouldn't I have to learn how to use 2nd inversion? When 1st inversion was introduced I didn't just start to willy nilly stick in inverted chords: I learned a fair bit about them. Would that also be true for 2nd inversion?

For the broad picture I'm looking at three things. First, I have a perspective on this exercise and what can be achieved with those restrictions. I didn't know that 24 hours ago.

Second, I want to be using the text the RCM recommends, which will be guiding the path differently. I won't be getting into these situations.

Third, I'm looking at Horwood and how he might be working. He might be building from a totally different angle and I think I want that perspective too but I have to know how to to work with it. I wonder if at this stage he's not yet expecting as much perfection for voice leading (the term is never mentioned) and if that comes later. This is chapter 7. 6/4 chords come in ch. 10, and sevenths come in ch. 11.

Well, I'm going in circles. This should not be my only text, and maybe not the main one. It's this particular chapter where it started not working well for me.


Top
#1210183 - 06/02/09 06:51 AM Re: Is it right? (harmony theory) [Re: keystring]
keystring Online   content
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member

Registered: 12/11/07
Posts: 11674
Loc: Canada
Here's a dumb question. The book is still being sold: Can I actually copy and post the exercises from a page of the book in terms of copyright? Publishing date is 1948.

Top
#1210185 - 06/02/09 07:06 AM Re: Is it right? (harmony theory) [Re: keystring]
keystring Online   content
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member

Registered: 12/11/07
Posts: 11674
Loc: Canada
Quote:

Kreisler: As for the first point, you're correct, leading tones do usually go up to the tonic, but this is one of those cases where it's common enough in the literature to be considered allowable.

Harmosis: Right. The rule here is that if the leading tone is in an inner voice (alto or tenor), then it can go to the 5th of the tonic chord instead of the root. This is done to make a complete chord instead of leaving the 5th out as I did. But, if you're going to do this, then it must make sense melodically as it does in Kreisler's tenor.

That is important to know. I felt I might be in danger of applying the rule too rigidly and trapping myself. I even felt that might be so. I can hear in what manner Kreisler's version makes sense. K: your "common enough in literature" points me again toward studying that literature.

Quote:
As for the 2nd point, that line bugs me, too, but ...

Since it's not my imagination, I'll extend my query further. Until recently my world was 90% m.d. solfege and that's how I hear music the most. For minor keys the tonic was "la". That snippet in degrees goes "^2 ^4 ^2 ^5" which in solfege I hear as "ti re ti mi". "Ti" is attracted to "do" and in minor keys I seem to hear the supertonic pulling to the mediant as though ^2 was a weaker tendency tone toward the ^4. Might that exist? If I imagine the same ^2 ^4 ^2 ^5 in a major scale (re fa re so) then it does not feel as "off".

My question is whether what I am sensing has some kind of merit or basis? I'm trying to check my musical realities.





Edited by keystring (06/02/09 08:11 AM)

Top
#1210264 - 06/02/09 11:24 AM Re: Is it right? (harmony theory) [Re: keystring]
Harmosis Offline
Full Member

Registered: 02/15/07
Posts: 308
Loc: California
Originally Posted By: keystring
Wouldn't I have to learn how to use 2nd inversion? When 1st inversion was introduced I didn't just start to willy nilly stick in inverted chords: I learned a fair bit about them. Would that also be true for 2nd inversion?


Well, you don't need 2nd inversion chords to complete the exercise, but when you do learn them, yes, you should definitely learn how they're used.

Top
#1210291 - 06/02/09 12:18 PM Re: Is it right? (harmony theory) [Re: Harmosis]
keystring Online   content
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member

Registered: 12/11/07
Posts: 11674
Loc: Canada
Then as long as I'm with that book I should follow its restrictions and put in the 2nd inversion chords when I get there. In the meantime there is nothing wrong with seeing what the experts come up with.

Top
#1210295 - 06/02/09 12:26 PM Re: Is it right? (harmony theory) [Re: keystring]
Kreisler Offline


Registered: 11/27/02
Posts: 13789
Loc: Iowa City, IA
Restrictions are nice because they force you to really consider all the options and look for creative and alternate solutions.

Many theory texts begin with root-position-only and no-sevenths and other limitations. It makes things a bit frustrating in the beginning, but once you hit seventh chords, 43 and 42 inversions, the handling of 64 chords, the addition of non-harmonic tones, and chromatic harmony, you'll be happy you got all the basics out of the way. laugh
_________________________
"If we continually try to force a child to do what he is afraid to do, he will become more timid, and will use his brains and energy, not to explore the unknown, but to find ways to avoid the pressures we put on him." (John Holt)

www.pianoped.com
www.youtube.com/user/UIPianoPed

Top
#1210311 - 06/02/09 12:52 PM Re: Is it right? (harmony theory) [Re: Kreisler]
keystring Online   content
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member

Registered: 12/11/07
Posts: 11674
Loc: Canada
That's sort of how I hoped to see it.
What about my question re: copyright and posting some of the questions copied from the book? Edition is 1948, USA, and it is sold in stores presently.

Top
#1210374 - 06/02/09 02:41 PM Re: Is it right? (harmony theory) [Re: keystring]
Kreisler Offline


Registered: 11/27/02
Posts: 13789
Loc: Iowa City, IA
That could be a problem since it's still under copyright.

I'll do some digging and see if I can come up with something that's not under copyright...
_________________________
"If we continually try to force a child to do what he is afraid to do, he will become more timid, and will use his brains and energy, not to explore the unknown, but to find ways to avoid the pressures we put on him." (John Holt)

www.pianoped.com
www.youtube.com/user/UIPianoPed

Top
#1210375 - 06/02/09 02:44 PM Re: Is it right? (harmony theory) [Re: Kreisler]
keystring Online   content
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member

Registered: 12/11/07
Posts: 11674
Loc: Canada
Well, I could post the assignments I've done. Since they were done before getting any corrections (the first one I posted was #e) there will be mistakes, but that would be fine, would it not?

Top
#1210434 - 06/02/09 04:24 PM Re: Is it right? (harmony theory) [Re: keystring]
Gary D. Offline
4000 Post Club Member

Registered: 08/30/08
Posts: 4801
Loc: South Florida
Some of the exercises are so general or vague that the idea of someone complaining about copyright is pretty unlikely. For instance this last exercise is just 16 notes, total, with instructions to complete with figured bass plus limitations as to what chords you can use.

(But it pays to be careful…)

But there are people here who could make up similar exercises and would have excellent "answers". It seems to me that both Kreisler and Harmosis, just to name two people, are capable of not only of doing as well as your book but perhaps better, and partially because they don't have to worry about writing a "book" designed for the masses.

I love this topic because it allows me also to check my own solutions against people who know more than I do. smile

(For instance, I completed the same exercise, and it was essentially correct, but I rejected my own idea because of incorrectly thinking that parallel 4ths were not allowed and so completed the exercise only by going outside the rules (using 7 chords and 2nd inversions. I agree with others who say that IF these exercises can be completed with limitations, it's an excellent mental discipline.)


Edited by Gary D. (06/02/09 04:38 PM)
_________________________
Piano Teacher

Top
#1210593 - 06/02/09 08:23 PM Re: Is it right? (harmony theory) [Re: Gary D.]
Kreisler Offline


Registered: 11/27/02
Posts: 13789
Loc: Iowa City, IA
How about this, the San Francisco Conservatory has a number of harmony exercises online. I'll start a new post...
_________________________
"If we continually try to force a child to do what he is afraid to do, he will become more timid, and will use his brains and energy, not to explore the unknown, but to find ways to avoid the pressures we put on him." (John Holt)

www.pianoped.com
www.youtube.com/user/UIPianoPed

Top
#1210607 - 06/02/09 08:53 PM Re: Is it right? (harmony theory) [Re: Kreisler]
keystring Online   content
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member

Registered: 12/11/07
Posts: 11674
Loc: Canada
Kreisler, are there any resources for the "how's" of at least the simpler things? I saw "sequencing" - Horwood touched on it in about 3 lines and that was it.

Top
#1210613 - 06/02/09 09:01 PM Re: Is it right? (harmony theory) [Re: Kreisler]
Gary D. Offline
4000 Post Club Member

Registered: 08/30/08
Posts: 4801
Loc: South Florida
Originally Posted By: Kreisler
How about this, the San Francisco Conservatory has a number of harmony exercises online. I'll start a new post...

I think that's a great idea.

The advantage of working with some kind of exercise here and then discussing it is that you have the opportunity of seeing mulitple solutions. smile


Edited by Gary D. (06/02/09 09:01 PM)
_________________________
Piano Teacher

Top
#1264104 - 09/07/09 03:02 PM Re: Is it right? (harmony theory) [Re: keystring]
keystring Online   content
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member

Registered: 12/11/07
Posts: 11674
Loc: Canada
I've gone back to it and tried the last one in that chapter. Again, the melody was given. How is it?
By the way, I just got the first harmony book by Sarnecki and find it very clear and helpful.


Edited by keystring (09/07/09 03:04 PM)

Top
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 >

Moderator:  Piano World 
What's Hot!!
HOW TO POST PICTURES on the Piano Forums
-------------------
Sharing is Caring!
About the Buttons
-------------------
Forums Rules & Help
-------------------
ADVERTISE
on Piano World

The world's most popular piano web site.
-------------------
PIANO BOOKS
Interesting books about the piano, pianists, piano history, biographies, memoirs and more!
(ad) HAILUN Pianos
Hailun Pianos - Click for More
ad (Casio)
Celviano by Casio Rebate
Ad (Seiler/Knabe)
Knabe Pianos
Sheet Music
(PW is an affiliate)
Sheet Music Plus Featured Sale
(125ad) Dampp Chaser
Dampp Chaser Piano Life Saver
(ad) Lindeblad Piano
Lindeblad Piano Restoration
New Topics - Multiple Forums
Wow, check out this baby!
by Paul678
09/15/14 09:31 PM
Baby Grand new Hammer Knuckles.
by OscarL
09/15/14 08:30 PM
WEIRDEST passage in Chopin?
by Mark_C
09/15/14 08:16 PM
Cleaning my piano.
by pianosNpreschooler
09/15/14 07:24 PM
1981 SCHIMMEL GRAND
by mellie62
09/15/14 07:14 PM
Who's Online
125 registered (AmateurBob, ajames, 39 invisible), 1312 Guests and 12 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Stats
76209 Members
42 Forums
157551 Topics
2314151 Posts

Max Online: 15252 @ 03/21/10 11:39 PM
(ads by Google)

Visit our online store for gifts for music lovers

 
Help keep the forums up and running with a donation, any amount is appreciated!
Or by becoming a Subscribing member! Thank-you.
Donate   Subscribe
 
Our Piano Related Classified Ads
|
Dealers | Tuners | Lessons | Movers | Restorations | Pianos For Sale | Sell Your Piano |

Advertise on Piano World
| Subscribe | Piano World | PianoSupplies.com | Advertise on Piano World | Donate | Link to Us | Classifieds |
| |Contact | Privacy | Legal | About Us | Site Map | Free Newsletter | Press Room |


copyright 1997 - 2014 Piano World ® all rights reserved
No part of this site may be reproduced without prior written permission