Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Composer's Lounge Is it right? (harmony theory)

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

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.

Third try - changes to measures 2 & 3.


Keystring

(attempt to sharpen image - edit)

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 viiº 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.

Thank you, Harmosis - I'll get on to it. This is *very* much appreciated.

A few questions:

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.

KS

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.

Thank you, Harmosis. Everything is clear now and I'll post the results when I've worked it through.

KS

Sorry, I discovered I have another question that I need to straighten out:


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

Yes, I use the movable-Do system, so the tonic is always "Do."

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. 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

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 ?

Deleted - I forgot to transcribe some of the accidentals. Corrected version coming shortly. (sorry )

(link works again)
Fourth try - with corrections pointed out by Harmosis, and worked on measures 5 - 8.




KS

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

Thank you once again!
For:

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.

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.

Yes, that's right.

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.

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.