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

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!

A quick question on this one:


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

If you guys, who are experts, are finding it hard to do this exercise under those restrictions, then I feel better about my struggles. 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.

OK, here's a better (if less interesting) one, with all the rules and restrictions intact!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 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.

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.

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

Thanks guys. 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?


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?

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?
KS

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.

And sure, go ahead and post some of the other exercises, I'd be happy to have a look.

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.

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.

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.

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.