Some Thoery Help

Posted by: MichaelN

Some Thoery Help - 11/19/12 07:25 AM

Hello!

I have been playing piano recreationally for almost 10 years now, and I am starting to wonder about thoery and so-forth. Firstly, I have a few questions.

In my fiddling about with various chords, I have come across certain progressions, which I quite like, however I would like to know how these are more formally written (and they might be very common progressions too, I'm not sure.)

(For the purposes of this, I will consider the lowest C on the piano, to be C0, the next C up, C1 etc, with C3 being Middle C, and C7 being the highest note on the piano (at least on my piano). (The note 2 semi-tones above C3 would be considered D3)

For my first progression, it goes as follows. (For simplicity sake, imagine that each is held for a whole bar)

The first two notes in all progressions below, are the root 8va (root octave chords); These are played by the Left Hand (LH). The other three notes proceeding are played by the right hand (RH).
In the first chord below, the Eb1 and Eb2 are the LH, the other three are right hand.

Eb1 Eb2 G2 Bb2 Eb3
Bb0 Bb1 F2 Bb2 D3
C0 C1 G2 C3 Eb3
Bb0 Bb1 F2 Bb2 D3

What I would like to know about this, is what is meant when peopel say dominant chords, subdominant chords etc, augmented, diminished etc (I know about minor and major) and if any of those are in this progression. I also know about chord inversions, and generally can realise them. For anyone who has knowledge on this topic, insight would be greatly appreciated. Also, is this B flat minor, or E flat major? Or is it another one?

For my next progression, it is double the length, still imagine every one is held for one bar, for simplicity sake.


Bb1 Bb2 D3 F3 Bb3 (Bb major???? Maybe D minor augmented????)
F1 F2 C3 F3 A3 (F major 2nd inversion)
C2 C3 G3 C4 E4 (C major 2nd inversion)
D1 D2 Bb3 D4 F4 (Bb major 2nd inversion?? Maybe D minor augmented 2nd inversion??)
(This could also be a Bb1 Bb2 on the root octave chord)


Bb1 Bb2 D3 F3 Bb3 (Bb major???? Maybe D minor augmented????)
F1 F2 C3 F3 A3 (F major 2nd inversion)
C1 C2 G2 C3 E3 (C major 2nd inversion) (8va lower than before)
D1 D2 A2 D3 F3 (Same as before, RH is down 8va, with A rather than Bb3 (diminished chord???)



Thanks. Those are my progressions which I have (hopefully) created. I would REALLY appreciate any help which someone could give to me in relation to some chord theory.
Thanks. (Excuse my notation if it is clumsy)
Posted by: Dave Horne

Re: Some Thoery Help - 11/19/12 08:58 AM

It would be infinitely easier for you to go to the library and sign out a music theory textbook or buy one online.

I and many others here could explain what you want to know but it would be far more productive for you to read the first three or four chapters of any college theory textbook for your answers.

I'm not being unkind, I'm actually doing you a favor.

Posted by: btb

Re: Some Thoery Help - 11/19/12 10:55 AM

19 November 2012
First post welcome to the Forum ... G’day.

You’ve gone to a lot of trouble to spell out some “progressive chords” ... but if the object of the exercise is to ham a bunch of chords in a fixed finger spread, you might just be wasting your time.

This approach is largely adopted by guitarists who settle for a strumming 6 LH chords to back up the real fun of picking at the melody.

However, in the long run most of us work on memorising some classic (ie. Fur Elise, etc) and steadily build up an ever expanding repertoire ... making the diligent practice devoted to each a very necessary
firm foundation upon which to expand our keyboard adventures.

Hoping the above is seen to be positive.

Kind regards, btb

PS Looking forward to the 5-day Cricket Test in Adelaide on Thursday when our blokes will be fighting it out with you Aussies.
Posted by: Mark_C

Re: Some Thoery Help - 11/19/12 12:25 PM

Originally Posted By: MichaelN
....What I would like to know about this, is what is meant when peopel say dominant chords, subdominant chords etc, augmented, diminished....

Well I think we can answer this part for him anyway....

"Dominant" means the "V" (five) chord in whatever key you're in. Like, in C major (or minor), "dominant" would be G major (or G7 if it's the dominant 7th, which means adding F to the chord). By the way it's called "five" because it's the 5th note up from C (C is counted as the first note). As you probably know, this is a very important chord in any key, really the most important chord except for the "tonic" (which is what the C chord is called in C major or minor).

"Subdominant" means the "IV" (four) chord -- i.e. the F chord if the key is C. (Sometimes the II chord is also considered a subdominant.)

"Augmented" means that the 5th note of the chord is raised a half step. Like, an augmented C major chord would have a G# instead of G.

"Diminished" is a very special chord, and very common, but probably harder to describe than the augmented. All the notes of a diminished chord are a minor-3rd apart -- like, if it starts on C, the other notes would be Eb, Gb, and A. (Those notes can be anywhere on the piano, so the intervals between the notes that you play can be greater than a minor 3rd.) It's a very special chord because of how versatile it is: it can lead to almost any other chord, by taking any of the notes either up or down to the next chord.

BTW the first progression is in Eb major. I didn't look at the others.
Posted by: Steve Chandler

Re: Some Thoery Help - 11/19/12 01:02 PM

Mark was kind enough to respond so I'll simply add one other bit. When you outlined Bb, D and F that's a Bb chord (certainly not d minor augmented). When Dave suggested you purchase a theory book he was using the philosophy of teaching a man to fish (as opposed to giving him a fish) and feeding him for life.

If you have an interest in writing songs or music then this is stuff you need to understand. What you've asked is fairly basic (okay very basic) and we simply don't have the resources nor patience to take you through an entire course of theory and harmony. Now if you have issues understanding something you'll probably come up with a more interesting question which we're probably more likely to answer. One example which you stumbles upon is why isn't D, F, A# (to spell it correctly) a d minor augmented chord?

So now I'll actually answer that question. Technically, it is! A# is an augmented fifth from D, but you'll never hear it that way. What you actually hear is a first inversion Bb chord, because the A# is enharmonically equivalent to Bb and Bb, D and F spell a Bb major chord. Put the D in the lowest voice simply inverts the harmony (first inversion). If the F was in the bass then it would be the more exotic (slightly rarer) second inversion.

Ah the joys of music theory!
Posted by: btb

Re: Some Thoery Help - 11/20/12 08:38 AM

"Ah the joys of music theory!"

An indirect way of saying the chappie doesn't know what the heck he is talking about! ...

but all the blather sounds frightfully intellectual.
Posted by: Dave Horne

Re: Some Thoery Help - 11/20/12 09:21 AM

Some folks think that theory takes the magic away from music ... and I think it adds to its appreciation.

Theory is the common language we use to communicate with each other.
Posted by: ando

Re: Some Thoery Help - 11/20/12 11:39 AM

Originally Posted By: btb
"Ah the joys of music theory!"

An indirect way of saying the chappie doesn't know what the heck he is talking about! ...

but all the blather sounds frightfully intellectual.


If you switch off the intellect, you can't discuss anything. Music theory isn't that complicated if you understand it. Once you do, it's the tool you use to memorise vast amounts of material, to sight read efficiently, and to be able to improvise reliably over chord changes. Makes me laugh when people imply that knowing less is going to be beneficial.
Posted by: keystring

Re: Some Thoery Help - 11/20/12 11:51 AM

It is a balance. Music theory can be a bunch of well learned symbols and formulas. You can end up being able to correctly shove notes around on the page, ace theory exams, and analyze existing music accordingly without sensing a thing. You can already have an internal understanding of the patterns in music which theory represents which gives you a first rough sense, and then get to theory to make sense of it. You might start with the theory and get the sense of it afterward, in reverse order of the previous.
Posted by: bennevis

Re: Some Thoery Help - 11/20/12 12:46 PM

I'd say music theory is the equivalent of grammar. You can do without grammar in everyday chat - you might even be understood some, or most of the time grin. But you won't be able to express yourself beyond the most rudimentary, when you can't even string a complete sentence properly using the right tenses, with adjectives etc in the right places, etc.

Many pop singers use only very basic harmony in their songs, often no more than 3 or 4 chords - though of course many enlist the help of an arranger to spice up the music. There's nothing to stop anyone from playing around on the piano or guitar to see which chord 'fits' the tune, but how much better if, just by hearing the tune in your head, you already know the best harmony (and alternative harmonies) to use, and can write down the music straightaway, as well as reproduce it on the piano or play the guitar along with singing the tune. And you can do that if you know the basics of music theory.
Posted by: Steve Chandler

Re: Some Thoery Help - 11/20/12 02:37 PM

It seems the OP has stumbled upon one of the perennial discussions on Pianist Corner, whether knowing theory is beneficial. The initial responses were along the lines of we'll help a little but the subject is too big to cover in an online forum. Then btb made his pithy response to my post and we were on the track of the value of knowing music theory. I well understand that the subject can be intimidating and those who can make what they consider perfectly good music without deep knowledge of theory consider the time investment (to learn theory) to not be worth it. Yet always in these discussions it seems no one who has deep knowledge of theory shares that opinion. Whose opinion is more valid?
Posted by: GeorgeB

Re: Some Thoery Help - 11/20/12 03:16 PM

Nvm. what I wrote is too confusing
Posted by: Damon

Re: Some Thoery Help - 11/20/12 06:44 PM

Originally Posted By: Mark_C
(Sometimes the II chord is also considered a subdominant.)


By whom?
Posted by: debrucey

Re: Some Thoery Help - 11/20/12 08:07 PM

Sometimes you will find IIb instead of IV in an authentic cadence. IIb-V-I instead of IV-V-I. In that sense it is functioning as a subdominant in that it's preparing the dominant, but you should be careful not to confuse this with the subdominant degree of the scale.
Posted by: didyougethathing

Re: Some Thoery Help - 11/20/12 09:11 PM

Originally Posted By: debrucey
Sometimes you will find IIb instead of IV in an authentic cadence. IIb-V-I instead of IV-V-I. In that sense it is functioning as a subdominant in that it's preparing the dominant, but you should be careful not to confuse this with the subdominant degree of the scale.


Isn't that what's referred to (in jazz jargon at least) as a "tritone substitution?" Maybe not, the way I learned it was a bII7 chord subs out a normal V7 chord. For example Db7 - Cmaj instead of G7-Cmaj.

This is going off-topic fast! crazy
Posted by: ando

Re: Some Thoery Help - 11/20/12 09:52 PM

Originally Posted By: didyougethathing
Originally Posted By: debrucey
Sometimes you will find IIb instead of IV in an authentic cadence. IIb-V-I instead of IV-V-I. In that sense it is functioning as a subdominant in that it's preparing the dominant, but you should be careful not to confuse this with the subdominant degree of the scale.


Isn't that what's referred to (in jazz jargon at least) as a "tritone substitution?" Maybe not, the way I learned it was a bII7 chord subs out a normal V7 chord. For example Db7 - Cmaj instead of G7-Cmaj.

This is going off-topic fast! crazy


I think the "IIb" in this case is from a slightly obscure nomenclature used in some countries of British origin in which the inversions of a chord are described as IIa, IIb, IIc etc. So a IIb is a II chord using the bass note of the subdominant. A bII is a whole different ballgame as the chord is built on a completely different tone. I still wouldn't call "IIb" a subdominant, but you could call it a subdominant substitution or equivalent.
Posted by: keystring

Re: Some Thoery Help - 11/20/12 09:56 PM

I have an old book with Ib, IIb etc. Ia means root position, Ib = 1st inversion (C/E), Ic = 2nd inversion (C/G). There are no capital and small letter conventions for major and minor. If music is in C major, and you see IIb then it means Dm/F and you're just supposed to know that the 2nd degree chord in a major key is minor. Not my favorite system but the first I studied.
Posted by: GeorgeB

Re: Some Thoery Help - 11/20/12 11:02 PM

II in C major is a D major chord.
ii in C major is a D minor chord.


using capital letters does make a difference.
Posted by: GeorgeB

Re: Some Thoery Help - 11/20/12 11:09 PM

Originally Posted By: ando
Originally Posted By: didyougethathing
Originally Posted By: debrucey
Sometimes you will find IIb instead of IV in an authentic cadence. IIb-V-I instead of IV-V-I. In that sense it is functioning as a subdominant in that it's preparing the dominant, but you should be careful not to confuse this with the subdominant degree of the scale.


Isn't that what's referred to (in jazz jargon at least) as a "tritone substitution?" Maybe not, the way I learned it was a bII7 chord subs out a normal V7 chord. For example Db7 - Cmaj instead of G7-Cmaj.

This is going off-topic fast! crazy


I think the "IIb" in this case is from a slightly obscure nomenclature used in some countries of British origin in which the inversions of a chord are described as IIa, IIb, IIc etc. So a IIb is a II chord using the bass note of the subdominant. A bII is a whole different ballgame as the chord is built on a completely different tone. I still wouldn't call "IIb" a subdominant, but you could call it a subdominant substitution or equivalent.


He's not saying chord IIb is a subdominant. He is saying that chord IIb can act like a subdominant leading to V.
Example: instead of your usual IV-V-I cadence, what commonly appears is IIb-V-I... (or with the added seventh IIb7-V-I
Posted by: ando

Re: Some Thoery Help - 11/20/12 11:11 PM

Originally Posted By: GeorgeB
Originally Posted By: ando
Originally Posted By: didyougethathing
Originally Posted By: debrucey
Sometimes you will find IIb instead of IV in an authentic cadence. IIb-V-I instead of IV-V-I. In that sense it is functioning as a subdominant in that it's preparing the dominant, but you should be careful not to confuse this with the subdominant degree of the scale.


Isn't that what's referred to (in jazz jargon at least) as a "tritone substitution?" Maybe not, the way I learned it was a bII7 chord subs out a normal V7 chord. For example Db7 - Cmaj instead of G7-Cmaj.

This is going off-topic fast! crazy


I think the "IIb" in this case is from a slightly obscure nomenclature used in some countries of British origin in which the inversions of a chord are described as IIa, IIb, IIc etc. So a IIb is a II chord using the bass note of the subdominant. A bII is a whole different ballgame as the chord is built on a completely different tone. I still wouldn't call "IIb" a subdominant, but you could call it a subdominant substitution or equivalent.


He's not saying chord IIb is a subdominant. He is saying that chord IIb can act like a subdominant leading to V.
Example: instead of your usual IV-V-I cadence, what commonly appears is IIb-V-I... (or with the added seventh IIb7-V-I


Read my post. I said the same thing.
Posted by: Mark_C

Re: Some Thoery Help - 11/21/12 12:50 AM

Originally Posted By: Damon
By whom?

I take it you'll feel your question was answered. grin
Posted by: Damon

Re: Some Thoery Help - 11/21/12 02:56 AM

Originally Posted By: Mark_C
Originally Posted By: Damon
By whom?

I take it you'll feel your question was answered. grin


Not really. An authentic cadence is just V, I, the sub-dominant is optional. I've never heard anyone refer to II as the sub-dominant before and still haven't, definitively. But that's okay if you want to think of it that way, from my perspective, it is unnecessarily confusing.
Posted by: Dave Horne

Re: Some Thoery Help - 11/21/12 04:24 AM

Guys, I just skimmed the last few posts ... you make it even more confusing when you write II (for a diatonic triad built on scale degree two in major) when ii clearly indicates the flavor of the triad as being minor.

I see a II chord (in the cadence context) and I immediately think five of five or a major triad built on scale degree two.
Posted by: bennevis

Re: Some Thoery Help - 11/21/12 04:53 AM

IIb-V-I or IV-V-I is all old hat. Gimme Ic-V-I (or Ic-V7-I) anyday - much more 'final' grin. Mendelssohn uses it a lot in Elijah etc....
Posted by: keystring

Re: Some Thoery Help - 11/21/12 05:33 AM

Isn't it "PREdominant" rather than SUBdominant in this discussion about II?
Posted by: Bobpickle

Re: Some Thoery Help - 11/21/12 05:34 AM

oh the joys of nomenclature and polychords
Posted by: Dave Horne

Re: Some Thoery Help - 11/21/12 05:40 AM

Originally Posted By: keystring
Isn't it "PREdominant" rather than SUBdominant in this discussion about II?


It depends if you're above or below the equator.
Posted by: Damon

Re: Some Thoery Help - 11/21/12 08:11 AM

Originally Posted By: Dave Horne
indicates the flavor of


Hey, let's use musical terms to describe music, okay? laugh
Posted by: GeorgeB

Re: Some Thoery Help - 11/21/12 09:05 AM

Originally Posted By: bennevis
IIb-V-I or IV-V-I is all old hat. Gimme Ic-V-I (or Ic-V7-I) anyday - much more 'final' grin. Mendelssohn uses it a lot in Elijah etc....

one could even have IIb7-Ic-V-I for a great final cadence :p
Posted by: debrucey

Re: Some Thoery Help - 11/21/12 09:39 AM

Originally Posted By: Damon
Originally Posted By: Dave Horne
indicates the flavor of


Hey, let's use musical terms to describe music, okay? laugh


It's a word that is used often in a musical context, just like 'colour'.
Posted by: btb

Re: Some Thoery Help - 11/21/12 09:42 AM

21 November 2012
We’ve been trapped into the web of a bum five line stave with neums (neither of which give an accurate graphic image of note pitch and duration) ever since Crazy Horse Guido d’Arezzo (Middle Ages) came up with the antiquated garbage.

But to give the joker his fair due ,.. the chappie wanted to give members of his choir a visual indication of the ups and downs in the chants ... adding symbols indicating note duration.

And since then we stumble on and make bland statements like that of bennevis (no insult intended) with “I’d say music theory is the equivalent of grammar”...
(whatever that means).

The truth is that we have not broken out of our notation hoodoo ... and hammer away at out our pianos, using endless repetition of an obsolescent notation system ... to eventually sound quite good.

But the solution to prima vista reading lies in a notation system which accurately indicates the pitch and duration of notes (vertically and horizontally) ... linking the symbols into a clearly
defined map of the music.

IPSO FACTO

Sadly there's no going back.
Posted by: Mark_C

Re: Some Thoery Help - 11/21/12 10:47 AM

Originally Posted By: Damon
Originally Posted By: Mark_C
Originally Posted By: Damon
By whom?

I take it you'll feel your question was answered. grin
Not really. An authentic cadence is just V, I, the sub-dominant is optional. I've never heard anyone refer to II as the sub-dominant before and still haven't, definitively. But that's okay if you want to think of it that way, from my perspective, it is unnecessarily confusing.

Consider the context of what I said.

The OP was wanting to get a basic idea of what these terms mean when he sees them, and that's what I was trying to give him. Sure, if you're talking narrow definitions, what you said is right. But as per the posts by some other people, the term "subdominant" is indeed sometimes used for II chords, when they serve a subdominant-type of function (I understand that you haven't come across the usage) and I thought it would be good to mention that for him in case he came across such a usage. I didn't get into "but strictly speaking it's not 'really' a subdominant, and BTW it would usually be just for versions of II like II6 or II65" for what I think are obvious reasons for such a context.
Posted by: Mark_C

Re: Some Thoery Help - 11/21/12 10:51 AM

Originally Posted By: Dave Horne
Guys, I just skimmed the last few posts ... you make it even more confusing when you write II (for a diatonic triad built on scale degree two in major) when ii clearly indicates the flavor of the triad as being minor.

I see a II chord (in the cadence context) and I immediately think five of five or a major triad built on scale degree two.

Your objection and your concept go against standard notation and terminology. The standard meaning of II, at least in classical music, is how it's been used here. When it's the major chord functioning as "V of V," it's called "V of V." If it's not, it's the minor chord.
Posted by: Dave Horne

Re: Some Thoery Help - 11/21/12 11:29 AM

Now I'm confused. smile

I was under the impression that a diatonic ii chord in major was being labeled II. I must have misunderstood what was being conveyed.

My standard notation goes something like this:

C Major: ii, V, I = Dm, G, C


II, V, I = D, G, C ... and I probably would have written ... [V] of V, V, I ... back in the university.
Posted by: ando

Re: Some Thoery Help - 11/21/12 11:38 AM

Originally Posted By: Dave Horne
Now I'm confused. smile

I was under the impression that a diatonic ii chord in major was being labeled II. I must have misunderstood what was being conveyed.

My standard notation goes something like this:

C Major: ii, V, I = Dm, G, C


II, V, I = D, G, C ... and I probably would have written ... [V] of V, V, I ... back in the university.



In that context it amounts to the same thing, but there is a place for upper and lower case II chords because the modified II doesn't always lead to V. It depends on the context. I learned advanced harmony at university and they still teach V/V in terms of functional harmony analysis, but modern composition doesn't always fit in the neat boxes, so being able to sharpen or flatten any chord by putting # or b in front of the roman numeral, as well as being able to use an upper or lower case numeral for the chord gives total flexibility to describe the harmony.

As to whether a chord is described as an applied (secondary) dominant to another chord depends somewhat on the skill of the analyst to notice it, and the preference of nomenclature. For me seeing a II V I will suggest a V/V V I, but either description sits fine with me.
Posted by: ando

Re: Some Thoery Help - 11/21/12 11:39 AM

Originally Posted By: btb
21 November 2012
We’ve been trapped into the web of a bum five line stave with neums (neither of which give an accurate graphic image of note pitch and duration) ever since Crazy Horse Guido d’Arezzo (Middle Ages) came up with the antiquated garbage.

But to give the joker his fair due ,.. the chappie wanted to give members of his choir a visual indication of the ups and downs in the chants ... adding symbols indicating note duration.

And since then we stumble on and make bland statements like that of bennevis (no insult intended) with “I’d say music theory is the equivalent of grammar”...
(whatever that means).

The truth is that we have not broken out of our notation hoodoo ... and hammer away at out our pianos, using endless repetition of an obsolescent notation system ... to eventually sound quite good.

But the solution to prima vista reading lies in a notation system which accurately indicates the pitch and duration of notes (vertically and horizontally) ... linking the symbols into a clearly
defined map of the music.

IPSO FACTO

Sadly there's no going back.


Sorry, but that's just pure bat crazy talk. I have to question your level of understanding of music theory and skill at the piano if you can hold this view.
Posted by: Dave Horne

Re: Some Thoery Help - 11/21/12 11:45 AM

It depends on the context. I learned advanced harmony at university and they still teach V/V in terms of functional harmony analysis, but modern composition doesn't always fit in the neat boxes, so being able to sharpen or flatten any chord by putting # or b in front of the roman numeral, as well as being able to use an upper or lower case numeral for the chord gives total flexibility to describe the harmony.

Yes, context is everything ... and I qualified myself by writing the following ... I see a II chord (in the cadence context) and I immediately think five of five or a major triad built on scale degree two.

I've always liked figured bass since it was so pure, if you know what I mean. No analysis per se, just the intervals.
Posted by: chrisbell

Re: Some Thoery Help - 11/21/12 11:52 AM

The ii is the Subdominant parallel. (Sp) (you Englsih speakers call it the Super Tonic)
The II (and usually then a II7) is the Dominants Dominant. (DD)
All according to glorious Funktionstheorie.

Up here in the cold, cold North amongst Polar Bears we learn; Funktionsanalys
(Functional harmony)
Tonic=T, Subdominant parallel=Sp, Dominant parallel = Dp, Subdominant=S, Dominant=D, Tonic parallel=Tp,

(Tonic, Super Tonic, Mediant, Subdominant, Dominant, Submediant)

or Steganalys (Step Analysis or Scale Degree)
I, ii, iii, IV, V, vi, vii

Just thought you should know.
smile
Posted by: bennevis

Re: Some Thoery Help - 11/21/12 11:58 AM

Originally Posted By: GeorgeB
Originally Posted By: bennevis
IIb-V-I or IV-V-I is all old hat. Gimme Ic-V-I (or Ic-V7-I) anyday - much more 'final' grin. Mendelssohn uses it a lot in Elijah etc....

one could even have IIb7-Ic-V-I for a great final cadence :p


While on the subject of interesting harmonies, and bearing in mind the reindeer-and-bearded-man-in-red-suit season grin coming upon us, I wonder which harmonization of 'O Come All Ye Faithful' (Adeste fideles) people here will be singing in a few weeks' time. Here in UK, David Willcocks's harmonization is almost universal, even if choral conductors may write their own descants and harmonizations for the last two verses. Willcocks use I-II7d-Vb for the first line, but in Germany and most other countries, I've only ever heard I-Vb. (In case anyone doesn't know, in the key of G, that II7d chord is G-C-E-A from bass to soprano/treble: in effect, the low G is being used like a suspension before dropping down to F# for Vb, thereby also avoiding consecutive fifths and octaves which would otherwise occur with the awful I-II-Vb).

And how about that all-time favorite 'Silent Night'/Stille Nacht, which has been subjected to all sorts of arrangements/derangements over the years? (And let's not forget that the tune as we know it today isn't quite the same as what Franz Xavier Gruber wrote....) There's the simple and straightforward Willcocks and Philip Ledger (who sadly passed a few days ago) versions, all the way up to the weird and wonderful Jan Sandström's harmonization/arrangement.
Posted by: ando

Re: Some Thoery Help - 11/21/12 12:02 PM

Originally Posted By: Dave Horne


I've always liked figured bass since it was so pure, if you know what I mean. No analysis per se, just the intervals.


Yes, figured bass is good too. We had to be fluent in all of the styles of representing harmony to pass our harmony course. They all have their benefits. It takes a bit longer to be fluent with figured bass but it's very efficient.
Posted by: bennevis

Re: Some Thoery Help - 11/21/12 12:37 PM

Originally Posted By: btb


And since then we stumble on and make bland statements like that of bennevis (no insult intended) with “I’d say music theory is the equivalent of grammar”...
(whatever that means).



None taken, my dear fellow. grin

But a word of advice, if I may: it's better to keep your ignorance to yourself rather than boast about it on a public forum...... laugh
Posted by: Dave Horne

Re: Some Thoery Help - 11/21/12 12:50 PM

And how about that all-time favorite 'Silent Night'/Stille Nacht, which has been subjected to all sorts of arrangements/derangements over the years? (And let's not forget that the tune as we know it today isn't quite the same as what Franz Xavier Gruber wrote....) There's the simple and straightforward Willcocks and Philip Ledger (who sadly passed a few days ago) versions, all the way up to the weird and wonderful Jan Sandström's harmonization/arrangement.

Well, as along as this door was opened ...

the incomparable George Shearing

Posted by: GeorgeB

Re: Some Thoery Help - 11/21/12 01:14 PM

Originally Posted By: ando
Originally Posted By: Dave Horne


I've always liked figured bass since it was so pure, if you know what I mean. No analysis per se, just the intervals.


Yes, figured bass is good too. We had to be fluent in all of the styles of representing harmony to pass our harmony course. They all have their benefits. It takes a bit longer to be fluent with figured bass but it's very efficient.

the thing I love about figured bass if that you don't need to necessarily think in a.certain key.

At the music college in London where I am now (rather not name it) I choose this analysis elective where we get to analyse harmonically and contrapuntally several of the great works but instead of analyzing it with your usual I-V notation we do it by analysing the relationship between the different voices and we end up
with some figured bass like notation below the score
.

I find it easier to understand it that way than to write a series of Roman numerals.

Plus with Roman numerals just tell you what harmony there is, whilst figured bass tells you how the lines in the music progress.
Posted by: Steve Chandler

Re: Some Thoery Help - 11/21/12 02:49 PM

Originally Posted By: Dave Horne

the incomparable George Shearing


That was marvelous, simply marvelous! Thanks for posting.
Posted by: Dave Horne

Re: Some Thoery Help - 11/21/12 05:10 PM

Steve, George Shearing died last year at the age of 91. I was amazed at just how little was said about him here and in the Dutch press.

That My Ship album is one of the very finest examples of piano playing. He plays a Bösendorfer and the piano (at least through the CD and headphones) sounds gorgeous.

Not only did he posses incredible technique, he also had a very high musical IQ. The highest compliment I can pay is this, I forget I'm listening to a person or a piano and only hear the music. He was an extraordinary musician. This particular arrangement can bring tears to my eyes. I hear him play and I think I should simply stop practicing.

He also seemed like he was a great human being as well. I only wish I could have heard him live.
Posted by: Janus K. Sachs

Re: Some Thoery Help - 11/21/12 08:43 PM

So, will this thread become yet another distinguished accomplishment of . . . something or other?
Posted by: btb

Re: Some Thoery Help - 11/22/12 02:19 AM

Hi bennevis,

Thanks for the jibes to my Guido d’Arezzo explanation on Nov.21

“Sorry, but that's just pure bat crazy talk.
I have to question your level of understanding of music theory
and skill at the piano if you can hold this view.”

And later
“But a word of advice, if I may: it's better to keep your ignorance to yourself rather than boast about it on a public forum”

But then ... as the trite old saying goes

“Where ignorance is bliss ... ‘tis folly to be wise.”
(and by Crikey you qualify ... par excellence!!)

But listen to this theory double-talk by debrucey

“Sometimes you will find IIb instead of IV in an authentic cadence. IIb-V-I instead of IV-V-I. In that sense it is functioning as a subdominant in that it's preparing the dominant, but you should be careful not to confuse this with the subdominant degree of the scale.”

Elucidate do!! ... might have to take up Rocket-Science to crack this one.


Posted by: bennevis

Re: Some Thoery Help - 11/22/12 07:04 AM

Originally Posted By: btb
Hi bennevis,

Thanks for the jibes to my Guido d’Arezzo explanation on Nov.21

Elucidate do!! ... might have to take up Rocket-Science to crack this one.




I do concur with all my heart, my dear fellow. Sometimes, talking about the intricacies of musical theory (and let's not even touch atonalism with a barge pole of any length) leads one into alleyways which a rocket scientist would baulk at. And I'm an expert on this, for I'd personally constructed an Airfix model of Apollo 11 (with the help of my father) when I was just 9 grin.