Chopin Barry Harris analysis

[Tal_175]

You're contradicting yourself - you believe that you can speak on behalf of most people in your judgement of these intervals as 'bland and vanilla' while at the same time admitting that there is a market for these things.

I am not "admitting" I am simply stating the obvious. There is a market for Kenny G's music. That is not a contradiction. Bland and vanilla can be desirable in certain contexts.

[Tal_175]

Here is a good demonstration of what I am talking about (somewhat on topic also with the thread in a way):

[Christian Miller]

People get super bent out of shape by the parallel fifth thing.

Probably because they were told not to do it with no context, or learned about the prohibition without any further info given.

Fifths thicken up a line. The reason one would deal with them carefully in part writing is because they tend to make the parts sound less independent. In fact you can get in trouble with things like direct fifths and octaves which are any perfect consonance arrived at by similar motion.

But if that isn’t what you are going for - that’s fine. Use them to make one line thicker. Which is what every rock guitar player does.

There are loads of parallel fifths in acoustic guitar… the basic cowboy and bar voicings have them. They are all over guitar clean or driven. Anytime you play basic E,A,D chords.

Take Yellow by Coldplay. Or whatever big acoustic/clean rock anthem you care to name.

Brahms thought that parallel fifths were a symptom of other problems in harmony writing. In fact he had a collection of examples from famous composers. Mozart fifths are a well known example.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Tal_175]

I think when one talks about things like avoid notes, or avoid parallel fifths in writing arrangements, some assume that these are religious statements rather then intended to convey good general principles. Music is full of good general principles and violations of them because context is important. When one talks about good voice leading for harmony for example, one isn't implying that rock rhythm guitar is a pinnacle demonstration of that.

When Peter Bernstein says to avoid 5ths in root position drop 2 for example, he isn't contradicting with Coldplay.

[James W]

I am not "admitting" I am simply stating the obvious. There is a market for Kenny G's music. That is not a contradiction. Bland and vanilla can be desirable in certain contexts.

This is what I believe is called shifting the goal posts.

Your original assertion which I took issue with was: 'Most people intuitively find harmonization using parallel movements of 5th and octaves boring.'

Now, putting aside whether or not you can talk on behalf of most people, I would say this assertion is wrong because one of the most popular songs of all time, that Nirvana tune, features fifths and octaves.

But then you admitted that there's a market for these things, now you admit that bland and vanilla can be desirable in certain contexts.

I suppose it's only a matter of time before you tell me that 'boring' can actually sometimes be a good thing!

[James W]

People get super bent out of shape by the parallel fifth thing.

Probably because they were told not to do it with no context, or learned about the prohibition without any further info given.

Fifths thicken up a line. The reason one would deal with them carefully in part writing is because they tend to make the parts sound less independent. In fact you can get in trouble with things like direct fifths and octaves which are any perfect consonance arrived at by similar motion.

But if that isn’t what you are going for - that’s fine. Use them to make one line thicker. Which is what every rock guitar player does.

There are loads of parallel fifths in acoustic guitar… the basic cowboy and bar voicings have them. They are all over guitar clean or driven. Anytime you play basic E,A,D chords.

Take Yellow by Coldplay. Or whatever big acoustic/clean rock anthem you care to name.

Brahms thought that parallel fifths were a symptom of other problems in harmony writing. In fact he had a collection of examples from famous composers. Mozart fifths are a well known example.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is pretty awesome:

[CliffR]

This is what I believe is called shifting the goal posts.

It's fine to shift the goal posts provided you don't shift both posts in the same direction.

[Christian Miller]

I think when one talks about things like avoid notes, or avoid parallel fifths in writing arrangements, some assume that these are religions statements rather then intended to convey good general principles. Music is full of good general principles and violations of them because context is important. When one talks about good voice leading for harmony for example, one isn't implying that rock rhythm guitar is a pinnacle demonstration of that.

When Peter Bernstein says to avoid 5ths in root position drop 2 for example, he isn't contradicting with Coldplay.

You have completely privoted from your initial assertion, which is why I didn't address you directly, not much point.

[Christian Miller]

This is pretty awesome:

Debussy won the Prix des Rome for academic fugue, and then was like, Nah.

No wonder the professors hated him. He was meant to destroy the Sith, not join them!

[2bornot2bop]

This is pretty awesome:

Piano. There’s never a dull moment. Welcome to my world.

Thanks to the OP for establishing this thread. Like Beethoven, Chopin was way before his time…

[Christian Miller]

Ok, I haven't looked at figured bass in 20 years, but here is an example of a shot at the Chopin one you posted. Then, I went back and retroactively put chord names.

You can see I don't try to force everything into a chord, a lot of it is non-harmonic tones resolving here and there. I appreciate that these moving voices are the key.

But, a harmonic progression still results, and what that will allow me to do is improvise using embelishments/non harmonic tones in various voices.

I sketched this out without a guitar handy, but I bet it sounds ok. I also bet if someone was masterful with ornamentations it would convincingly sound like Chopin.


Attachment 124723

TBH I find it a lot more work to write these symbols out then it is to just play the figures. There's so many option in how to name a chord sometimes. Sometimes it can be hard to work out where the root is. Is this an incomplete voicing of something bigger? Which are the non-chord tones? What do I leave out of the chord chart? It starts seeming like an exercise in metaphysics.

Whereas in figured bass, there's only one solution, which is naming the constituent intervals in the sonority. You can put the structural 'non-harmonic' notes in as well, like that big ole G# over the Am/C chord.

If you know your intervals, it's not so hard. And if you don't know your intervals, this is an excellent opportunity to learn them. Start in two or three voices would be my advice, which is exactly what the IJzerman book does.

[joe2758]

I can see how reading figured could become relatively easy, but at that point you're even more tied down than using the changes from a standard.

It seems like an intermediary between reading a classical piece and improvising.

It could develop into a mindset where you're improvising a bass line and filling in the harmonies in real time, but then the process isn't much different than thinking in "changes"

[Tal_175]

This is what I believe is called shifting the goal posts.

It's funny I feel the same way about your argument so far. I gave you specific reasons why your example didn't work. You didn't address any of my reasons and move to generalized claims.

[Tal_175]

You have completely privoted from your initial assertion, which is why I didn't address you directly, not much point.

My initial point was parallel fifths and octaves being considered vanilla. I didn't pivot from that point at no point.

[James W]

It's funny I feel the same way about your argument so far. I gave you specific reasons why your example didn't work. You didn't address any of my reasons and move to generalized claims.

The reasons you gave are not valid. Fifths and octaves are fifths and octaves, irrespective of whether they're played on guitar using distortion and accompany a melody.

[Tal_175]

The reasons you gave are not valid. Fifths and octaves are fifths and octaves, irrespective of whether they're played on guitar using distortion and accompany a melody.

I hear distorted power chords quite differently (less individualized) than the fifth interval movements in harmonic arrangements in other contexts. To me, distortion power chords have distinct effects that isn't relevant to this harmonic discussion unless you want to hyper focus on technicality without context.

[Christian Miller]

I can see how reading figured could become relatively easy, but at that point you're even more tied down than using the changes from a standard.

It seems like an intermediary between reading a classical piece and improvising.

It could develop into a mindset where you're improvising a bass line and filling in the harmonies in real time, but then the process isn't much different than thinking in "changes"

Yes, it’s a halfway point. Figured partimenti. The figured basses are there to teach you. It’s the language those musicians use to talk about harmony. But it’s also a slightly different way to talk about harmony.

If you go through Fenaroli it’s two books of figured basses, then he discusses the rules, and then it’s two books of unfigured basses. But that’s partimenti which is just one aspect of it.

The closest thing to blowing over changes are things like ground bass, a set of baroque variations, playing a double on a dance movement (so a variation on the same bass) - it’s similar but not quite the same in subtle ways.

Otoh if someone wanted me to play a solo on the E minor prelude like Peter Beets back on page 1 of this thread, probably would appreciate a chord chart lol. Because it IS different somehow.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[joe2758]

So this came from playing around with the Chopin figured bass Christian posted. I don't know if I did it right, and there's no rhythm or non-harmonic tones...but I sort of think I could make something with it?

I ordered the figured bass/counterpoint book. You are hell bent on making a nerd out of me lol

https://youtube.com/shorts/ltIYJCABJ...U5MiRKEhzFE0ew

[Christian Miller]

So this came from playing around with the Chopin figured bass Christian posted. I don't know if I did it right, and there's no rhythm or non-harmonic tones...but I sort of think I could make something with it?

I ordered the figured bass/counterpoint book. You are hell bent on making a nerd out of me lol

https://youtube.com/shorts/ltIYJCABJ...U5MiRKEhzFE0ew

That’s the sort of thing, and sorry


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[joe2758]

Damn, I just don't get it. Everything I see online is basically "it's all about voice leading, not just chords." of course you can't just chunk through block chords. But...if you have 3 voices weaving in and out through beautiful polyphonic harmony...how is it not still chords?

I can write a 3 voice polyphonic thing, but it weaves through a chord progression, and the music happens when the progression is masked by non-harmonic tones and voice leading. How can the voices just move around with no vertical consideration? doing all chromatic half steps one voice at a time works pretty well, but isn't that just one device?

How is Chopin not thinking about chords? He mostly plays chords with good voice leading and non-harmonic tones. How is German 6th, Neapolitan, secondary dominant etc not chords? How are they just a series of voices running around and incidentally land there sometimes? The lecturers I see are saying "he modulates by common tones," I guess, but I see over and over in my analyses the use of common CHORDS.

I'm trying, but I guess it's over my head.

[pamosmusic]

Damn, I just don't get it. Everything I see online is basically "it's all about voice leading, not just chords." of course you can't just chunk through block chords. But...if you have 3 voices weaving in and out through beautiful polyphonic harmony...how is it not still chords?

I can write a 3 voice polyphonic thing, but it weaves through a chord progression, and the music happens when the progression is masked by non-harmonic tones and voice leading. How can the voices just move around with no vertical consideration? doing all chromatic half steps one voice at a time works pretty well, but isn't that just one device?

How is Chopin not thinking about chords? He mostly plays chords with good voice leading and non-harmonic tones. How is German 6th, Neapolitan, secondary dominant etc not chords? How are they just a series of voices running around and incidentally land there sometimes? The lecturers I see are saying "he modulates by common tones," I guess, but I see over and over in my analyses the use of common CHORDS.

I'm trying, but I guess it's over my head.

It's not that there are no chords or that the chords don't matter, but that the chords are incidental to the voice-leading. Not incidental, like it's random coincidence. The voice-leading itself is really considered and the consonances and dissonances too, but the block harmonies are not always top of mind (and certainly not before that vocabulary and framework was in common useage)

Saxes are a useful way of thinking about it because trying to wrap your head around the way that a composer from two hundred years ago thought about harmony can be weird.

But like ... why are the saxes playing a C7(b9, #5) chord here?

Well, imagine you block chord out that section and Tenor 1 ends up with the fifth three times in a row and Alto 2 ends up with the root three times in a row. That kind of sucks for a saxophone section to try and swing, so to make it easier for them to play and articulate, you give tenor 1 G Ab G and Alto 2 C Db C ... so at a certain spot, you have a C7b9#5, but it's not some color that was an extremely considered artistic choice. It was the result of melodic considerations.

That's a super simplified example, but lots of really intense cool passing chords and unusual harmonic movement can be explained that way.

[joe2758]

Well I agree that all the cool stuff comes from non-harmonic tones. You described chromatic neighboring tones on the C7 from my perspective. But if all I have is C and G notes, I don't know the chord is C7, it could be an Abmaj7 for all I know

[joe2758]

So then what's more, I start the Improvising for classical music book and the first thing you do is remove the figuration from Bach preludes and make them into block chords


Ok so now I have cowboy chords, I can take a figuration from Sor and make a piece in 5 minutes. The voice leading is fine so why do I need to think about counterpoint? I can also add any non-harmonic tones I desire

[pamosmusic]

So then what's more, I start the Improvising for classical music book and the first thing you do is remove the figuration from Bach preludes and make them into block chords


Ok so now I have cowboy chords, I can take a figuration from Sor and make a piece in 5 minutes. The voice leading is fine so why do I need to think about counterpoint? I can also add any non-harmonic tones I desire

Im going to guess Christian didn’t write that book.

[pamosmusic]

Well I agree that all the cool stuff comes from non-harmonic tones. You described chromatic neighboring tones on the C7 from my perspective. But if all I have is C and G notes, I don't know the chord is C7, it could be an Abmaj7 for all I know

Yeah that’s because they are non harmonic tones or whatever. But my point is that they didn’t get there because of the chord. They got there because the melody needed them. What the chord ended up being was happenstance