Chopin Barry Harris analysis

[joe2758]

I agree the C7 altered whatever chord is is happenstance, but not the C7 itself. That's the book Christian recommended

[pamosmusic]

I agree the C7 altered whatever chord is is happenstance, but not the C7 itself. That's the book Christian recommended

This terminology is new. We use it. Most of music history didn’t.

It also would be like Db-6 or something.

The C7 is the context we put it in. We don’t need to.

[joe2758]

I dunno, you could call it Dave (I mean, wouldn't the figured bass be a c in the bass and literally a 7?) , but to me it's still a chord that suggests where the voices can lead smoothly to next. I'm not really trying to make an argument here, I want to understand it in whatever way will get me to my goal, but I haven't been able to grasp it yet. I want to, that's why I ordered $100 worth of books Christian recommended.

[pamosmusic]

I dunno, you could call it Dave (I mean, wouldn't the figured bass be a c in the bass and literally a 7?) , but to me it's still a chord that suggests where the voices can lead smoothly to next. I'm not really trying to make an argument here, I want to understand it in whatever way will get me to my goal, but I haven't been able to grasp it yet. I want to, that's why I ordered $100 worth of books Christian recommended.

Im not trying to argue either. You said you didn’t understand but it sounds like you do. It’s just a super unfamiliar perspective.

If you’re looking for voiceleading first to give you things that don’t have chord symbols, that’s not super common. But it will definitely get you into territory you wouldn’t come quickly from simple harmonic analysis.

Thats not because the chords are inherent or living in the ether or something. It’s because we’ve spent a long time categorizing groups of notes by those names and gotten really really really good at fitting them into frameworks we developed that way.

[joe2758]

Thanks, man. You'll always be a teacher to me. just for what it's worth by argument I meant more like trying to convince anyone of my perspective, just trying to explain what I haven't grasped yet. I know you weren't arguing!

[joe2758]

Im not trying to argue either. You said you didn’t understand but it sounds like you do. It’s just a super unfamiliar perspective.

If you’re looking for voiceleading first to give you things that don’t have chord symbols, that’s not super common. But it will definitely get you into territory you wouldn’t come quickly from simple harmonic analysis.

Thats not because the chords are inherent or living in the ether or something. It’s because we’ve spent a long time categorizing groups of notes by those names and gotten really really really good at fitting them into frameworks we developed that way.

Seriously, you'd think this would clear it up, but I just can't see it! I'm getting sort of frustrated with myself. Thanks to you and Christian for being patient with me.

Let me think "out loud" here.

1. with two voices I can play simple counterpoint by using 6ths and 10ths without really thinking about chords. So I got that.
2. Harmonizing the scale in 3 voices in parallel motion I can do without thinking about chords.
3. I guess here I'm stuck: With 3 voices I need to use inversions to get smooth voice leading/contrary motion, so how do I do that without thinking about chords?

edit: bbbuuutttttt that's using a single 6th diminished scale, 1 chord essentially. To get moving harmony, even in 2 voices, I would still need to think C6 counterpount, F6 counterpoint, Dm6 counterpoint. Is this what I'm missing here??

[James W]

3. I guess here I'm stuck: With 3 voices I need to use inversions to get smooth voice leading/contrary motion, so how do I do that without thinking about chords?

Sounds like you need to study counterpoint, where you're not thinking in terms of functional harmony and progressions etc. but rather intervals, particular kinds of motion etc. in other words where the linear thrust of the voices give rise to the chords rather than vice versa.

[joe2758]

Sounds like you need to study counterpoint, where you're not thinking in terms of functional harmony and progressions etc. but rather intervals, particular kinds of motion etc. in other words where the linear thrust of the voices give rise to the chords rather than vice versa.

I do need to study it (I ordered a bunch of books), but I wouldn't say I'm clueless. Have looked at many of my posts? take a look at 41 and 65 maybe? That's counterpoint all just thinking "c", not chords at all. That's counterpoint, but not harmonic movement. How do I take that counterpoint, and create forward motion without considering which guidepost I am going toward?

[James W]

I do need to study it (I ordered a bunch of books), but I wouldn't say I'm clueless. Have looked at many of my posts? take a look at 41 and 65 maybe? That's counterpoint all just thinking "c", not chords at all. That's counterpoint, but not harmonic movement. How do I take that counterpoint, and create forward motion without considering which guidepost I am going toward?

Counterpoint creates harmonic movement as a by-product of the movement of the voices, rather than as their sole raison d'etre if that makes sense. Also, from what I know counterpoint is (or can be at the least) goal-directed, so I'm not sure why or what you mean by creating forward motion without considering a guidepost?

[Tal_175]

I do need to study it (I ordered a bunch of books), but I wouldn't say I'm clueless. Have looked at many of my posts? take a look at 41 and 65 maybe? That's counterpoint all just thinking "c", not chords at all. That's counterpoint, but not harmonic movement. How do I take that counterpoint, and create forward motion without considering which guidepost I am going toward?

I think when you say counterpoint, you mean polyphony. This is a bit pedantic perhaps but it eliminates confusion. I am sure you know all this but counterpoint implies that each line can hold its own melodically and there is typically an imitative interaction between each melody line (other creative possibilities exist obviously). In polyphony, you can have a line that provides a harmonic support to a melody line. For example a bass and guitar duo typically makes two part polyphony but not necessarily counterpoint. Typical bass lines don't stand on their own as distinct melodies. Some bass players alternate supportive bass lines with more counterpuntal melodies or ostinato figures. The musical effect of counterpoint vs harmonic support roles sound dramatically different.

[joe2758]

Counterpoint creates harmonic movement as a by-product of the movement of the voices, rather than as their sole raison d'etre if that makes sense. Also, from what I know counterpoint is (or can be at the least) goal-directed, so I'm not sure why or what you mean by creating forward motion without considering a guidepost?

In the counterpoint (or whatever it is) that I referenced above you can see that there is harmonic movement, namely tension release tension release tension release. I don't need to think about chords for that. What I don't have is the pulling of harmony that goes through a secondary dominant, to a subdominant, to a dominant, not to mention modulations. I can do that stuff, but all I'm saying is I don't get how it's possible without having a chord, a "guide post," that forms a target for the voices to head toward.

[joe2758]

I think when you say counterpoint, you mean polyphony. This is a bit pedantic perhaps but it eliminates confusion. I am sure you know all this but counterpoint implies that each line can hold its own melodically and there is typically an imitative interaction between each melody line (other creative possibilities exist obviously). In polyphony, you can have a line that provides a harmonic support to a melody line. For example a bass and guitar duo typically makes two part polyphony but not necessarily counterpoint. Typical bass lines don't stand on their own as distinct melodies. Some bass players alternate supportive bass lines with more counterpuntal melodies or ostinato figures. The musical effect of counterpoint vs harmonic support roles sound dramatically different.

Sure, by those definitions all I mean is that polyphony needs to be based on counterpoint. Isn't that what I did in post 41 (except I guess I called the polyphony counterpoint)? Can you guys maybe try to explain in reference to one of the examples I posted?

[James W]

I think when you say counterpoint, you mean polyphony. This is a bit pedantic perhaps but it eliminates confusion. I am sure you know all this but counterpoint implies that each line can hold its own melodically and there is typically an imitative interaction between each melody line (other creative possibilities exist obviously). In polyphony, you can have a line that provides a harmonic support to a melody line. For example a bass and guitar duo typically makes two part polyphony but not necessarily counterpoint. Typical bass lines don't stand on their own as distinct melodies. Some bass players alternate supportive bass lines with more counterpuntal melodies or ostinato figures. The musical effect of counterpoint vs harmonic support roles sound dramatically different.

I don't think so. When you say 'polyphony' I think you mean 'homophony'.

Although I'm aware that this is opening a can of worms and could well precipitate a tedious debate.

[James W]

In the counterpoint (or whatever it is) that I referenced above you can see that there is harmonic movement, namely tension release tension release tension release. I don't need to think about chords for that. What I don't have is the pulling of harmony that goes through a secondary dominant, to a subdominant, to a dominant, not to mention modulations. I can do that stuff, but all I'm saying is I don't get how it's possible without having a chord, a "guide post," that forms a target for the voices to head toward.

You have chords in contrapuntal textures, you're just treating them, thinking of and conceiving of them differently than you would in a homophonic texture.

[Christian Miller]

Seriously, you'd think this would clear it up, but I just can't see it! I'm getting sort of frustrated with myself. Thanks to you and Christian for being patient with me.

Let me think "out loud" here.

1. with two voices I can play simple counterpoint by using 6ths and 10ths without really thinking about chords. So I got that.
2. Harmonizing the scale in 3 voices in parallel motion I can do without thinking about chords.
3. I guess here I'm stuck: With 3 voices I need to use inversions to get smooth voice leading/contrary motion, so how do I do that without thinking about chords?

edit: bbbuuutttttt that's using a single 6th diminished scale, 1 chord essentially. To get moving harmony, even in 2 voices, I would still need to think C6 counterpount, F6 counterpoint, Dm6 counterpoint. Is this what I'm missing here??

Could go back and forth on this alll day but may I suggest cranking open Ijzerman, working on the examples and seeing where that gets you?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Tal_175]

I don't think so. When you say 'polyphony' I think you mean 'homophony'.

No, I don't mean homophony. For example a solo accompanied by a walking bassline outlining chords would be polyphony, not homophony. These terms refer to the texture. Whether a polyphonic texture constitutes counterpoint or not depends on compositional elements and the interaction of the lines (not whether they outline harmony).

[joe2758]

I know Christian, you're right. I'm getting the book tomorrow. You know how curiosity can be. Thanks for taking the time you have already taken on this thread!

[joe2758]

You have chords in contrapuntal textures, you're just treating them, thinking of and conceiving of them differently than you would in a homophonic texture.

I agree. Where is my treatment, thinking, and conceiving at odds with writing, and eventually improvising, this music?

[pamosmusic]

I agree. Where is my treatment, thinking, and conceiving at odds with writing, and eventually improvising, this music?

I don't think it is?

Learning to write without worrying about the chords is super useful because you can find yourself in really interesting territory when you're not bound by what chord should be next. In small group writing, that often comes up in writing for the bass. Pedal points or super smooth melodic bass-lines end up carrying a lot tension or turning into slash chords or dense harmonies, because they hold together on their own, regardless of what else is going on up there.

I'll also add the caveat here. I'm not a counterpoint guy. I love listening to baroque music and have a pretty decent theoretical knowledge of counterpoint stuff from school, but I don't write it much and haven't super studied it in depth.

It's really useful in improvising functional harmony too though. I think when I'm looking at a set of chord changes, I'm thinking way more about guide-tone lines and about dyads and note groups that voice-lead through the chords and where to put the tension, than I am about the actual chord symbols.**

That doesn't mean you ignore the chords, but it just means you're more interested in their function -- what is this group of chords doing here, and can I make sure I'm doing the same job.

**A lot of Shorter and Monk in particular make more sense that way.

[pamosmusic]

I've been teaching what sort of turned into a composition class with eighth and ninth graders and this was what the band class came up with one day.

It's interesting because these are kids who don't know enough harmony for me to talk much past "do you want it to move or sit still here" or "do you want that dissonance, or would you like it to sound prettier?"

But without thinking about chords, they ended up with something broadly functional (the tuba player had an idea of where he wanted things to move, which really helped) and very pretty and complex sounding.

Band Class Composition 7.22.25 second ending.m4a - Google Drive

[James W]

No, I don't mean homophony. For example a solo accompanied by a walking bassline outlining chords would be polyphony, not homophony.

No. It's interesting that you use the word 'accompanied' - in the definition of 'Homophony' in the Oxford Companion to Music: 'A term used to describe music in which one part is clearly melodic, the others accompanimental and chiefly chordal'. (Bold font added by me).

Whether a polyphonic texture constitutes counterpoint or not depends on compositional elements and the interaction of the lines (not whether they outline harmony).

Really? Do you have a source that can support this distinction you make? It's not a distinction I would recognise - they are similar terms if not synonymous - 'polyphony' tends to have more early music vibes about it.

[Tal_175]

No. It's interesting that you use the word 'accompanied' - in the definition of 'Homophony' in the Oxford Companion to Music: 'A term used to describe music in which one part is clearly melodic, the others accompanimental and chiefly chordal'. (Bold font added by me).

Polyphony does not require one of the voices to be be accompaniment. It is agnostic to the role of the lines. I happened to give an example where one of the lines is a bass line.

Really? Do you have a source that can support this distinction you make? It's not a distinction I would recognise - they are similar terms if not synonymous - 'polyphony' tends to have more early music vibes about it.

Google AI says:
Counterpoint and polyphony are related but distinct musical concepts. Polyphony refers to music with two or more simultaneous melodic lines, while counterpoint is a compositional technique that involves the interaction and relationship between those melodic lines. In simpler terms, polyphony describes the texture of the music, while counterpoint describes how the different melodic lines are composed and related to each other.

[James W]

Polyphony does not require one of the voices to be be accompaniment. It is agnostic to the role of the lines. I happened to give an example where one of the lines is a bass line.

Nope, if a line is accompanying the texture therefore is homophonic.

Google AI says:
Counterpoint and polyphony are related but distinct musical concepts. Polyphony refers to music with two or more simultaneous melodic lines, while counterpoint is a compositional technique that involves the interaction and relationship between those melodic lines. In simpler terms, polyphony describes the texture of the music, while counterpoint describes how the different melodic lines are composed and related to each other.

Sure this chimes with the definition I know (as crappy a source as I regard google AI). But I still would regard a polyphonic texture as consisting of counterpoint - even if they describe different facets of the music.

[Tal_175]

Sure this chimes with the definition I know (as crappy a source as I regard google AI). But I still would regard a polyphonic texture as consisting of counterpoint - even if they describe different facets of the music.

Sure, you can have your own definitions. But let's just say polyphony necessitating counterpoint is not how these terms are used universally.

[James W]

Sure, you can have your own definitions. But let's just say polyphony necessitating counterpoint is not how these terms are used universally.

Ok. Can you point me in the direction of some music that is polyphonic but not consisting of counterpoint? Because the only example you tried to illustrate your distinction didn't work, when it was revealed that a texture featuring some kind of accompaniment was in fact homophonic.