Chopin Barry Harris analysis

[joe2758]

I was slogging my way through this Chopin piece, and I realized it fits really well with what Barry Harris taught about harmony.


1. e min
2. f#dim7 (which is of course the related diminished)
3. From the concept "lowering 3 consecutive notes of a diminished chord makes a min6 chord," the F#dim7 melts into dmin6 then to fmin6 which is a "sibling" to the dmin
4. The relative major, G6. Gdim7 is the biiidim in the key of G, which means it pulls back to G6 or to the subdom.
5.Here it goes to the subdom, C6. Now Amin6 which is the relative minor of C6 and the subdom in Eminor
6.f#dim7
7. D7 is derived from F#dim7
8. F6/dmin7 is working like a subdom of Amin. To relative dim of Amin, G#dim7
9.Amin6, the iv chord
10. Dom to subdom
11. same
12. dom, B7
13. Emin6
14. F#dim7
15. Instead of i, goes to related dim of Amin (G#dim7) then to E7 which is derived from that.
16. Edim 7, biii of Amin6, pulls further to the Amin, then very briefly to Amin
17.F#dim7 with a B in the bass to Emin
18. Amin6
19. Same+


Etc...the whole thing works.

[Christian Miller]

Here is a student of Barry's playing the stuffing out of this piece as a jazz tune:

[Christian Miller]

Here's a two guitar arrangement I did for the tune, based on a quote attributed to the man himself 'the only thing more beautiful than one guitar is two guitars'.

One thing I notice that's interesting is how much the piano left hand is based on what we might call '3 note shell grips', which of course are very natural to the guitar, and familiar to jazz guitarists. I haven't looked at it from a Barry perspective. In compositional terms the piece is a sophisticated variation on the Lamento schema.

EDIT: caught some dodgy chord symbols in here, so there may be more - apologies!

[joe2758]

I've been one upped to death, goodbye cruel world!

[Christian Miller]

I've been one upped to death, goodbye cruel world!

Well... I didn't analyse anything. Mostly it was a cut and paste job.

[ragman1]

I was slogging my way through this Chopin piece, and I realized it fits really well with what Barry Harris taught about harmony.

Blimey, I knew Barry Harris was influential but I didn't know it extended to Chopin.

[Christian Miller]

Well I mean we’ve been analysing Bach using theoretical tools developed in the late 19th century so why not?

Barry’s harmonic system is in part influenced by what he observed in Chopin. I always think of Brahms but Barry didn’t mention him at the classes I went to.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[joe2758]

You're comment got me thinking. It's interesting to me that Chopin died only 80 years before BH was born, and Chopin was only 39 when he died.

[Christian Miller]

You're comment got me thinking. It's interesting to me that Chopin died only 80 years before BH was born, and Chopin was only 39 when he died.

Chopin was extremely important to Barry, and he was studying his music with a piano teacher and giving recitals right up to his death IIRC.

[ragman1]

Ah, you missed my little joke but Guy got it, I think. The OP's quote suggests that Chopin was influenced by Barry rather than the other way round :-)

[Christian Miller]

Ah, you missed my little joke but Guy got it, I think. The OP's quote suggests that Chopin was influenced by Barry rather than the other way round :-)

I mean it’s not that funny, but it is an interesting philosophical observation

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GuyBoden]

Ah, you missed my little joke but Guy got it, I think. The OP's quote suggests that Chopin was influenced by Barry rather than the other way round :-)

I thought that 'Time Travel' was invented by 'HG Wells', but I'm obviously wrong, yet again.

[joe2758]

ffs...

[ragman1]

I mean it’s not that funny

Aw, come on, it was quite funny!

[joe2758]

I'm reading Chopin's biography at the moment. Most of us are aware he could and did improvise, but I'm getting the sense improvising was a large portion of his performances, and sometimes it seems the majority. A few times in the book so far when he's invited to play for a group, he asked the crowed for a theme to improvise on (a tune basically). He even improvised at his formal concerts. He always composed at the piano because the pieces started as improvisations. Pretty cool.

[pamosmusic]

I'm reading Chopin's biography at the moment. Most of us are aware he could and did improvise, but I'm getting the sense improvising was a large portion of his performances, and sometimes it seems the majority. A few times in the book so far when he's invited to play for a group, he asked the crowed for a theme to improvise on (a tune basically). He even improvised at his formal concerts. He always composed at the piano because the pieces started as improvisations. Pretty cool.

christian will know more but improvisation and composition were considered essential skills and standard at conservatories.

late romantic period I believe was when there started be the separation between performance and creation that we see today.

[Christian Miller]

christian will know more but improvisation and composition were considered essential skills and standard at conservatories.

late romantic period I believe was when there started be the separation between performance and creation that we see today.

Yes. As I understand it the transition started around the mid c19 with the switch to a style of piano teaching more centred around technique and interpretation of a written canon.

Obligatory En Blanc Et Noir plug

Barry would have appreciated him


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GuyBoden]

I'm reading Chopin's biography at the moment. Most of us are aware he could and did improvise, but I'm getting the sense improvising was a large portion of his performances, and sometimes it seems the majority. A few times in the book so far when he's invited to play for a group, he asked the crowed for a theme to improvise on (a tune basically). He even improvised at his formal concerts. He always composed at the piano because the pieces started as improvisations. Pretty cool.

Christian will know more but improvisation and composition were considered essential skills and standard at conservatories.

late romantic period I believe was when there started be the separation between performance and creation that we see today.

Yes, Ludwig van Beethoven was also a master solo improvisor. It was part of being a musician in that era, not like later Classical Teachings with no improvisation.

https://lmprovisation-in-beethoven-performances/

"During the late 18th and early 19th centuries, it was not uncommon for composers to infuse elements of improvisation into their performances, often using it as a tool to showcase their virtuosity and creative spontaneity. In Beethoven’s case, these extemporaneous expressions served as both an entertainment spectacle for his audiences and a personal canvas where his unbridled musical ideas could flourish."

"Beethoven’s ability to create and perform on-the-fly improvisations was a significant facet of his musical prowess."

As has been mentioned many times, the main difference with Jazz is that it was mainly a solo improvisation not a group improvisation.

Edit: The Improvisation Duel

Daniel Steibelt v Ludwig van Beethoven.

"These improvisation contests were a popular form of entertainment among Vienna’s aristocracy. One nobleman would support one virtuoso pianist, another would support the other. In the salon of one of the noblemen, the two pianists would compete with each other, each setting the other a tune to improvise on."

"Steibelt was to play first"

"When (Beethoven) he got there he picked up the piece of music Steibelt had tossed on the side, looked at it, showed it the audience, and turned it upside down! He sat at the piano and played the four notes in the opening bar of Steibelt’s music. He began to vary them, embellish them, improvising on them with both great virtuosity and supreme musical insight. He played on, imitated a Steibelt “storm”, unpicked Steibelt’s playing and put it together again, parodied it and mocked it."

The pianist who dared to challenge Beethoven to a musical duel in Vienna – and... - Classic FM

[Christian Miller]

Here's a some extracts from a book that gives an idea of the timeline

'Pierre-Joseph-Guillaume Zimmerman (1785–1853) was appointed to the Conservatoire faculty in 1816. As dedicated to composition as to piano, he studied with Cherubini and won first prizes in both piano and harmony. His piano students included Alkan, Franck, and Antoine François Marmontel (1816–1898). He stands out even in an age when so many musicians could do so many things so well. The notion, accepted today, that keyboard virtuosity and compositional fluency are irreconcilable pursuits that belong in separate academic departments, was unthinkable to Zimmerman.'

However, things shifted a few years later...

'The [Paris] Conservatoire’s first piano professor of great international fame was Henri Herz... Joining the faculty in 1842, Herz reinforced technical virtuosity as the cornerstone of the conservatory piano program. In making virtuoso technique the highest ideal, Herz joined Zimmerman in marginalizing improvisation and contributing to its demise among pianists. In Henri Herz’s New and Complete Pianoforte School of 1844, the author dissuades his readers from attempting public improvisation at all:

"Whatever may be the idea of the glory attached to improvisation when this glory is without alloy and free from charlatanism, the author would still advise his pupils to refrain from engaging in it, except in private, or before such intimate friends as shall have previously consented to pardon the imperfections attendant on instantaneous and unpremeditated performance. As to improvisation in public, to those who look upon it in a high point of view, and comprehend the conditions it imposes, it is the most dangerous ordeal to which a pianist can expose himself, provided he abandons himself entirely to the sway of his imagination.

If we are aware of our real interest, we should not think of elevating ourselves to so high a standard; for many ambitious though talented pianists have, by one hazardous effort, descended below mediocrity. Even Hummel, the first and unrivalled improvisatore of the present day, has sometimes failed to sustain his usual degree of excellence."

Herz was himself an improviser; as was still common (although in decline) among concert virtuosi of his day, he occasionally asked for themes from the audience upon which to extemporize variations. Why he saw this skill as unfit to pass on to his students, one can only speculate.'

Mortensen, John J.. Improvising Fugue: A Method for Keyboard Artists (p. 211). (Function). Kindle Edition.

[GuyBoden]

Here's a some extracts from a book that gives an idea of the timeline

'Pierre-Joseph-Guillaume Zimmerman (1785–1853) was appointed to the Conservatoire faculty in 1816. As dedicated to composition as to piano, he studied with Cherubini and won first prizes in both piano and harmony. His piano students included Alkan, Franck, and Antoine François Marmontel (1816–1898). He stands out even in an age when so many musicians could do so many things so well. The notion, accepted today, that keyboard virtuosity and compositional fluency are irreconcilable pursuits that belong in separate academic departments, was unthinkable to Zimmerman.'

However, things shifted a few years later...

'The [Paris] Conservatoire’s first piano professor of great international fame was Henri Herz... Joining the faculty in 1842, Herz reinforced technical virtuosity as the cornerstone of the conservatory piano program. In making virtuoso technique the highest ideal, Herz joined Zimmerman in marginalizing improvisation and contributing to its demise among pianists. In Henri Herz’s New and Complete Pianoforte School of 1844, the author dissuades his readers from attempting public improvisation at all:

"Whatever may be the idea of the glory attached to improvisation when this glory is without alloy and free from charlatanism, the author would still advise his pupils to refrain from engaging in it, except in private, or before such intimate friends as shall have previously consented to pardon the imperfections attendant on instantaneous and unpremeditated performance. As to improvisation in public, to those who look upon it in a high point of view, and comprehend the conditions it imposes, it is the most dangerous ordeal to which a pianist can expose himself, provided he abandons himself entirely to the sway of his imagination.

If we are aware of our real interest, we should not think of elevating ourselves to so high a standard; for many ambitious though talented pianists have, by one hazardous effort, descended below mediocrity. Even Hummel, the first and unrivalled improvisatore of the present day, has sometimes failed to sustain his usual degree of excellence."

Herz was himself an improviser; as was still common (although in decline) among concert virtuosi of his day, he occasionally asked for themes from the audience upon which to extemporize variations. Why he saw this skill as unfit to pass on to his students, one can only speculate.'

Mortensen, John J.. Improvising Fugue: A Method for Keyboard Artists (p. 211). (Function). Kindle Edition.

"Why he saw this skill as unfit to pass on to his students, one can only speculate."

Shall we 'speculate'?

Maybe, improvisation was/is difficult to teach in a formal Classical Music Conservatoire.

[Christian Miller]

It's not quite true to say improvisation died out in 20th century European concert music. It was apparently still not unusual to hear pianists improve preludes to pieces and the French organ tradition retained its improvisational practices. But obviously it was to most intents and purposes rare and limited.

I do wonder how jazz would be perceived differently if concert music had retained its improvisation tradition. I actually think our perception of jazz remains distorted by the cultural assumptions and hang ups of the European concert tradition.

There's also a narrative (quite disingenuous in my view) that Glenn Gould makes here that facility in improvisation leads to glib and lightweight musical ideas. I think he is dead wrong about Mozart (and seems to be playing him badly almost on purpose), and it's also worth pointing out that Bach was also a very highly rated improviser and used lots of diatonic sequences, so Gould as entertaining as he is here, is not exactly being self consistent. I do enjoy the iconoclasm though.

[Christian Miller]

"Why he saw this skill as unfit to pass on to his students, one can only speculate."

Shall we 'speculate'?

Maybe, improvisation was/is difficult to teach in a formal Classical Music Conservatoire.

They'd been teaching it in the conservatoires since the seventeenth century. But the conservatoires of the era were different to the higher education institutions of today and remained so until well into the 20th century. They started off as orphanages and ended up as trade schools. For example, Debussy entered the Paris conservatoire at 12.

A really important point that Mortensen makes is that there was no historical canon of great works for the musicians of the eighteenth century. While they were interested in older music, the performances of the time were all of new works. It's hard to call this contemporary performance tradition in any sense 'classical music'. It was all the latest fashionable thing for rich people, or works for the church (that often echoed trends in the latest posh music, esp. opera). A lot of this stuff was by Italian composers, largely forgotten today.

To what I know it seems like a cultural shift. There was an increase in popular interest in music of the past - Mendlesohn's performances of Bach for example - and the establishment of the Romantic idea of the Musical Artist (as opposed to Artisan) no doubt contributed towards the shift towards the idea of a Canon of great works. The meaning of 'masterpiece' and 'genius' shifted. The burgeoning middle class were more and more interested in playing music for their own entertainment, and studying 'music appreciation' at colleges. This tended to make professional composition and improvisation seem less like the impressive mastery of the tools of a trade and more like some sort of miraculous expression of God given talent. (Most people still live in this mindset with regards to musicians, but Jazz players will get it.)

This all fit in with the rising tide of German nationalism in terms of exactly who got to be in the Canon (so no to Salieri, yes to Mozart and Salieri's student Beethoven) - and the Romantic zeitgeist more generally.

[Christian Miller]

I mean when it comes to how much 19th century German nationalism affected out perception of music history, one need look no further than the spellcheck on my browser:

[GuyBoden]

I mean when it comes to how much 19th century German nationalism affected out perception of music history, one need look no further than the spellcheck on my browser:

Obviously, we have to blame Peter Shaffer's play 'Amadeus' and the subsequent film. Which was entertainment not a documentation of the known facts.

"Salieri’s influence on Beethoven extended beyond formal instruction, encompassing professional endorsement and collaborative efforts. This support was vital in Beethoven’s early career, providing him with the credibility and exposure necessary to succeed in Vienna’s competitive musical landscape."
Antonio Salieri and Ludwig van Beethoven: Myths and Realities - LVBEETHOVEN.COM

Edit: I had Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart Piano concertos on an endless repeat as a teenager.

[Christian Miller]

Yeah Shaffer did my boy dirty, but he was only repeating what was by then a well established tradition. Pushkin had already presented the narrative in dramatic form in his Mozart and Salieri (1830), and as I understand it the rumours of his poisoning Mozart had started in Salieri’s lifetime, with him even giving voice to it in his late life mental decline.

No reason to suppose it’s true. If anything it seems Salieri was generous and encouraging, happy to use his considerable position and influence to champion others, including some of Mozart’s music.

Makes a great story though!

Play a random piece of Mozart back to back with one of Salieri and I doubt most people who haven’t been exposed to a lot of Galant/classical era music would be able to tell which is which. His music is excellent and everyone wrote in a similar style.

But Salieri is just one of a whole bunch of composers who are now forgotten - Paisiello and Durante were just as famous in their day.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk