A rehearsal with a Bach chorale

Piccinesco wrote:

but the most "difficult" passage seems to be that of the penultimate bar: at the top I wrote E minor, but from the 2nd beat I intend it as E major, because the G (even if it is natural and not altered) seems like a delay on the 3rd of E major; the presence of the G# suggests this, but I wouldn't want that, since A major is the key in the finale, that D# is just a chromaticism.

We need to see Piccinesco, I'll try to take a look at it...

Piccinesco wrote:

More than anything, what seems strange to me is the transition to measure 13 with that 6/4 VI - 7VII of A minor, assuming it is correct; for the moment I have only interpreted this passage in a single way; and from the 2nd beat of measure 14: two consecutive sevenths don't seem right to me, but the more "difficult" transition seems to be that of the penultimate measure: I wrote E minor at the top, but from the 2nd beat I interpret it as E major, because the G (even if it is natural and not altered) seems like a suspension on the 3rd of E major; the presence of the G# suggests this, but I wouldn't want that, since A major is the key in the finale, that D# is just a chromaticism.

Hi. In the analysis of Bach chorales (or otherwise), one must always take into consideration where Luther and his followers took the melodies to which they then associated the German text. Not a few, in fact, are of antecedent origin, sometimes paraphrases of Gregorian chant, sometimes traditional medieval melodies even of profane origin, and so on. Some are therefore modal in structure: emblematic cases are "Christ ist erstanden" in which, to make it tonal, the seventh degree is altered (obviously it wasn't like that in the Middle Ages), or some chorales in which the key signature has one fewer flat (I recall from memory no. 2 of the Barenreiter viola edition), or others in which the modal origin means they must be interpreted in a double tonality (A minor - C major).

Coming to yours, at m.13 you can quite easily interpret the F# in the bass as a passing note to give momentum to the subsequent G#: I wouldn't consider it a VI46.

Regarding the two consecutive sevenths at m.14, I see no problems; on the contrary: they are placed rather well and do not make movement errors.

On the penultimate measure, I would say it is very simple to read the D# as an augmented 4th, which often comes from the 6, creating, among other things, that kind of error some mark called a false relation (but there it is not an error since you arrive on a tension chord, the diminished seventh) such as VI, IV#7dim, V, Picardy third I (and not A major). The use of the 9-8 suspension (G - F#) between VI and IV# is interesting, perfectly regular as it resolves to a consonance (the third of the diminished seventh).

I am not an expert on chorales; I know that Zedef loves them very much, so I ask for forgiveness if I am mistaken.

High up on the staff, you mark many modulations or different interpretations. I have seen your other analyses and I know that you often mark everything, even doubts or hypotheses. So, first of all, I wanted to understand if those markings are actual modulations or just "interpretative hypotheses."

That said, the chorale is not such a "wandering" genre in a harmonic sense. There can be chromatic moments, okay, but every episode generally has a key or serves as a bridge between one key and another. In the first two episodes, you write "Am Gm C". Furthermore, you give the first chord of the piece as the only Am chord, but by the second one you already change keys... doesn't that seem risky to you? To me, it seems obvious that that A chord is the VI of C and that the F#, as Zedef said, is a somewhat "modalizing" alteration, not even that rare: the "tonicization" of the dominant is common, and so is the augmented fourth within a hypothetical Lydian mode. Especially since the same pattern is repeated.

I am only responding now because I had no signal.

So, I thank Zedef and Thallo; I'll start by responding to Thallo:

unfortunately, I have constant doubts; in passages like these, I struggle to interpret them as temporary, all of this (taking as an example the modulation hypothesized at measure 1) despite reaching the I degree of C major at measure 4, with a sequence of degrees that leaves no doubt; but it is precisely when there are "temporary" alterations that doubts arise, which is why I interpreted that A at the beginning of measure 1 as a possible II degree of G major.

There is another reason: when I was doing four-part exercises a few years ago, it would happen that I anticipated the new key (which was also sometimes not nearby), something I often do when writing my own pieces, and in some cases, even while performing an exercise correctly, I would make the new key "start" (in practice, the moment of modulation) too close to the latter, instead of "preparing" it; I say this because it is a further reason why I initially hypothesized the II degree of G major.

I need to "soften up" a bit on this, otherwise interpretations risk always leading me astray.

Response to Zedef: I had (here they are again) doubts about whether there could be some "modality," or "modal function," something that happened the first time I tried to analyze another Bach chorale; I sent it to my teacher (who has nothing to do with what I mess up, in fact, Simone can testify) who followed me as best he could until a few years ago, and he told me that I had chosen one of the most complicated ones to interpret (quite clearly); it went worse than this.

I didn't get very far, and some questions remained unanswered, but I was doing well, and losing a point of reference is a big problem.

I haven't looked at everything, but in the first few measures a couple of gross errors stand out.

The chord marked 6VII at the end of m. 1 is actually a V36.

The chord marked 42IV at the end of m. 2 is instead a V24.

The chord marked 6III at the beginning of m. 3 is a I36.

...but Red depends on whether one performs functional analysis or not. Many use labeling like III6, based on the bass note... rather than I6. Functionally it is a I, but in the bass you have a III of the scale. What is correct? I have always wondered about this; for me, it's enough to provide the necessary premises.

Ettore wrote:

Many use the label III6, based on the bass note... rather than I6. Functionally it is a I, but in the bass you have a III of the scale.

Many??? I don't know this type of harmonic analysis at all... it seems to me like a kind of paraphrase of a figured bass. Are there any reference texts?

And then what do harmonic functions have to do with it? This is degree theory.

RedScharlach wrote:

I haven't looked at everything, but in the first measures, a couple of gross errors stand out.

The chord marked 6VII at the end of m. 1 is actually a V36.

These are errors for those who understand them as such; I am comfortable with this way of interpreting them:

when I was doing exercises, in the beginning I had two little mirrors: one was the written bass, and below it was the real bass, the one that determines the harmony.

So if I take, for example, the 6III and I am in C major, automatically if I have written E in the bass, the root of the chord is C.

I understand what you mean, but let's take, for example, the 4_2 V; I start from the V degree of a hypothetical key, let's say G major:

so D, I go up a second (D-E), I go up a 4th (D-E-F#-G), I get D-E-G, which does not correspond to the actual harmony that constitutes this chord (without the 5th, B, of the chord itself).

If I write 4_2 IV (moreover, having the IV degree written in the bass, C), I start from C and go up a 2nd and get D, I go up a 4th and have an F#, still without the 5th (in this case) I have D-F#-C, exactly the 3 notes

fundamental for the constitution of this dominant chord in 1st inversion [3rd inversion/3rd relative], the D which is the root, the F# which is the leading tone of G major, the C which is the seventh of the chord.

You see that it all adds up, both the written note (and real one, C), and the distance between the notes themselves, which corresponds to the numerical [notation], there is a logic.

Then there are those who feel more comfortable with the numbering as you have highlighted it, like almost all the other forum users (which I have been able to see), but for me this way of interpreting everything does not cause problems; on the contrary, I even find it more intuitive and direct.

Ettore wrote:

...but Red, it depends on whether one does functional analysis or not. Many use labeling as III6, based on the bass note... rather than I6. Functionally it is a I, but in the bass you have a III of the scale. What is right? I have always wondered; for me, it's enough to provide the necessary premises.

For some time now we have been telling Piccinesco that this notation is wrong...

I am adding a direct response, since another comment from Piccinesco has arrived:

it is not a question of practicality, it is a question of errors and correct things. Your way of marking the harmonic analysis is WRONG. It makes sense, but I cannot decide to call notes by the names of my neighbors just because I find it more convenient. The entire world uses two types of notation for harmonic analysis: that based on degree theory (the vast majority) and functional analysis.

You should adapt... also because you know perfectly well that you have problems with analysis

red I've seen it being done too lately.... it took me a while to understand what on earth they were doing.... I know for certain that a complementary harmony teacher in Calabria does it, I don't remember exactly where, and he uses a book that if I'm not mistaken he wrote himself, 'trattato di armonia tonicale'..... or something like that, now I don't remember exactly

I would be truly curious to meet this professor here and yell in his face for half an hour... I really don't understand, how can people who teach in public schools wake up one morning and invent an analytical signature?!?!?!

Figured bass is ONE THING, degree theory is ANOTHER.

How frustrating...

Do you want to study with figured bass? Well, why not? Take a Bach Chorale with figured bass, and realize it... But scale degree theory is another thing. Better not to get confused.

Thallo, the problems I have when performing analyses do not depend on how I number the notes; they depend on my interpretation regarding modulations and my general interpretation regarding temporary alterations, the function of notes in different contexts, and not on how I number them.

It's not that for some time now it has been pointed out to me that this numbering is wrong; it happened that during a rehearsal of a Beethoven piece, Carlos replied that 4_2 should be written as 2_4 and other similar examples.

It's not that I am creating my own way of numbering; a teacher whom I consider very competent taught it to me (moreover, Simone studied with him and can confirm his absolute competence), and in the exercises, the mistakes I made were for the reasons I mentioned above, not because the numbering does not correspond to the Roman numeral.

If I write V 2_4 in C major, I know that it refers to a 3rd inversion of the V degree, but if I have [it] as written and real note, I understand that the degree to be taken into consideration is the V; same thing when I have a first inversion on the I degree, one writes I 6, and it is understood as the first inversion of the I degree.

I am used to using a different Roman numeral, and I have no problems with this; I specify it to make myself understood otherwise every time it becomes an issue, I don't do it to show off, that is not the reason why analyses are somewhat difficult for me.

thallo I will give you his first and last name Andrea F. Calabrtese, teacher of complementary harmony at the Cilea conservatory.... use the book written by him, treatise on tonal harmony

red I downloaded the chorale with the bass, I might almost realize it in the next few days

Piccinesco wrote:

It's not that I am creating my own way of numbering; I was taught this by a teacher whom I consider very competent (moreover, Simone studied with him and can confirm his absolute competence), and in the exercises, the mistakes I made were for the reasons I mentioned above, not because the numbering does not correspond to the Roman numeral.

However, I don't understand what the meaning of the degrees is in this type of "analysis."

If IV, in C major, indifferently identifies the chords F-A-C, F-A-D, F-B-D, F-A-C-E, F-A-C-D, B-D-F-A, F-G-B-D, what is the meaning of this IV? What concept does it identify?

As I see it, it identifies only one concept, namely the bass. But there is no need to use degrees to identify the bass, because you have it right in front of your eyes: it's the note that the bass is playing! Tautological, isn't it?

I agree with you red, I had also taken it for the bass writing.... and as you said, it's given, it's obvious; I find it much more useful to write its harmonic function

Piccinesco wrote:

It's not that I'm creating my own way of numbering; a teacher whom I consider very competent taught it to me (moreover, Simone studied with him and can confirm his absolute competence).

From my point of view, even the best make mistakes. There is only one way to mark harmony and it is from bass to treble, as an chord clearly reads (one never starts from the highest sound... but from the lowest voice to "ascend"); for this reason V42 does not exist... but V24 exists. Then again, one understands each other anyway, but once pointed out, the matter should be learned.

RedScharlach wrote:

Many??? I really don't know this type of harmonic analysis... it seems to me like a kind of paraphrase of a figured bass. Are there any reference texts?

Personally speaking, I have seen some complementary harmony texts that refer to this system (see, for example, Tissoni) ...