A rehearsal with a Bach chorale

every time I see analyses written that way, I will consider that type of notation an error. That is all.

I repeat, I understand there is a logic to it. There is also a logic in placing books on a bookshelf according to the color gradations of their covers. Just the day before yesterday, I went to a friend's new house and she did a wonderful job, simply by curating the colors of the books on the bookshelf; it looked like an art installation. But if I saw something like that in a library, I would start laughing.

The notation we are talking about is, in my opinion, ridiculous. Just as ridiculous as a book titled "Treatise on Tonical Harmony," simply because the adjective "tonical" does not exist in Italian. But this isn't entirely relevant to this discussion.

The discussion concerns the analysis of that chorale. Well, FOR ME, that notation is an error. When Piccinesco says that his problems in the analysis do not depend on that, I would be inclined to say that if he knows his problems in the analysis, then he should solve them. If, instead, he thinks there is also something to learn from this forum, then he must resign himself to receiving my opinion as well.

And my opinion, if it hasn't been understood yet, is that that notation is wrong, useless, ridiculous, and ahistorical. If a competent professor teaches it, I would be very curious to have him here on the forum to explain to me for what reason he teaches this method. Perhaps there is an even greater logic than that of book cover colors, I am sure of it.

But the history of musical analysis—which is history, not my opinion or RedScharlach's; I repeat, THE HISTORY of musical analysis—millions of composers, both dead and still living, theorists, musicians, amateurs, good and bad people, tell us that the recognized ways of marking the harmonic analysis of a musical piece are two: Stufentheorie and functional theory (in its various nuances and notations).

Therefore, I cannot help but consider that way of writing harmonic analysis to be wrong.

Ok guys, I see we are always quite lively. A heated discussion is always a symptom of interest, but I invite everyone to show mutual respect for ideas, sometimes different, that may be expressed on the same topic.
No comment or statement is useless.
I therefore invite you to restore a certain harmony which is the fundamental prerequisite of this place, which lives thanks to your contributions and which is useful precisely by virtue of the different perspectives with which musical topics are approached.

More in detail

On one hand (@Piccinesco), if someone publishes something, they are aware that they are subject to criticism, more or less reasonable, more or less constructive, etc.

If someone goes into the square and shouts "Forza Juve," someone might call them a "Gobbo." If they don't want to be called a "Gobbo," they can avoid exposing themselves publicly and not profess their footballing beliefs.

On the other hand (@Thallo), I think Piccinesco has understood that "his" method is somewhat artisanal and cannot be categorized within the most widespread theories of analysis (organists often refer to figured bass... more or less rightly, but it is a fact), but he probably does not claim to write a treatise or teach, so it is a way to express his analyses of a repertoire piece. If they are not understandable, apart from saying so... they can also be ignored. It just so happens that I doubt there aren't other users here who know how rightly you maintain. No one has doubts about your preparation, and if someone prefers other paths, they are perfectly free to do so.

Setting aside the tone, I think that in general those who intervened on the topic did so with the intention of helping the other.
And from a didactic standpoint, I can say that method, order, and other factors lead the student to have fewer difficulties.

Personally speaking, I understand those who ask for a certain structure and less those who insist on moving along parallel paths, but I repeat, fortunately we are still free to do as we wish... at worst, there will be no contributions.

Just so we understand each other explicitly, there is also someone who understood and corrected the proposed analysis... I doubt Zedef does not know common analysis techniques, given that he expresses himself in those terms.

Returning to us, Bianca brings up this interesting topic

http://www.pianoconcerto.it/forum/index.php?/topic/3330-la-cifratura-ideale-degli-accordi/

RedScharlach wrote:

Many??? I really don't know this type of harmonic analysis...

Ok, now you know it... try to take a look at the document posted by Bianca in the appropriate topic.

The topic won't open for me

micamahler wrote:

The topic won't open for me

not for me either

Probably a copyright-protected document was attached

I recreated the topic, clearly you should get the document....

http://www.pianoconcerto.it/forum/index.php?/topic/3330-la-cifratura-ideale-degli-accordi/

RedScharlach wrote:

From how I see it, it identifies only one concept, namely the bass. But there is no need to use scale 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, right?

It's true, I had never thought of it that way... but in case of modulation the scale changes, so it's not such a bad idea to know which scale degree we are in. I don't know if I explained myself well, but if I am in C major, it is the III of the scale, but if in that moment we have moved to E minor, for III, it would be a I.

...or maybe I misunderstood something?

well, isn't it enough to just write that one has modulated from a to b in that case?