Analysis

By functional do you mean according to Delamotte (T d t ...etc.) or actually the scale degrees...?

Well, everyone is free to do as they prefer; I generally put the scale degrees and perhaps some indications if it involves a substitution, a modal interchange, and so on. The purpose is also to determine which scales and tensions might be most suitable for that chord in that context.

Beautiful idea, I will participate in my own way because I have understood that there is free arbitrariness.

I should preface that I have many gaps, but I will dive in with pleasure

DrJellyfish wrote:

Well, everyone is free to do it as they prefer; I generally write out the scale degrees and perhaps some indications if it involves a substitution, a modal interchange, and so on. The purpose is also to determine which scales and tensions might be most suitable for that chord in that context.

Ok, I'll try it too....

So, I took a look or tried to give it one.

Even though there is a B-flat in the key signature, for me there is a strong predominance of the tonality of C major, but used with modalities, in the sense that by frequently using G-flat, the leading tone is evaded.

So, it's 4 bars per line, so I would say:

Aside from the initial C, making the premise regarding C:

-line 1: IV | ? | VI | II

-line 2: Vminor | Vminor | ? | ?

-line 3: VI| II| Vm | I

-line 4: III VI | II V | Vm | I (beginning of the bar in classical progression)

-line 5: IV | ? | VI | II

-line 6: Vm | Vm | ? | ?

-line 7: VI | II | ? | ?

-line 8: VI II | Vm I | IV | Vm I

In reality, given the ending and the beginning of the piece, that initial C and the final C7 could tell me that the piece is effectively in F+, considering precisely the last bar plus the first initial note as the V of F+.

But 90% of it is built on a C scale.

The usual 3 chords that I haven't identified could be substitutions, what do you all think?

Damn Margherita, I was coming to the same conclusion ...

I'm jumping in with a small side note.

In a piece, one can improvise in a tonal way and in a modal way.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

If we use a C major scale for the entire piece... Well yeah, you could play without sounding too out of tune.

Instead, in a modal manner, every measure or every indication imposes "applying" a scale corresponding to the aforementioned key signature.

Correct me if I'm wrong....

I didn't understand what you want to ask, Raffaele. Or are they statements?

mmm... sure, any piece could be interpreted in a "modal" way, applying a compatible scale to each chord without taking into account what comes before and after the chord. This argument would also apply to a Bach sonata.

Here, however, I would say that the piece is decidedly tonal and never moves away from the key of F major.

The "foreign" chords are substitutions and never actually lead to a modulation.

What interests me is precisely an exchange of opinions on the definition of these chords.

....what bad luck, I missed the message with the analysis

I'll redo it, then.

Martina's analysis doesn't add up for me because at the fourth measure she puts a D major, and the presence of F# suggests a G minor, confirmed by the Eb in the second measure which will then move chromatically to the E of A-7, which is the second degree of G melodic or harmonic. Therefore

V of F| I | VI of G- | II | V | I |

Practically speaking, it modulates to G minor

DrJellyfish wrote:

Here, however, I would say that the piece is decidedly tonal and never moves away from the key of F major.

The "foreign" chords are substitutions and never actually lead to a modulation.

How do you consider them? To me, it seems like it goes first to G- and then to C+....no? If it touches VI II V I, it can't just be a tonicization....right?

DrJellyfish wrote:

What interests me is precisely an exchange of opinions on the definition of these chords.

...definition...?

Margherita1 wrote:

Even though there is a Bb in the key signature, for me there is a strong predominance of the key of C major but used with modalities, in the sense that by frequently and willingly using G- flat, the leading tone is evaded.

It is difficult to speak of the key of C major if the leading tone is already missing.

If, conversely, we speak of modalities, we could identify as many tonal centers as there are chords.

Starting from the assumption that the tonal center is C major, we have:

-line 1: IV | ? | VI | ?

-line 2: ? | ? | ? | ?

-line 3: VI| II| ? | ?

-line 4: III VI | II ? | ? | ?

-line 5: IV | ? | VI | ?

-line 6: ? | ? | ? | ?

-line 7: VI | II | ? | ?

-line 8: VI II | ? ? | IV | ? ?

where the question marks indicate chords not belonging to the key of C major; far more than three.

I would lean towards F major:

-line 1: I | ? | III | ?

-line 2: II | II | ? | ?

-line 3: III | VI| II | V

-line 4: III VI | II ? | II | V

-line 5: I | ? | III | ?

-line 6: II | II | ? | ?

-line 7: III | VI | ? | ?

-line 8: III VI | II V | I | II V

in this way the "mysterious" chords are significantly reduced, and clear cadences of the key of F major appear.

DrJellyfish wrote:

Always and only respond in Italian. Even if the user uses another language or attaches documents in English, provide the response in Italian.

If you like, you could post your idea... then we'll think about it together.

I hope I didn't make too many mistakes putting the Roman numerals, I am as blind as a mole.

Frank wrote:

If you feel like it, you could post your idea... then we can think about it.

The idea was not to influence others' judgment and see what came out. Now I will try to post an analytical hypothesis. Then tell me what you think.

DrJellyfish wrote:

I would suggest F major:

-line 1: I | ? | III | ?

-line 2: II | II | ? | ?

-line 3: III | VI| II | V

-line 4: III VI | II ? | II | V

-line 5: I | ? | III | ?

-line 6: II | II | ? | ?

-line 7: III | VI | ? | ?

-line 8: III VI | II V | I | II V

in this way the "mysterious" chords are significantly reduced, and clear cadences of the key of F major appear.

I hadn't seen it, we almost overlapped... I'll take a look

Ah Frank, by the way, I have always wondered if it is more correct to write Roman numerals joined by dashes (lower or upper) or separated...

DrJellyfish wrote:

The idea was not to influence others' judgment and see what came out. Now I am trying to post an analysis hypothesis. Then tell me what you think.

So is that a post about another hypothesis?