Bass Harmonization Workshop - 2012

Gassy wrote:

Question, aside from the "notation," pauses exist... right? So it's not a problem if it occasionally goes to 3 voices, is it? That's how I understood Aspirante's piece....

of course pauses exist, but they must make sense; in this case, it's just voices disappearing for no reason

and besides, "occasionally going to 3 voices" is not intended in these exercises, which is different from inserting short pauses if necessary (anyway, it is a procedure that can be adopted if the realization is more complex and flowery, imitative, etc., otherwise it's not explained....)

Gassy wrote:

Question, aside from the "notation" do pauses exist... right? So it's not a problem if at times it went to 3 voices, no? That is how I understood Aspirante's piece....

If we made a flowery version, it could also work.

Oracolo wrote:

... when the diminished second fifth should be all OK

if the diminished 5th were in the chord on the VII° degree it would be fine, but in this case it is on the II° degree and for me it doesn't work.

AleGozzo wrote:

and then “occasionally moving to 3 voices” is not provided for in these exercises

...but in the repertoire, which is what matters, what happens?

Aspirante's Version

In addition to what AleGozzo said, I add that parallel sevenths are not allowed in mm. 3-4 Ten. with Sop.

Performing the analysis here would not be useful as the voice leading does not work as it is and would practically mean rewriting the measure.

Perhaps it is better if you redo it following the rules and then we can re-analyze it.

rstrauss wrote:

Comment on Ale's version

I note the following anomalies :

Meas. 3
i would have avoided the C# of the 2nd movement by leaving it natural. The first one is fine as a flourish.

why do you say this? The C# is the leading tone of the V46 which then resolves to D .... I don't understand

rstrauss wrote:

Meas. 4

parallel fifths in the RH D-A --> E-Bb. it's annoying.

mmm it's true, although I have a doubt that, since the A is a suspension, perhaps it isn't a problem. But honestly I don't know, if anyone knows for sure, speak up

rstrauss wrote:

1st movement
the G in the RH and the C in the RH go to two superimposed empty fifths E-Bb. and even if there is a Bb., it doesn't work.

There would also be the fifth G Sop.-C Ten. which goes to an octave Bb. Sop.-Bb. ten.

oops it's true, the 3rd of the chord is missing .... oops

"there would also be the fifth etc". Oh how subtle you are, but I think you might be right

rstrauss wrote:

Meas. 7-8

7th of dominant leap entry in the contraltos Bb.-G

i disagree here, the 7th of the dominant does not need to be prepared.

gratz for the observations !!

Gassy wrote:

...but in the repertoire, which is what matters, what happens?

You would still find a piece divided into 4 voices, mainly for choir ... and yes ... there would be pauses and you would clearly recognize the movement of the parts, but that is not our case.

I think that whoever delivered it (including me, as I have already written it and just need to put it down) intended to give you a rather academic version, which benefits especially those who are at the beginning.

If you want a, let's say, "cantabile" version, maybe we can't do another one.

Oracolo wrote:

... when the second fifth is diminished, everything should be OK

only if the fifths are descending ....

AleGozzo wrote:

why do you say this? C# is the leading tone of V46 which then resolves to D .... I don't understand

I6, I had understood it as a passing note and not as harmony ... since you don't do it in bars 4-6-7.

If you intend it as I°, then it is fine.

AleGozzo wrote:

mmm it's true, although I have a doubt that, since A is a suspension, perhaps it isn't a problem. But honestly I don't know, if someone knows for sure, speak up

by not using the suspension you would have had a G which would have had the problem immediately after anyway.

The fifths can be heard even though there is the suspension.

AleGozzo wrote:

i disagree here, the dominant 7th does not need to be prepared.

Taking it as ascending motion, you would be right.

But here, in my opinion, putting A-G-F in sixth with the Sop. would have also benefited the part writing.

AleGozzo wrote:

thanks for the observations !!

Must!

rstrauss wrote:

You would still find a piece divided into 4 voices, mainly for choir ... and yes ... there would be pauses and you would clearly recognize the movement of the parts, but that is not our case.

I think that whoever submitted it (including me, as I have already written it and just need to put it down) intended to give you a rather academic version, which is especially helpful for those who are at the beginning.

If you want a let's say "cantabile" version, maybe we can't do another one.

Ok, but the aspiring one is for pf... pianism (or keyboardism) is slightly different..no?

Gassy wrote:

Ok, but that of an aspirant is for pf... pianism (or keyboardism) is slightly different.. no?

here we are not talking about the instrument where it is performed, but we are talking about pure harmony, therefore independent of where it is then performed.

rstrauss wrote:

here we are not talking about the instrument where it is performed, but we are talking about pure harmony, therefore independent of where it is eventually performed.

Not really though, if you read this topic

http://www.pianoconc...nto-pianistico/

you will realize that it is legitimate to take the instrument into account, so much so that pianistic counterpoint (the discussion of that topic) reasons in an autonomous way.

This does not mean that Aspirante's harmonization is a masterpiece, but I would frame my opinion within the context of the proposed ensemble ... otherwise even Oracolo brings in the double bass only at the end and it doesn't have its own autonomous part ...

commentary on Oracolo's version

The heavy-hitter AleGozzo has already said almost everything ... anyway ...

Measures 6-7

the fifths are present between Vl.1 and Vl.2

fa-do going to mi-si even though there is a delay. Since there is nothing in between, they are even more evident.

The leading tone that makes us understand we are moving into Bb major is missing; even if the 7th of the dominant helps, the problem remains.

In this case, you should have kept the A in the Vc and embellished one of the other voices, for example Vl.1

It sounds good overall, though.

Sorry Rstrauss, to go to the VI do you necessarily have to tonicize...? I mean the deceptive cadence ... mmhmm

...fifths between a perfect and a diminished (for descending motion) ... mmhmm

Thanks for the comment anyway.

Gassy wrote:

Not really, though if you read this topic

http://www.pianoconc...nto-pianistico/

you will realize that it is legitimate to take the instrument into account, so much so that pianistic counterpoint (the treatment of that topic) reasons in an autonomous way.

This does not mean that Aspirante's harmonization is a masterpiece, but I would frame my opinion within the context of the proposed ensemble ... otherwise even Oracolo brings in the double bass only at the end and it doesn't have its own autonomous part ...

to tell the truth, in this thread we are talking about pianistic counterpoint and pedal, and we are not talking about harmony or compositional practice in pianistic counterpoint. Counterpoint is counterpoint and that's it, and the rules are always the same. If we then want to transfer it to the piano or to the tuba, it is irrelevant. One must know how to write it first in its basic form, and then it can also be transferred to other instruments while taking into account the performance and/or compositional practice of the instrument.

But since at the beginning no one spoke about pianistic counterpoint, the exercise was understood as an exercise in harmonization (florid or not) of a bass line.

Citing pianistic counterpoint to cover up evident limits in the writing of parts (as in Aspirante's case) is not correct at all and is even harmful, as it is misleading for someone who is at the beginning, who would think that by transferring the matter to the piano one can transgress the rules ... after all, there is the pedal!

In Oracolo's version (see my comment and Alegozzo's) there is more awareness in the management of the parts, even though it presents several errors, and in any case, just to be precise, the CB that enters at the end only performs a very simple doubling of the VC at the lower octave, so it does not have this great importance at the level of harmony, but only at the level of listening.

True Rstrauss, but

Frank wrote:

All this to say that since we started the workshops, it has been considered important to allow participants to express themselves to the best of their abilities... so, do whatever you like... as long as it is understood that you started from that prompt... in a way that links the different works together.

...this opens many doors; Aspirante will surely speak on it later, but I would like to throw a spear in their favor

Gassy, you are tenacious as a lawyer, but there is no case here; first of all, we are in the context of a basic school exercise in bass harmonization, and therefore one cannot dispense with respecting certain rules and procedures. If someone wants to have fun saying 'I arranged it for piano, for quintet, etc.', that's fine, but it is still a school exercise!

Furthermore, what settles the matter is that as a piano piece, it just doesn't hold up.... one can see at a glance that it is not a piece for piano but an exercise performed on the piano, perhaps with some pianist's freedom (the harmonization by 6ths in the finale) but totally out of place.

In short, I hope Aspirante's intentions were not to create a piano piece....

ps

Oracolo's use of the double bass is legitimate because if there is a final pedal, one can add a voice, while remaining mindful that it is not a piece for quintet but an exercise transposed for string quintet

Oracolo wrote:

Sorry Rstrauss, to go to the VI do you necessarily have to tonicize...? I mean the deceptive cadence ... mmhmm

To have a deceptive cadence, there must be a V° that instead of resolving goes to VI°

At bar 6 there is no V°, so there is no deceptive cadence, and with the E-flat in the Vla you clearly introduce a dominant 7th, which would actually fit since it would modulate to the relative major.

Hence my remark.

Oracolo wrote:

...fifths between a perfect and a diminished (for descending motion) ... mmhmm

The discussion is harmonic, but we already saw this with AleGozzo. If it were in a VII° chord it would fit, here it is clearly a V°-I°.

Thanks for the comment anyway.

Ok AleGozzo... are you saying it's better if I study Law?

Anyway, I understand what you mean; the fact is that not knowing what Aspirante wanted to do, perhaps it is even "worse" than initially thought... I mean, it's not even pianistic...

"Worse" in the sense that there would be even more work to do...

But let's hear from him

AleGozzo wrote:

Gassy, you are a tenacious lawyer, but there is no case here; first of all, we are in the context of a basic school exercise in bass harmonization, and therefore one cannot dispense with respecting certain rules and procedures. If someone wants to have fun saying "I arranged it for piano, for quintet, etc." that's fine, but it is still a school exercise!

Furthermore, what settles the matter is that as a piano piece, it just doesn't hold up.... one can see at a glance that it is not a piece for piano but an exercise performed on the piano, perhaps with some pianist's freedom (the harmonization by 6ths in the finale) but totally out of place.

In short, I hope Aspirante's intentions were not to create a piano piece....

ps

Oracolo's use of the double bass is legitimate because if there is a final pedal, one can add a voice, keeping in mind that it is not a piece for quintet but an exercise transposed for string quintet.

I'm throwing a stone into the pond... also for Gassy:

Once this version of the harmonization is finished, let's keep the same bass and create a version of the harmonization that is TRULY pianistic.

What do you say?