Bass Harmonization Workshop - 2012

I thank everyone, I didn't think I would arouse so much interest... the truth is that if my name is "Aspirant" there must be a reason

I have tried and I know I need to improve, thanks to your suggestions (and examples) I know better what should be done... effectively mine is a bit of a hybrid between a florid and non-florid style, more than liberties... so something very naive

Thanks again

Oracolo wrote:

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

My opinion on this passage is that, in theory, you have taken them correctly but, then, this particular parallelism of 5ths (which creates a tritone) must be resolved correctly; that is, the interval must resolve to a 3rd, otherwise it is a dissonance not correctly resolved.

And you can only achieve this result with a V going to the I or to the VI.

In C major, for example, you can reach the si/fa tritone as you did, but then you must resolve it on do/mi (possible on both the I and the VI).

Aspirante wrote:

I thank everyone, I didn't think I would arouse so much interest... the truth is that if my name is "Aspirant" there must be a reason

I have tried and I know I need to improve; thanks to your suggestions (and examples) I know better what should be done... effectively mine is a bit of a hybrid between a florid and non-florid [style], more than liberties... so something very naive

Thanks again

si ma provaci ancora, dammi retta, vedrai che a poco a poco ne veniamo a capo

Ok Ale, but then the error isn't the fifths, but the failure to resolve a "dissonance" ... whether it be a leading tone or a seventh.

And it is also right to call things by their proper names, otherwise one doesn't understand the nature of the "criticism" or suggestion being made

AleGozzo wrote:

My opinion on this passage is that, in theory, you have taken them correctly but, then, this particular parallelism of 5ths (which creates a tritone) must be resolved correctly; that is, the interval must resolve to a 3rd, otherwise it is a dissonance not correctly resolved.

And you can only achieve this result with a V going to I or to VI.

In C major, for example, you can reach the si-fa tritone as you did, but then you must resolve it to do-mi (possible on both the I and the VI).

Even for Oracolo ...

I was taught that unless it is a "true" tritone, fifths placed like this are an error, regardless of the type of interval.

For example, in C major, si-fa (tritone) going to do-sol, besides being an error for the tritone resolution, would also be an error for the fifths.

This tritone is actually not a true tritone, as a tritone should resolve by stepwise motion to the tonic and third of the chord. Without other notes, we would still have a resolution sufficient to determine a key.

This "tritone" created solely by the parts would resolve to the third and fifth of the D minor chord (which we know is such because it is written in clef) and unless one is modulating to F major, it does not resolve at all, or rather, it creates a false resolution.

My vision is perhaps too narrow, but in my opinion, if we are within the scope of harmony and counterpoint, it fits.

x Gassy

I saw your version for pf, mine practically should have been written like this too....

Gassy's Bass:

well, I imagined you were further behind on these things, but instead I see that you know how to move and how to manage a bass line in a very articulated manner as well

there are some notes to be made anyway, I think mainly due to the desire to fill at all costs (too much ??!! in 7 measures you concentrated an "important" melodic line, scalar surrounding elements, leaps, repetitions....).

I'll give you two: often there is excessive distance between soprano and alto and, above all, at the end the cadence is missing !!!! Not to mention the last 2 measures which make no sense at all, had you spent all your energy on those 7 measures ?!

if I were to ask you "what is wrong with the last 2" ? ....

- 3 voices in unison are simply too many; and also the inversions must be complete, you cannot omit the 5th.

- that G should represent a IV, for the plagal cadence? there is no 3rd, it's just a dyad ....

- in the last measure should the G create a suspension on the 3rd? but if in the final chord there is no A, no tension is created to be resolved and therefore no suspension. This G only represents the inversion of the previous dyad ....

practically the last 2 measures are devoid of harmonic sense

AleGozzo wrote:

well, I had imagined you were further behind on these things, but instead I see that you know how to move and how to manage a bass even in a very articulated way

Aparte your precious feedback, if I were to do a self-assessment, it seems like a harmonic "drag" (that's why I wanted to see other ideas) and the melodic lines are very repetitive. In other words, the exact opposite of your work. You have harmonic variety and beautiful singable lines.

AleGozzo wrote:

- in the last measure, should the sol create a delay on the 3rd? but if there is no la in the final chord, no tension is created to be resolved and therefore no delay. This sol only represents the inversion of the dyad of the first ....

practically the last 2 bars are devoid of harmonic sense

You are right, by putting the bass in the melody, I should have changed something because those final leaps, typical of a bass, steal the whole scene from you.

Thank you for the comment

Gassy wrote:

Aside from your precious reports, if I were to perform a self-assessment, it seems like a harmonic "ball" (which is why I wanted to see other ideas) and the melodic lines are very repetitive. In other words, the exact opposite of your work. You have harmonic variety and beautiful singable lines.

I find that being able to keep attention alive without relying predominantly on harmony is also a merit; of course, it is more difficult.

I share the criticisms made by AleGozzo... a pity about the ending

rstrauss wrote:

finito questa versione dell'armonizzazione, teniamo lo stesso basso e realizziamo una versione dell'armonizzazione che sia VERAMENTE pianistica.

Che ne dite ?

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 think?

I already had half an idea of participating, I might try to see what comes out...

Comment on Gassy's version

I preface that I will treat this as an exercise, not taking the instrument into account, and despite this, I accept the voices that start in sequence.

Bar. 2

the crossing leads you to have the last notes with 3 Re and a Fa which in theory would be enough, but as they are placed here, they do not work.

The female voices are too distant; you even place them in a 10th where even an 8th would be too much.

Bar. 3

the beginning of the measure with the Bb in the bass does not work.
if there had been a Bb tied from the previous bar, it would have been a delay that then descended to the fundamental La of the V degree and it would have worked well.

Bar. 3-4

the empty fifth in S. and C. which then goes to a 10th does not work, and if the 10th between B. and T. works, the one between the female voices does not.

Bar. 5

the female voices even have a 14th which, although partly saved by the 8th jump of the C., is nullified by the enormous interval between B. and T.

Bar. 6

In theory, it would be a chord on the VII degree which at the last note goes to the V degree, which then correctly resolves on the tonic.

Bar. 6-7

the resolution of S. and C. with the empty fifth there does not work very well sonically, even if harmonically it is correct.

last two bars.

Even I don't understand.

conclusions :
if one had to play on a keyboard instrument, one would need Rachmaninoff's hands and perhaps even that wouldn't be enough, even if the instrument were a virginal (which has narrower keys)

Treatment and voice leading

i do not agree with AleGozzo on the treatment of the parts, as

- there are too many intervals wider than an octave which create a void in the middle. At least 6 voices would be needed to fill the gap.

- Harmonically, the exercise is rather poor :

Bar. 1 : Re - La

Bar. 2 : Re - La, albeit with a small pedal

Bar. 3 : La

Bar. 4 : Re - La

Bar. 5 : Re - La

Bar. 6 : Do# dim. VII°

Bar. 7 : Re

Bar. 8 : La

Bar. 9 : Re - Sol -

practically everything revolves around 2 chords ... too little.

You demonstrate that you know the rules well; in fact, there are no errors of parallelisms, doublings of the III degree or similar things, but in my opinion, with the voice leading, we aren't there.

I hope I haven't been too harsh, but others can confirm, I treat everyone the same way.

Puntocoronato's Version

Today that I have time, I am taking advantage of it.

Exercise completed, I would say very well.

I find no errors and even the voice leading is done properly.

I feel like making only a couple of small notes:

Meas. 6

instead of immediately taking F major, I would have resolved in D minor, and only at the 2nd movement would I have taken F major 7

Since there is no need to modulate definitively to Bb and therefore no need to assert this key strongly, a movement to F major in my opinion would have been more than sufficient ...

you would have resolved with D minor and avoided the entire measure with F major.

Meas. 7-8

the usual fifth between T. and C. mi-sib --> re-la which some do not notice as diminished (only upon listening), which however in my opinion is not correct.

Here we are in the realm of opinion, so a higher opinion would be needed.

Meas. 9 1st mov.

the 3rd of the chord is missing, so let's exclude S. and C. because it would spoil the movement by sixths; let's exclude the bass which acts as a pedal ... what remains is the T. which with an F and perhaps a triplet sol-la-sib

would have moved the discourse along, would have maintained the triplet movement, and would also have created the succession between T. and C. sib-sol --> la-mi which would not have compromised anything.

As you can see, these are truly just small notes.

Compliments.

rstrauss wrote:

Bars 7-8

the usual fifth between T. and C. mi-sib --> re-la which some do not notice because it is diminished (only by ear), but which in my opinion is not correct.

Here we are in the realm of opinion, so a higher opinion would be needed.

As you can see, these are just very small notes.

Compliments.

Thanks for the compliments, I really needed them..... Because one studies and studies, and then every now and then you also need someone who is highly qualified to be able to tell you something. For me, this workshop is a comparison to see if my studies are leading me toward something concrete.... I don't know if I was clear. Because when it's just you and your own Maestro everything is fine, but then when you go out and question yourself, that's when you have to sum things up and see if everything your Maestro teaches you and tells you is true or not.

As far as those fifths in bars 7-8 are concerned, they are an ERROR and there is no discussion, I missed them.... For it not to be an error, the second fifth should have been diminished, not the first one.

Thanks RStrauss, when I said I was dissatisfied one reason was ... I see that instead you don't have major problems. Congratulations to PuntoCoronato!

Basso di Puntocoronato:

Great and sounds very good!

Since your intentions were (rightly) academic, I will point out a few things that are questionable in this context:

meas. 4 approaching the V with that 9-8 appoggiatura doesn't please me; it is a 9th taken by leap and direct motion between bass and soprano, and it gives a dissonance that is too abrupt for a harmonization exercise .... I won't pronounce whether it is strictly a technical error (but I suppose it is), but anyway it doesn't sit right with me

meas. 2, second part: you used the natural minor scale in the soprano, an use of modality that is a bit too free and which indeed leads you to have an incorrect harmonic approach, e.g., the II going to the I6 (or to the IV if we want to consider the passing I6). It would have been more correct to use B♭ and C# so as to have VII6 I6 etc.

meas. 7, all those parallelisms are not allowed.

As with Strauss's comment, these are small notes on the lack of "stylistic" coherence, rather than serious errors

I am happy that this workshop saw the participation of new forum members. I haven't been able to listen to your works with dignity yet and make the proper comments, but I can see that you have really gone all out... and maybe it will be difficult to add anything

It is always nice to get one's hands dirty... as well as discussing technical/musical issues blissfully

I would like to thank everyone again for the examples (including the most recent ones) and the comments; I must admit that I find everything very instructive.

Thank you RStrauss

Comment on RStrauss's harmonization

I note that:

-the ninth appoggiatura between bass and soprano at measure 4 on Bb is unprepared

- between measures 4 and 5, bass and soprano, blatant octaves

- at measure 9 I would change the bass by doing la2 la1 in order to arrive at the D of the following measure by contrary motion relative to the soprano (given the extreme parts). It's a pity that the bass is fixed; I would devise something else... because they are not nice

- D-A, yes, fifths between Bass and tenor at measure 3

- At measure 5 for the contraltos, before letting the E (the fifth of the chord) arrive, I would pass through A to avoid leaping fifths in the upper voice (between contraltos and basses)

At measure 9 the soprano leaps to a D while the tenor holds a C#... a bit strong (better if it were passing or if one didn't pass through it at all)

I won't point out the leaping seventh at measure 9 for the contraltos, even though you discussed it with others, you use it too

In general, it is a very arpeggiated counterpoint (which leads to situations like the leaping D to C#)) and there are points like the last 3 measures of the contraltos that are melodically redundant and repetitive

I don't dislike it, but these problems exist