Beethoven - First 8 Bars From Sonata Op 13.

...does anyone have the sheet music?

Here is the extract (I used another PDF document anyway, but I didn't include it because it exceeds 3 MB; this one is lighter, but I hope there are no differences between the two).

Sorry, but an analysis written like this is very complicated to read (too many words!), you should rewrite it so that it can be read in less than six hours

I - V24 | I6 - V56 | etc... and maybe always using the root degree and figures for the inversions, otherwise nothing can be understood (personal opinion, but I know there are two schools of thought).

The score with degrees and figures indicated is always the best ... I'll try to take a look at the pdf

Alright, here it is, but there wasn't all this space to write the degrees and the numbering below, so I did it this way: above are the degrees followed by the numbering just as I described them in the text, below are the real degrees (for example, if above I have a I_VIi 6, below I will have a I_V).

I knew that by not including the score I would incur a penalty, so here it is.

That V_VII_V from measure 4 to the end of measure 5, I don't think is correct; anyway, I wrote the reasons above.

Attention, in the second half of measure 3 I indicated a VI 6_4; I explained why that Bb could be a 7th

which then resolves in the following measure, but since I have never encountered a VI degree with a 7th before, I hypothesized,

saying that it could almost 100% be a mistaken interpretation, question: can that "repeated" Bb (in quotes, before you set me on fire) divided only by that D natural be considered prepared?

It is not placed on the strong beat of the second quarter (2nd and 4th sixteenth notes); anyway, I'm taking a guess, it could be a 7th.

Piccinesco wrote:

Alright, here it is, but there wasn't all this space to write the degrees and numbering underneath (...)

Sorry, I don't want to be boring, but that's not how it's done. What you have done is mix two analysis systems (and in a very approximate manner at that). You have to choose. But one shouldn't have to "learn" an analysis system just to read your analysis, you understand? Nor do I see the reason for inventing such a complicated one when there is a very clear system and, above all, a very useful and intelligible one.

The chord numbering goes BELOW the music. And by numbering, we mean 1) Roman numerals to define THE FUNDAMENTAL DEGREE, 2) Arabic numerals to define THE INVERSION. That D-flat is the fourth degree of A-flat major doesn't need you to say it: it is known. So the second harmony is V24. Without further indication.

ABOVE, if it were necessary, one indicates THE TONAL REGION in which you find yourself; for example, if following a modulation you find yourself, I don't know, in the SUBDOMINANT region, then one indicates "IV__________" and always and only BELOW will the numbering relative to the region in which you are indicated (so if the piece is in C major - to simplify - but you are in the subdominant region, automatically C will no longer be the I degree, but rather V - relative to F major, i.e., the subdominant).

Everything else complicates things and what you have written is not clear (two Roman numerals to define every chord... that doesn't exist).

Petty, it's synthetic like that and finally we are on the same page.

You should choose an abbreviation to put under the staff that includes the scale degree (choose a methodology: real or functional) and its inversion/fundamental state.

...little by little we will get there From Piccinesco ...

Sorry, but I don't want to be boring or petulant: when I started doing exercises, I was advised (at the beginning, not later) to indicate the degrees and numbering below the degrees and numbering (in the first measure I_IV 4_2) and in a third line below the bass line the real degrees (I_V); the method used today is not standard practice. I specifically wrote that I had to do it this way because there was no more space below, and so be it. I would have written only the degrees and the numbering (specifically I_IV 4_2 because it is implied that it is a V; others do the opposite I_V 4_2 because as a bass given melodically it is the IV degree, but harmonically it is a V in third inversion), specifying it. It is not my intention to give lessons (did I ever say that?), but since I was asked to write real degrees and harmonic degrees, I did so; I can imagine what would have happened if I hadn't said that for reasons of space (which is evident) I had placed the numbering above the staff. I write a text and it is long (I read it in 10 minutes), then the rest (explained), at some point enough is enough.

So, should I consider the one below?

Further clarification, and I hope it helps otherwise I could also kill myself explaining, but it wouldn't help. The advice given to me regarding indicating the degrees and numbering was given to simplify the identification of the harmony; logically, this does not exclude that the method where the real degree of the harmony is placed before the numbering is the one normally used. The other "method" is to simplify things, and in doing exercises I haven't encountered any problems; even now I write this way, in fact, for me it is even more intuitive.

Those below are the actual harmonic degrees (I could have avoided inserting them), those above are the melodic degrees with numbering; I will also explain why they are (for me) more intuitive written this way: take the Db on the second quarter of the first measure, it is clear by looking at the notes used that it is an inversion of a third of the V degree (I won't say the name of the degree otherwise I'll get another drink), so Eb_G_Bb_Db, using IV 4_2 I do this calculation (with time it becomes automatic and basically you just look at the numbering without doing additions), melodically they are on the IV degree, starting from it and going up a major second I arrive at Eb, so I automatically have the root and the seventh of the chord, "that's all", it is another way of doing things (which does not exclude the other, to be precise) to simplify reading, which does not seem difficult to me.

As you wish.

PS: with the story that "it is implied that it is a fifth degree" you are quite mistaken, because with that philosophy one could easily avoid writing it underneath, since you have to read the chord anyway to know what it is. Anyway, oh well. Do as you prefer and good luck then. (By the way, it is 2_4, not 4_2: it is always numbered from the smaller interval).

Carlos wrote:

it's 2_4, not 4_2: it is always numbered from the smallest interval

Effective Carlos, your way of describing it; essentially with a "mathematical" criterion you manage to understand the "musical" one.

Essentially harmony is read from the lowest note to the highest, which automatically makes the vertical figured development (and therefore its graphic representation) go from the smallest number to the largest.

I propose my version

Measure 1: I V24

Measure 2: I6 V56

Measure 3: I VI

Measure 4: V Interesting chromatic E natural on the bass Eb

Measure 5: VII34 V24

Measure 6: I V/II

Measure 7: II V

Measure 8: V (note harmonic syncopation) V24

Measure 9: I6 V6

Measure 10: I

I think it is relatively correct, I hope I didn't write any "nonsense" in my haste ...

I haven't looked at Oracolo's analysis yet, but for Piccinesco... here is an example of a summary where you can understand things on the fly. If there is something that doesn't add up, someone will inevitably point it out ... because there is nothing to interpret... it is either "right" or "wrong."

If there were more ways of interpreting it (which often happens)... it will emerge

Frank wrote:

Essentially, harmony is read from the lowest note to the highest, which automatically makes the vertical figured development (and therefore its graphic representation) go from the smallest number to the largest.

Yes, certainly, but if one limits oneself to saying that "harmony is read from the lowest note to the highest," someone could be misled, because that dominant seventh with the seventh in the bass, in this case, is written Db/Eb/G/Bb and therefore the inversion numbering (246) actually corresponds to the arrangement on the staff of the chord itself. But if, hypothetically, it had been written Db/G/Bb/Eb? What might someone write who does not know that the chord must be returned (only for numbering purposes, clearly) to its tightest position? V469 would pop out, where the 9 is evidently the major 2 an octave up. Anyway, since while I am writing Marzapane is posting, I will gladly take up one of his statements: "there is nothing to interpret... it is either 'right' or 'wrong'", while remaining firm that in the presence of complex harmonic passages there can be, as he also recognizes, different keys of interpretation, but the first and inevitable step is to be clear and unequivocal in the exposition.

I agree Carlos, that is why I defined your suggestion as effective. To explain the same thing musically, perhaps more words are needed; "following" your second example, one would need to differentiate between an actual ninth (namely 9) and a mistake, i.e., a 2 that becomes a 9 by error.

If "you who are doing the analysis" manage to transform 9 into 2 (because you know you are not actually facing a ninth), you have used the "musical" or harmonic technical principle... otherwise, you might write a ninth... 2...

I maintain that your indication is excellent and effective precisely because it excludes reasoning about harmony, which is its fundamental prerequisite; that is, the TRUE numbers are already clear to you

@Piccinesco

... in the end I didn't understand if you find yourself in my quick harmonic analysis or if there is something unclear or that doesn't add up to you ...