Mini Practice With Froberger ( Giga )

I was taking a look, why do you put the numbering first and then the degree? Usually, one indicates the degree and then its harmonic development...

Why am I used to doing it this way, for example when there is an inverted third on the IV of D major, as in measure 4 (assuming I haven't made a mistake in the analysis), I indicate precisely first the numbering and then the degree, as if one were speaking about it, inverted third of the IV of D major.

...this alone would be an area for improvement. Unifying with conventions also makes one more inclined to take a look ...

But it's not a matter of "adapting" to the convention, that is not what compromises (at least in me) concentration and the consequences thereof; I could also invert numbering and degree, but it wouldn't change the way the pieces are analyzed.

I say, start thinking about the scale degree first (and write it down) and then eventually its harmonization

Writing in reverse certainly doesn't help and anyway doesn't reflect what happens during a harmonic analysis... on one hand you write:

> I can also invert the numbering and the degree, but it wouldn't change the way of analyzing pieces

on the other hand you say that you get confused, that you make mistakes, etc.

It may be that things are correlated, but a method is a method.

I would proceed by identifying "in time" an chordal cluster, I would look for its root (writing it down) and calculate the type of harmonization and whether it is in root position or inversion.

If these are the logical steps, the writing should reflect them, also because reading your analysis, it feels unnatural; you are proposing the analysis in a forum of Westerners, where time and writing flow from left to right, so when reading one expects the degree first and then its harmonization.

Otherwise, I have to make a double argument and I wouldn't want laziness to take over

Piccinesco, Oracolo is absolutely right... it's the same principle for which it makes no sense to write what something is NOT or what it COULD be; you must write only what it IS, starting first from the function-degree and then from the inversion-configuration. Substance first, then form.

I'll add...

1) An absolutely disastrous choice of piece. Mendelssohn was linear and you managed to make him complicated; this IS complicated, very contrapuntal, and I can only imagine the difficulties it gave you. Logic would dictate that you start with EASY things. Take a Clementi sonatina, an easy Mozart piece, not Froberger!!

2) But how do you perform the analysis? I mean, when you sit down and take the score, what do you do? Because looking at what you write (this time I am looking directly at the score, because your comment is, as usual, a bit confusing), the same errors are always found, and errors that I don't understand... let's look at the third and fourth movement of the first measure (FIRST MEASURE! I mean, we're starting off badly...): but where do you see a sixth degree?!?! And on top of that in first inversion?! Once again, you have the obsession of reasoning in eighths instead of quarters; you see a C and an E and think of a VI when instead you should calm down, breathe, look at the next eighth, notice there is an A, and say "ah! So it's a IV degree!". The situation becomes even more crazy going to the second measure (SECOND MEASURE!!) where he even decides to ignore one of the only two notes you have: you see a B in the bass, go crazy, and decide that that B is the root of a dominant chord, deciding, therefore, that the G in the soprano is an extraneous note (one out of two...) and, as usual, forgetting that chords are viewed in quarters and not in eighths. And in fact, this is a TONIC chord, and not even in second inversion, I would say, since we are in ornate notation and in the second eighth we have two Es.

3) I'll stop here... and I advise you, if you want to practice, to truly go back to the basics. A simple piece, without ornamentations, because you need to curb your desire for complication

Hi, so let me explain how I do the analysis: I try to identify the succession of degrees, also specifying the turning notes and passing notes; others, like the two mi in the first quarter of beat (or measure) two, I knew they were part of the chord, as well as the sol in the melody. Putting the V doesn't mean that I considered that passage to be correct; I had doubts (I'll explain why now) but I left the V anyway, knowing that perhaps I was messing things up. The doubt? It's mi sol si, clearly, but even if I thought of it, as usual I was wrong because the first note is si; it's not that I didn't understand it was a chord on mi, but it was the position of the mi that misled me. I've gone crazy, it's true, because I lost my concentration, but I would like (by this I am not saying you are wrong) you to understand that mine is insecurity (not because I write the degrees after the numbers as an example) because I am split between a logical reasoning and a hypothesis that I "don't trust" despite everything.

the presence of notes that characterize a specific chord and degree; another thing regarding the 3rd and 4th beat or measure 1, up to the 3rd I left the first degree of E minor, the A on the 4th beat I saw it yes, in the bass there is C and for this reason I wrote first inversion of the VI, which would indeed be the A, the chord on A, but it is precisely this that creates doubts for me, the interpretation, I know they are implausible successions, but it's not that I am pointing them out because I have truly lost my mind (even if I am more than stressed), but because of the fact that I am either too rigid or I have an instinctive approach. Then I understand that if I don't explain how I do things, it seems like everything is incoherent. Regarding the difficulty, I chose the piece at random, better an unknown piece, then maybe I exaggerated because it has too many flourishes, anyway it doesn't weigh on me to try with these pieces even if I agree with you. Anyway, it is my rigid interpretations that make me make mistakes. I wrote with my phone, that's why the message is split in 2

One more thing, this absurd rigidity still makes me interpret that A at the end of the first measure as fundamental to the chord, whereas those two at the beginning of the second one are not, because I was misled by the fact that they were subdivisions, on the second half of the first quarterbeat moreover; this logically knowing for a fact that the simplest thing would have been to have G-A-B, you understand? It's the position within the quarterbeat that made me doubt; I know it sounds absurd but it is so, in almost everything I do there is little nuance or otherwise smoothness or rigidity tends to prevail, and from this arise contrasts like those between these two quarterbeats, the 4 of measure 1 and the 1 of measure 2, and in turn, obviously, other errors follow.

I respect Thallo, sorry Piccinesco ... I gave up much sooner

And I know, people get fed up with me right away; I say it ironically, but only to a certain extent.

It's useless to explain the motivations and reasons for what is written (the double messages were due to the fact that I wrote with my phone, I have a character limit, maximum 1000, and sometimes it seemed like the message hadn't been sent), either you are in a situation or you aren't, good for those who are doing fine.

Thanks anyway.

Piccinesco wrote:

And I know, people get fed up with me right away, I say it ironically but only up to a certain point.

But I don't think that is the point

Piccinesco wrote:

It's useless to explain the motivations and reasons for what is written

I think that if someone writes something publicly, it's because they want an opinion; you were told immediately that the form was not adequate... indicating the correct one and also the reasons (interesting Oracle, the references to the "world" of the West).

... I would have updated the PDF in a hurry, which did not happen. Thallo gave you precise instructions... I would have set to work immediately...

Your final thanks, perhaps I misinterpreted, seems a bit "ungrateful" to me... my impression reading through the topic in one breath...

Stay strong and courageous... start with a simpler piece, adapt the annotations, and try to work at least for a quarter... until next time...

If it can be useful Piccinesco, when I was doing the "exercises" of Analysis with Fank and Gozzo... not a single one was ever right. We were talking about Grieg, Scriabin, so tough stuff ...

... but I learned a lot. On the other hand, one compares oneself with others to grow and understand what is wrong, even simply starting from the way of representing one's own work, which in the end should become as credible as possible.

Perhaps you were expecting a note-by-note correction, but it is truly very onerous (and for many errors)... there is much that is wrong, hence perhaps Thallo's suggestion, perhaps radical but sensible.

With affection

I forgot, what kind of answers were you expecting? (which might be useful for the future)

Homework for Piccinesco: analyze the first eight measures of the Adagio cantabile from Beethoven's Sonata op. 13.

I'm joking!!! ... but not too much...

Marzapane wrote:

But I don't think that is the point

I think that if someone writes something publicly, it's because they want an opinion; you were told immediately that the format was not adequate... indicating the correct one and also the reasons (interesting Oracle, the references to the "world" of the West).

... in a rush I would have updated the PDF, which did not happen. Thallo gave you precise indications... I would have set to work immediately...

Your final thanks, perhaps I misinterpreted, seems a bit "ungrateful" to me... my impression reading through the topic in one breath...

Strength and courage... start with a simpler piece, adapt the annotations, and try to work at least for a quarter [of the time/measure]... until next time...

No, let's not misunderstand, otherwise we'll never get anywhere (despite my attempts to explain exactly the reasons that lead me to make mistakes), my thanks at the end is intended in two senses (rightly so, I don't necessarily expect opinions, and if they arrive I thank you or at least acknowledge them); part of it was to thank Oracle for their point of view, but it was more specifically referring to having read "I gave up much sooner," which makes me think (it might be because it's not the first time this has happened to me in any situation, and it's not certain that if it happens multiple times it is always the "responsibility" of the person it is said to; it could very well be

a refusal to understand the motivations of the latter, right? I am not one who loves making excuses, but if I am asked or not asked for the reason behind certain choices, I state it, because it is in my interest to make understood why they are made) of someone who does not want to know exactly why I make mistakes, because I perceive things in one way or another.

Years ago, I was talking about it with Simone the other day; I had a discussion with Carlos, very heated to say the least. The point wasn't the same as today, but the roots were, and if I try to make understood the why of certain things (not as making an excuse, but as how I live them, something that I don't see as separate from living life—everything is connected) and we start from the assumption that we all have similar lives and learn in the same way, we are not on the same page. With this, I am not criticizing what Thallo told me; I am criticizing the last response received, which indeed makes me think that a person gets fed up as soon as motivations are mentioned in a certain context (it's not the first time this has happened, excuse my outburst: "it is not always certain that it is I who does not want to understand"), then obviously, one can tell me that the problems are mine, logically, but then why does someone explain things just to do them?

I have already been feeling an absurd sense of ignorance for some years now; I make my peace with it, I try to improve situations and contexts a little at a time, I expose myself by continuing to act like an idiot (and I would do otherwise, seeing as every time something escapes me—insecurity, not just on a musical level, mind you, affects every detail; concentration has gone to hell, together they lead to these results), but what is the use if everything is separated from the person? One is not sterile when playing, when writing, when speaking, and when listening; if that were the case, I would be immune to every sensation and emotion and errors wouldn't exist, or there would be many fewer because there would be maximum concentration, awareness, confidence, etc. Or am I saying things out of thin air?

RedScharlach wrote:

Assignments for Piccinesco: analyze the first eight measures of the Adagio cantabile from Beethoven's Sonata op. 13.

I'm joking!!! ... but not too much...

I can try, it won't hurt me, this certainly won't.

I have already started other pieces, simple and not, the important thing (besides the suggestions received, which I read and appreciate, I am not pretending nothing happened)

is to understand the best way to analyze (perhaps I don't yet have the necessary means, it is not a supposition), I will insert other pieces.

I forgot, I don't expect an exercise to be corrected step by step, otherwise I would be like those who have pieces written

by others or specifically correct exercises in view of exams, then what do you tell someone who asks you a technical question or in "the future"

and a hypothetical student, where you have to make a quick phone call "to a friend for clarification?", not this.

Perhaps I didn't explain myself well, it's a matter of time... reading a correct and orderly analysis requires "x" time, reading one that is correct but disorganized requires "y" time... those who are interested make their own choices, it's not a matter of astronomical discussions.

I already wrote between the lines at the beginning that it takes twice as long ... I don't have that much time ...

I know you wrote it, as usual I started out biased, forgive me, too many negative "experiences" lead me to react this way, what a pain.