Modulation to the major third degree

Before deciding how to modulate (the solutions are above), you should decide what effect you want the modulation to have.

neither I add one that I used

do-mi-sol

si-mi-sol (III° of do 2nd inversion)

si-mi-fa# (V° of mi with delay)

si-re#-fa#

Interesting RStrauss

G7/F F7dim F#-7 B7

@Scala, haven't you forgotten about me?

Aspirante wrote:

@Scala, haven't you forgotten about me?

Yes, yes he has forgotten about me

Thanks anyway again to everyone, your suggestions were very useful.

Aspirante wrote:

How would you modulate to the major third? (Starting from a major key)

For example, from C major to E major?

Well... Ravel did it directly, in the concluding phrase of Bolero: after many obsessive repetitions of the theme, always in C major (even the secondary idea seems to move towards F minor, but ultimately always converges back to C major), suddenly an unexpected "liberating" modulation to E major arrives (at the second inversion).

If one wants to stay within the scope of "permitted" passages in classical harmony... since A minor is a "close key" to C major, one can pretend to modulate to A minor, and then insert the G#. Perhaps by using the VI degree chord which is common to both keys. For example:

C G E C

la la E C

B F# D# A

E E (unison) E G#, or E (bass) E E G#, or even, so as not to triple the E, the last chord can be E G# B G# (in this case the D# does not resolve to E: a "Bach-style" exception)

or else:

C G E C

la la E C

la (legato to the previous) F# D# B

G# E E B

Ciao!

Gino

Hello Aspirante!

Yes, in fact I completely forgot about this discussion!

Now I am trying to make up for it. Actually, I am also having problems with the ATTACH FILE function of this forum's editor. I have just created a .pdf. I hope to be able to share it soon. Otherwise, I will try to describe it to you in words.

noooo....I realized I made a mistake writing the harmonization; that is, it's not what I intended to suggest to you. have a moment of patience! I am fighting with my computer, during this period!

Let's see if I can do it now...

ScalaQuaranta wrote:

Let's see if I can do it now...

Harmonically it is not correct: the leading tone does not resolve to the tonic.

Hi Strauss,

in my opinion, one should set limits and a priori parameters to understand in what context to insert my harmonization.

In the educational field, there are various schools of thought that tolerate more or less certain procedures and/or certain exceptional resolutions.

The harmonization I am proposing is very ambiguous on various fronts and, as such, its presumed "correctness" or "incorrectness" can be interpreted in different ways. I imagine that, as the LEADING TONE, you are referring to the G#.

Normally, it should be so; especially if, simultaneously with the leading tone, the sub-leading tone (i.e., the seventh of the chord) were present; since it is not present, the leading tone is already in a position less unconstrained than expected. On the other hand, the chromatic procedure G natural, G#, stylistically would call for A; but I would see it only as a stylistic constraint.

Furthermore, I could have been more rigid regarding the resolution of the leading tone if it had formed a tangible (and not just nominal) dissonance; that is, the G# with the C bass essentially forms a MINOR SIXTH, an interval that, in the context of counterpoint, is considered a consonance, just like all other harmonic intervals: all consonant. Of course, the C5+ chord significantly destabilizes the ear of a listener accustomed to stereotyped harmonic successions, but it is a brief sensation because the C bass, which delays the fifth (B) of the subsequent E+ chord, brings the harmonic circuit back toward more familiar sonorities. To tell you... if I were a harmony teacher called upon to evaluate this harmonization, I would accept it without much discussion; in fact, perhaps I would delve deeper into the stylistic aspect by discussing the lack of the chromatic succession G-G#-A; but regarding the harmonic setup, I would have nothing to say. If the same harmonization were proposed to one of my former harmony teachers, they would have discarded it mercilessly! ;-S

Frankly, I don't understand what the problem with the F# is; which scale would it be sensitive to?

it seems to me like a simple passing note on an augmented triad which, by definition, is trivalent.

Furthermore, ScalaQuaranta had previously stated that the solution was outside of stylistic constraints... to be clear, it seems obvious to me that it is a solution Beethoven could not have used

The problem of the soprano's G-G# does not exist because it is not a leading tone, but, as Eagle says, a simple passing note, which I would have raised to A, however modifying the tenor to avoid octaves ... but in this case I accept the descent to F# if you like it that way melodically ...

i meant the passage of the last two measures ...

with the contralto's D# which instead of going to E goes to B ... the tritone with the tenor who has the A does not resolve in the right way and it can be heard ... so either you put the unison between S. and C., otherwise you have to change things.

I like the tritone, even if one can hear what the problem is. Right? Compared to which aesthetic constraints? I ask because in a free harmonization, I do not expect objections to a solution that has been historicized for a century...

It would be nice to place the Scala fragment in a broad piece and see whether or not it is in context, but this verification is inapplicable given the current facts.

It's not that I don't like the tritone itself; on the contrary, I use it almost always in my compositions, I just don't like how it resolves in this case... I maintain that a harmonization can be free and inserted into any context, but certain minimum limits must exist... just to be concrete:

I do not allow fifths, unless they are intentional.
I allow octaves, provided they are not in the extreme voices.
I allow doubling of the 3rd degree, provided it is not in the soprano and alto without anything in between.
I allow the dominant 7th taken by leap, but I do not allow it to resolve by ascending step or by leap.

I have no limits on modulations, even enharmonic ones.
And so on.

To limit ourselves to our case: if the D# of the 3rd bar, instead of a quarter note jumping down a third, had been two eighth notes in descending motion (D#-C#) to resolve on B, it would almost have been acceptable, because the effect of the leap of the leading tone would have been mitigated by the passing note D#, and being an inner voice, it wouldn't have ruined the F#-E melody anyway.

From my point of view, harmonizing freely does not mean forgetting all the rules studied in harmony; so, free yes, but not too much.

??????

look at how Bach used the resolution of D# in chorales.

Agreed, that is music; here, instead, if I haven't understood correctly, we are talking about harmony at a didactic level, let's say, to "learn the ropes".

I agree with Strauss. The rigor of this discipline is fundamental to "learning the ropes". I didn't spend much time methodically verifying whether the harmonization was error-free; I was eager to show the use that I believe could be made of the 5+ chord.

But returning to D#, I seem to remember that that type of resolution is also permitted by academic harmony treatises, such as DE NINNO. The rule, which I remember very well, reads more or less like this:

The exceptional resolution of the leading tone is permitted if:

this occurs during a perfect V-I cadence
if the leading tone is assigned to an inner part
if the part immediately above that of the leading tone resolves in place of the leading tone which, exceptionally, descends by a third.

The whole thing is even more preferable if the voice to which the leading tone is assigned and the voice immediately above it have a similar vocal register (e.g., soprano-alto; or tenor-bass; totally to be avoided, e.g., alto-tenor)

Perhaps one could do without the seventh (A) which actually creates a tritone with the D#

I was very intrigued by RStrauss's perseverance in upholding the "correct" resolution of the tritone, which I would like to see exemplified through some compositions from the last century.

For example, one could take any dodecaphonic piece and verify if a correct one exists and in relation to which aesthetic.

Same proposal starting from a jazz piece from the last 50 years.

In fact, it seems to me that Gerardo's question has been evaded, in the sense that he asks exactly:

Gerardo wrote:

With respect to which aesthetic constraints?

It seems to me to understand that RStrauss sees a relationship between the resolution of the leading tone and the tritone.

rstrauss wrote:

Harmonically it is not correct: the leading tone does not resolve to the tonic.

If one speaks of a leading tone, they are referring to a tonal context... which we all know is not the only context. And I wonder if today, as it is now, the leading tone must resolve?