The ideal chord voicing

Eventually Bianca could provide a very brief summary

this comes to me new, totally unknown

I was saying that in the past, while speaking with a friend who is a professor of Organ and organ composition, we wondered which methodology would be most appropriate to guide a student in learning how to harmonize a bass line... trying to identify pros and cons.

We were talking about future organists, so the "raw material" is different compared to composers.

I imagined that someone else might have asked themselves the same questions... it could be a useful document also from a teaching perspective.

My teacher had me start with figured bass theory, then progressively moved to the theory of fundamental degrees using Zanettovich's manual. In fact, he always told me it was more of a method for composers....as if to say it was more "demanding".

To me, it seems like a progressive and almost mandatory training path. From numbered bass, to the management of fundamental degrees ... to the functions of harmony...

For those who do not know him, Domenico Giannetta

http://www.domenicogiannetta.it/ita/personali.htm

... it is obvious that "The theory of the numbered bass" exists!

is there a question at the base of this topic? That is, is the question "what is the ideal chord notation"?

If that is the question, I think the ideal notation is a mix between degree theory and functionalism. The former examines morphology, the latter function, and I think together they can resolve most important doubts in harmonic analysis.

I am not an expert in figured bass, but in musical analysis I have never seen it used, excluding Piccinesco's analyses from which this discussion emerged. I downloaded the paper being discussed (after a series of steps to promote the site...). It is a bit simplistic, but Giannetta himself speaks more of problems than advantages regarding figured bass notation.

The thing that Giannetta does not say (culpably, from my point of view) is that ONE THING is figuring a bass to allow its development within a historical performance practice, and another thing is using it for analysis! The historical period in which figured bass establishes itself is a period in which people barely knew what a chord was. Composers reason according to harmonic criteria, but performers do not, and in fact, bass notations are independent of the awareness of the harmonic entity of that cluster.

Analysis cannot be independent of awareness of anything. Analysis AIMS at awareness. And in Giannetta's bibliography, there is NO text that uses figured bass as an analytical method. Perhaps someone exists in the vast human bibliography, but I have never seen any.

Moreover, I saw that Giannetta's conclusions are similar to mine. The best notation is an "integrated" notation.

Briefly, I present my experience, which is a mixed system of fundamental degrees and functional harmony with relative numbers.

In a tonal environment, it is very convenient as harmonic links and the role of functions can be visualized and understood instantly, maintaining a single tonal center whenever possible, thus indicating secondary chords (but also secondary sequences and cadences) in parentheses, borrowing the notation from Functional Harmony.

In my opinion, the Jazzistic notation also deserves reflection because it absorbs the experience of the basso continuo, succeeding in representing complex chords even while breaking free from tonality... and that is somewhat what the continuo players used to do as well.

Another thing not to be underestimated is the type of use one intends to make of this cipher. If the purpose is analytical and within a tonal context, it is one discussion; if the purpose is more pragmatic and more closely linked to practice, it is another.

The approach of instrumentalists (as already mentioned by Thallo) should not be underestimated; when they read a score, they rarely label the verticality of notes with a specific symbol, but instinctively identify cadences, structural elements of a composition that should be clearly highlighted, and the sense of form... I mention this case because, for example, organists are instrumentalists who lean towards the continuo and therefore more easily make a different use of the cipher than a composer or a musicologist, venturing into composition but with a different sensibility. Although it goes without saying, on a bass of C-D-F-D-G-A... it doesn't hurt to highlight the scale degrees I IV II V VI (especially in the very first months of study)... and now that I think about it, this is a theory applied in some complementary harmony manuals notoriously intended for instrumentalists.

Zedef's argument holds up if we are talking about a repertoire up to the nineteenth century, already late-Romantic tonality; as for today, it would be difficult to restrain within a single center... someone might say that today we are already beyond pantonality, which is true... and in effect, every theory has its "limits" or rather: scopes.

As I was saying a while ago, de la Motte also does not cover all cases, particularly regarding the classification of the III degree... I have long used my own methodology, the integration of some traditional techniques plus a few "adjustments" (I am referring to tonality).

I was also thinking about the "tiresome" issue of the third degree. Even on this forum, we found ourselves analyzing pieces with many third affinities (I remember some very beautiful pieces by Grieg) and there, the notation of degrees only made sense up to a certain point.

But even there, you just need to integrate different systems and the job is done. At least from an analytical point of view, the important thing is to understand what lies behind it. Once you have understood it, I would say that every theory gives you a margin of possibility for writing it. With a great effort, I would say that even figured bass emphasizes some important things. Essentially one: the movement of the bass :-) is a bit like discovering hot water, but sometimes that hot water has an important meaning.

The problem is that not only is figured bass a system made for instrumentalists, it is made for CERTAIN instrumentalists who play that instrument according to very precise stylistic conventions. In another topic these days, the analysis of Mozart's piano sonata K330 was resumed. It is full of tonality, but as in every composition for piano (by Mozart, in this case), the left hand supports the harmony with very interesting melodic lines. But of a pianistic nature... meaning, unanalyzable with figured bass.

It is interesting to focus on the stationary notes in the bass, on the movement of the parts, but the problem is that we are not in a four-part harmony situation like a chorale. Analyzing the bass of a "mature" composer almost always has to do with melodic analysis tout-court.

Perhaps we could talk about the use of figured bass notation to analyze ancient polyphony... here I would be much more flexible. But the "beauty" of that notation, namely the possibility of marking contrapuntal events (suspensions, passing tones, appoggiaturas, turns, etc.), is actually present also in degree theory. And the role of the bass in ancient polyphony is not the role of the figured bass of Baroque polyphony...

thallo wrote:

With a great effort, I will say that even figured bass puts emphasis on some important things. Essentially one: the movement of the bass :-) is a bit like reinventing the wheel, but sometimes that wheel makes important sense.

Now the point is clearer to me; it was mostly useful to me at the beginning. I mean, knowing what key they are in and on which scale degree... I understand that later the analysis must deal with understanding beyond the scale degree... but for harmonizing, it is already a tiny step forward, starting from zero.

and indeed its purpose is to harmonize, not to analyze :-)

In fact, during the first couple of years when I studied composition, we used a (decrepit) French manual in class that was full of figured basses to be realized. Many of these basses were figured, at least in the first chapters, while then (if I remember correctly) the figures disappeared: evidently, the pedagogical intent was precisely a progressive internalization of harmonic connections and part movement. So I could say that I also studied with figured bass.

On the other hand, our teacher (rightly so, I would say) forced us to perform, first and foremost, a harmonic analysis: and such analysis was carried out using the theory of scale degrees. Thus, we were acting simultaneously on two levels: realization of the bass through figured notation, and analysis through the theory of degrees.

Mixing these two planes can lead, I believe, to a certain confusion. Do you want to perform an analysis using figured bass? Very well (although to me it seems like a path that might be more convenient at first, but then perhaps turns out to be one of those typical simplifications, such as "musical analysis within everyone's reach"). But at this point, why use the symbolism of degrees? Why not devise an ad hoc system of symbols?

Sorry for the delay.

Here is the link where you can find the text: http://www.divshare.com/download/25378176-959

Essentially, it is a comparison between several encryption [notation] systems, from figured bass (or numbered), to the theory of fundamental degrees (Schoenberg, Piston), to the functional theory of harmony (Riemann). For each, the pros and cons and mutual differences are evaluated, as well as highlighting the cases in which each best fits. The author's conclusions are obviously that there is no single best system in absolute terms, but rather that one must choose the most suitable one on a case-by-case basis.

Thanks to Frank for reactivating the topic.

See @Red, you didn't remember... but you went through it.

thallo wrote:

In another topic these days, the analysis of Mozart's piano sonata K330 has resumed. It is in full tonality, but as in every composition for piano (by Mozart, specifically), the left hand supports the harmony with very interesting melodic lines. But of a pianistic nature... meaning, unanalyzable with figured bass.

... and it would be nice here to also understand what value the sustain pedal provides

RedScharlach wrote:

But at this point, why use degree notation? Why not devise an ad hoc system of symbols?

But you know, you've made me think of a question. But the scale degrees... aren't they degrees anyway? Regardless of harmonization. Why would another symbology be needed? Or rather, I can't quite think of it but... tonic, supertonic, modal (mediant or characteristic), etc... how are they symbolically indicated? I mean, normally as we do today without inventing anything new...

Ettore wrote:

You see @Red, you didn't remember... but you went through it.

I remembered going through it. And lately I have used figured bass even for giving harmony lessons. My doubt is whether it can be used as analysis.

Oracolo wrote:

But do you know you made me think of a question? But the scale degrees... aren't they degrees themselves? Regardless of the harmonization.

You are confusing scale degrees with the bass. With Roman numerals, in Stufentheorie, the degrees are indicated, not the bass (and the degrees cannot be independent of the harmonization).

RedScharlach wrote:

You are confusing the scale degrees with the bass. With Roman numerals, in Stufentheorie, the degrees are indicated, not the bass (and the degrees cannot be independent of harmonization).

Certainly

But in the case where the bass had do re mi (in C major), it would still be tonic, supertonic, and modal... even if re was harmonized with V46 and mi with I6... what would change compared to a different harmonization? (... see on re VII7dim and on mi I6).

I mean, the mode is ultimately decided by the bass through that mi and not mib for example (despite the diminished seventh of the second case)